Cited by 92Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Knowledge Graph-Guided Retrieval Augmented Generation

Open access
Zhu, Xiangrong, Xie, Yuexiang, Liu, Yi, Li, Yaliang, Hu, Wei·2025·Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Xiangrong Zhu, Yuexiang Xie, Yi Liu, Yaliang Li, Wei Hu. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.449

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Standard retrieval-augmented approaches fail to address the disconnected nature of long-term agentic memory.

    “While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at generalized reasoning, standard retrievalaugmented approaches fail to address the disconnected nature of long-term agentic memory.”

    From Synapse: Empowering LLM Agents with Episodic-Semantic Memory via Spreading Activation (2026) · cites this paper as Zhu et al., 2025

    The Introduction says standard RAG can produce isolated pieces of information because retrieved chunks lack intrinsic relationships. The Abstract similarly describes retrieval of isolated chunks. Neither passage addresses long-term agentic memory, so applying this limitation to that setting goes beyond what the paper establishes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing systems suffer from Contextual Isolation, a failure mode stemming from the implicit Search Assumption that the relevance of a past memory is strictly determined by its semantic proximity to the current query.

    “We argue that existing systems suffer from Contextual Isolation , a failure mode stemming from the implicit Search Assumption : that the relevance of a past memory is strictly determined by its semantic proximity to the current query (Zhu et al., 2025; Edge et al., 2025; Sarthi et al., 2024).”

    From Synapse: Empowering LLM Agents with Episodic-Semantic Memory via Spreading Activation (2026) · cites this paper as Zhu et al., 2025

    The Introduction says similarity-based RAG retrieval can produce chunks that lack intrinsic relationships and become isolated pieces of information. That supports the proposed failure mode for retrieved documents or chunks, but the paper does not discuss past memories or say their relevance is strictly determined by semantic proximity; it also describes keyword-based retrieval. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Standard RAG treats memory as a static library to be indexed, rather than a dynamic network to be reasoned over, which imposes a critical limitation on reasoning agents.

