The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
CRP-RAG: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Supporting Complex Logical Reasoning and Knowledge Planning
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.3390/electronics14010047
Abstract
The Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Framework enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant knowledge to broaden their knowledge boundaries and mitigate factual hallucinations stemming from knowledge gaps. However, the RAG Framework faces challenges in effective knowledge retrieval and utilization; invalid or misused knowledge will interfere with LLM generation, reducing reasoning efficiency and answer quality. Existing RAG methods address these issues by decomposing and expanding queries, introducing special knowledge structures, and using reasoning process evaluation and feedback. However, the linear reasoning structures limit complex thought transformations and reasoning based on intricate queries. Additionally, knowledge retrieval and utilization are decoupled from reasoning and answer generation, hindering effective knowledge support during answer generation. To address these limitations, we propose the CRP-RAG framework, which employs reasoning graphs to model complex query reasoning processes more comprehensively and accurately. CRP-RAG guides knowledge retrieval, aggregation, and evaluation through reasoning graphs, dynamically adjusting the reasoning path based on evaluation results and selecting knowledge-sufficiency paths for answer generation. Experimental results show that CRP-RAG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and RAG baselines in three reasoning and question answering tasks, demonstrating superior factual consistency and robustness compared to existing RAG methods.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Current RAG models face challenges related to frequent knowledge updates.
“Furthermore, current RAG models face challenges related to frequent knowledge updates [2,11,21,22].”
From Enhancing Medical Question Answering with LLMs via a Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Xu, K., Zhang, K., Li, J., Huang, W., & Wang, Y.
- Affiliations
- Yanshan University (CN)
- Tencent (China) (CN)
- Beijing Technology and Business University (CN)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Jingyuan
- Wang, Yuanzhuo
- Venue
- Electronics
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-11-21
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-47
- ISSN
- 2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405810201
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 13
- FWCI
- 4.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- retrieval-augmented generation, reasoning graphs, knowledge retrieval, multi-hop reasoning, fact-checking, factual hallucination, large language models, knowledge aggregation, open-domain question answering
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