Less but Sufficient: Relation Knowledge Selects Compact Knowledge-Graph Contexts, and What External Checks Can and Cannot Catch

Graph retrieval-augmented generation (GraphRAG) enhances large language models with structured knowledge, yet existing systems construct knowledge graphs in a single extraction pass, producing noisy entities and brittle retrieval. RAGU, an open-source modular GraphRAG engine, addresses this by separating extraction from consolidation: entities and relations pass through two-stage typed extraction, DBSCAN-backed deduplication, LLM summarization, and Leiden community detection. A key insight motivates a compact extractor: the skills an in-pipeline LLM needs - comprehension, extraction, reasoning over context - are language skills that grow only weakly with model size, unlike factual world knowledge. Accordingly, we train Meno-Lite-0.1, a 7B model optimized for language skills, which outperforms Qwen2.5-32B on knowledge-graph construction (+12.5% relative harmonic mean) and matches it on English GraphRAG tasks. On GraphRAG-Bench (Medical), RAGU retrieves the most complete context at every factoid level (evidence recall up to 0.84 vs. $\leq$0.76) and overtakes HippoRAG2 on synthesis tasks; on multi-hop factoid QA, the apparent HippoRAG2 advantage is shown to be largely an answer-format artifact. RAGU is installable via \texttt{pip install graph_ragu}, runs on a single GPU, and is released under MIT. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/RaguTeam/RAGU, and the Meno-Lite-0.1 model can be obtained from https://huggingface.co/bond005/meno-lite-0.1.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate confident yet factually incorrect content when used for language generation (a phenomenon often known as hallucination). Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) tries to reduce factual errors by identifying information in a knowledge corpus and putting it in the context window of the model. While this approach is well-established for document-structured data, it is non-trivial to adapt it for Knowledge Graphs (KGs), especially for queries that require multi-node/multi-hop reasoning on graphs. We introduce UltRAG, a training-free KG-RAG recipe that combines LLM query generation, a fully inductive neural query executor, and LLM arbitration. This off-the-shelf composition achieves state-of-the-art results on Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) tasks without retraining the LLM or executor, while enabling language models to interface with Wikidata-scale graphs (116M entities, 1.6B relations) at comparable or lower costs. Our ablation studies indicate that these gains come from the full system design rather than from any single component.

A graph retrieval-augmented generation pipeline chooses which triples to put in the prompt, a syntax to write them in, an order to write them in, and a sentence telling the model what to do with them. We vary all four over six large language models and two knowledge-graph question answering benchmarks. Two of the four choices move the answer and the other two are flat. The first is whether the answer path, the triples needed to reach the answer, is in the prompt at all. Holding the number of triples fixed and replacing every triple that is not on the chain with material from an unrelated entity changes answer accuracy by +0.003 F1, while removing the chain costs most of what the graph was worth. Retrieval budget belongs on recall, and precision in the range we can test buys nothing. There is no retriever here: subgraphs come from gold SPARQL, so precision describes the context we build, not a system setting. The second is the grounding instruction. With no facts in the prompt, telling a model to answer using only the provided facts drops F1 from 0.299 to 0.035, a factor of 8.63. That figure describes an evaluation with an empty context arm rather than a working pipeline, and an experiment that applies the instruction to its context arm but not to its no-context baseline manufactures a spurious finding that graph context hurts at depth. We found one in our own results and retract it. Syntax, triple order and subgraph size produce no effect we can measure at multi-hop depth. The comparison that would price the grounding instruction against correct context is not measurable with a format-sensitive scorer, because the instruction determines the response format; we report it as an open contrast rather than a number.