    “While effective for factual lookup (Borgeaud et al., 2022), standard RAG imposes a critical limitation on reasoning agents: it treats memory as a static library to be indexed, rather than a dynamic network to be reasoned over (Gutiérrez et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2025).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS, Virtual.
  2. Wei Cheng, Yuhan Wu, and Wei Hu. 2024. Dataflow- guided retrieval augmentation for repository-level code completion. In ACL, pages 7957-7977, Bangkok, Thailand. ACL.
  3. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, Arun Rao, Aston Zhang, Aurélien Rodriguez, Austen Gregerson, Ava Spataru, Bap- tiste Rozière, Bethany Biron, Binh Tang, Bobbie Chern, Charlotte Caucheteux, Chaya Nayak, Chloe Bi, Chris Marra, Chris McConnell, Christian Keller, Christophe Touret, Chunyang Wu, Corinne Wong, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Cyrus Nikolaidis, Damien Al- lonsius, Daniel Song, Danielle Pintz, Danny Livshits, David Esiobu, Dhruv Choudhary, Dhruv Mahajan, Diego Garcia-Olano, Diego Perino, Dieuwke Hupkes, Egor Lakomkin, Ehab AlBadawy, Elina Lobanova, Emily Dinan, Eric Michael Smith, Filip Radenovic, Frank Zhang, Gabriel Synnaeve, Gabrielle Lee, Geor- gia Lewis Anderson, Graeme Nail, Grégoire Mialon, Guan Pang, Guillem Cucurell, Hailey Nguyen, Han- nah Korevaar, Hu Xu, Hugo Touvron, Iliyan Zarov, Imanol Arrieta Ibarra, Isabel M. Kloumann, Ishan Misra, Ivan Evtimov, Jade Copet, Jaewon Lee, Jan Geffert, Jana Vranes, Jason Park, Jay Mahadeokar, Jeet Shah, Jelmer van der Linde, Jennifer Billock, Jenny Hong, Jenya Lee, Jeremy Fu, Jianfeng Chi, Jianyu Huang, Jiawen Liu, Jie Wang, Jiecao Yu, Joanna Bitton, Joe Spisak, Jongsoo Park, Joseph Rocca, Joshua Johnstun, Joshua Saxe, Junteng Jia, Kalyan Vasuden Alwala, Kartikeya Upasani, Kate Plawiak, Ke Li, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Stone, and et al. 2024. The Llama 3 herd of models. CoRR.
  4. Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Qianyu Guo, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval- augmented generation for large language models: A survey. CoRR.
  5. Zirui Guo, Lianghao Xia, Yanhua Yu, Tu Ao, and Chao Huang. 2024. LightRAG: Simple and fast retrieval- augmented generation. CoRR.
  6. Shaoxiong Ji, Shirui Pan, Erik Cambria, Pekka Mart- tinen, and Philip S. Yu. 2022. A survey on knowl- edge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and appli- cations. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 33(2):494-514.
  7. ACL.
  8. Jean Kaddour, Joshua Harris, Maximilian Mozes, Her- bie Bradley, Roberta Raileanu, and Robert McHardy. 2023. Challenges and applications of large language models. CoRR.
  9. Tzu-Lin Kuo, Tzu-Wei Chiu, Tzung-Sheng Lin, Sheng- Yang Wu, Chao-Wei Huang, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2024. A survey of generative information retrieval. CoRR.
  10. Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Pik- tus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. In NeurIPS, Vir- tual.
  11. Jiawei Li, Yizhe Yang, Yu Bai, Xiaofeng Zhou, Yinghao Li, Huashan Sun, Yuhang Liu, Xingpeng Si, Yuhao Ye, Yixiao Wu, Yiguan Lin, Bin Xu, Ren Bowen, Chong Feng, Yang Gao, and Heyan Huang. 2024. Fundamental capabilities of large language models and their applications in domain scenarios: a survey. In ACL, pages 11116-11141, Bangkok, Thailand.
  12. ACL.
  13. Xianming Li and Jing Li. 2024. AoE: Angle-optimized embeddings for semantic textual similarity. In ACL, pages 1825-1839, Bangkok, Thailand. ACL.
  14. Yinheng Li. 2023. A practical survey on zero-shot prompt design for in-context learning. In RANLP, pages 641-647, Varna, Bulgaria. INCOMA.
  15. Hanchao Liu, Wenyuan Xue, Yifei Chen, Dapeng Chen, Xiutian Zhao, Ke Wang, Liping Hou, Rongjun Li, and Wei Peng. 2024a. A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models. CoRR.
  16. Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. 2023. Query rewriting for retrieval- augmented large language models. CoRR.
  17. Laurent Mombaerts, Terry Ding, Adi Banerjee, Florian Felice, Jonathan Taws, and Tarik Borogovac. 2024. Meta knowledge for retrieval augmented large lan- guage models. CoRR.
  18. Zach Nussbaum, John X. Morris, Brandon Duderstadt, and Andriy Mulyar. 2024. Nomic embed: Training a reproducible long context text embedder. CoRR.
  19. Xiaobin Tian, Zequn Sun, and Wei Hu. 2024. Generat- ing explanations to understand and repair embedding- based entity alignment. In ICDE, pages 2205-2217, Utrecht, Netherlands. IEEE.
  20. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurélien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. CoRR.
  21. Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. 2023. AutoGen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation framework. CoRR.
  22. Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, and Niklas Muennighoff. 2023. C-Pack: Packaged resources to advance general Chinese embedding. CoRR.
  23. Zhentao Xu, Mark Jerome Cruz, Matthew Guevara, Tie Wang, Manasi Deshpande, Xiaofeng Wang, and Zheng Li. 2024a. Retrieval-augmented generation with knowledge graphs for customer service question answering. In SIGIR, pages 2905-2909, Washington DC, USA. ACM.
  24. Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan S. Kankanhalli. 2024b. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limita- tion of large language models. CoRR.
  25. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In ICLR, Kigali, Rwanda. OpenReview.net.
  26. Wenhao Yu. 2022. Retrieval-augmented generation across heterogeneous knowledge. In NAACL, pages 52-58, Seattle, WA, USA. ACL.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, X., Xie, Y., Liu, Y., Li, Y., & Hu, W.
Affiliations
  • Nanjing University (CN)
  • Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2025
Pages
8912-8924
OpenAlex
W4411119292
Cited by
91
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 17
FWCI
86.75
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62272219)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
knowledge graphs, retrieval-augmented generation, large language models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review