From local to global: a graph rag approach to query-focused summarization
Open accessAbstract
The use of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to retrieve relevant information from an external knowledge source enables large language models (LLMs) to answer questions over private and/or previously unseen document collections. However, RAG fails on global questions directed at an entire text corpus, such as "What are the main themes in the dataset?", since this is inherently a query-focused summarization (QFS) task, rather than an explicit retrieval task. Prior QFS methods, meanwhile, do not scale to the quantities of text indexed by typical RAG systems. To combine the strengths of these contrasting methods, we propose GraphRAG, a graph-based approach to question answering over private text corpora that scales with both the generality of user questions and the quantity of source text. Our approach uses an LLM to build a graph index in two stages: first, to derive an entity knowledge graph from the source documents, then to pregenerate community summaries for all groups of closely related entities. Given a question, each community summary is used to generate a partial response, before all partial responses are again summarized in a final response to the user. For a class of global sensemaking questions over datasets in the 1 million token range, we show that GraphRAG leads to substantial improvements over a conventional RAG baseline for both the comprehensiveness and diversity of generated answers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
When structured in graph format, non-parametric semantic memory offers greater efficiency in both storage and retrieval.
“Furthermore, when structured in graph format, non-parametric semantic memory offers greater efficiency in both storage and retrieval [179, 180].”
From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [179]
The Conclusion reports that graph-community summaries can answer repeated global queries at a fraction of the token cost of other global methods, and Table 2 reports fewer tokens per query than source-text summarization. This supports a specific query-time efficiency benefit, but the paper does not establish greater storage efficiency or a general improvement in retrieval efficiency for graph-structured non-parametric semantic memory. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent work such as Edge et al. (2024) demonstrates that LLMs can reliably evaluate relevance and faithfulness in RAG systems.
“recent work such as Edge et al. (2024) demonstrates that LLMs can reliably evaluate relevance and faithfulness in RAG systems, supporting their use as cost-effective alternatives to human assessments.”
From Enhancing memory retrieval in generative agents through LLM-trained cross attention networks (2025) · cites this paper as Edge et al. (2024)
Section 3.3 describes using an LLM to compare RAG answers, but its criteria are comprehensiveness, diversity, and empowerment—not relevance or faithfulness. The RAG evaluation criteria discussion explicitly calls context relevance, faithfulness, and answer relevance unsuitable for this paper’s global-sensemaking task. Section 2.4 cites prior work on LLM evaluations competitive with human evaluations; this paper does not demonstrate reliable relevance and faithfulness judgments or establish a cost-effective alternative to human assessment. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGraphRAG, HippoRAG, and HyperGraphRAG construct large hierarchical graphs from LLM-generated summaries, supporting multi-hop reasoning but suffering from hallucinated nodes, misaligned structure, and prohibitive construction cost.
“GraphRAG [2], HippoRAG [3], and HyperGraphRAG [13] construct large hierarchical graphs from LLM-generated summaries, supporting multi-hop reasoning but suffering from hallucinated nodes, misaligned structure, and prohibitive construction cost.”
From TaSR-RAG: Taxonomy-guided Structured Reasoning for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
The Introduction describes GraphRAG as building an LLM-extracted entity-and-relationship graph, partitioning it into hierarchical communities, and then generating summaries—not constructing the graph from summaries. Results (Section 5.1) report large graphs, and Configuration (Section 4.1.3) reports 281 minutes to index one dataset. The cited paper does not establish the sentence’s claims about multi-hop reasoning, hallucinated nodes, misaligned structure, or prohibitive cost; the other named systems have separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStructured RAG pipelines typically require costly and error-prone graph construction or impose rigid entity-centric structures that do not align with the query's reasoning chain.
“While structured RAG pipelines can improve grounding, they typically require costly and error-prone graph construction or impose rigid entitycentric structures that do not align with the query's reasoning chain.”
From TaSR-RAG: Taxonomy-guided Structured Reasoning for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
The Introduction and §3.1.3 describe an entity-and-relationship graph, and §4.1.3 reports that indexing one dataset took 281 minutes, supporting the graph-construction burden. The paper does not establish that structured RAG pipelines are typically error-prone or that rigid entity-centric structures fail to align with a query’s reasoning chain. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGraphRAG, ENGRAM, and SYNAPSE share the goal of replacing flat similarity search with a representation better matched to long-horizon reasoning.
“These approaches differ in mechanism, but they share the same goal: replacing flat similarity search with a representation better matched to long-horizon reasoning.”
From Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering (2026) · cites this paper as Edge et al., 2024
The Introduction and §2.1 say GraphRAG uses a graph-based approach to address corpus-wide sensemaking questions that conventional similarity-based vector RAG cannot answer. The paper does not establish a shared goal with ENGRAM and SYNAPSE, and its stated task is global sensemaking rather than long-horizon reasoning generally. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Five principal strategies have emerged to bridge the memory gap: in-context windowing, external key-value store, graph-based episodic memory, compression-based summarisation, and web-augmented memory.
“Five principal strategies have emerged to bridge this gap:”
From AgentMemBench: A Systematic Benchmark for Evaluating Long-Term Memory Management Strategies in Conversational AI Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The Introduction and §2.1 describe the context-window limit and retrieval from external data; §2.1 also describes GraphRAG’s graph-based summaries. The paper does not identify five principal memory strategies or describe external key-value stores, graph-based episodic memory, and web-augmented memory as members of such a list (searched those terms and the five-strategy phrasing). The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGraph memory excels at answering relational questions that require structured indexing rather than semantic similarity.
“Graph memory excels at answering relational questions ( 'Who did Alice meet in the third session?' ) that require structured indexing rather than semantic similarity.”
From AgentMemBench: A Systematic Benchmark for Evaluating Long-Term Memory Management Strategies in Conversational AI Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Section 3.1.3 describes a graph index with entities as nodes and relationships as edges, while Section 2.1 contrasts GraphRAG with retrieval based on semantic similarity. But the paper evaluates answers to global sensemaking questions, not relational questions about a particular session, so it does not establish that graph memory excels at the kind of question in the example. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRAG incorporates plaintext memory but lacks lifecycle management and multi-modal integration, limiting its capacity for long-term knowledge evolution.
“While emerging methods like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) incorporate plaintext memory, they lack lifecycle management and multi-modal integration, limiting their capacity for long-term knowledge evolution.”
From MemOS: An Operating System for Memory-Augmented Generation (MAG) in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
The Introduction describes canonical RAG as retrieving records from an external text corpus, supporting the claim that it uses text-based information. But the limitation identified there is an inability to answer questions requiring understanding of an entire corpus. The paper does not establish that RAG lacks lifecycle management or multimodal integration, or that these limit long-term knowledge evolution. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRAPTOR, MemWalker and GraphRAG integrate information by summarizing knowledge elements, so their summarization process must be repeated whenever new data is added.
“However, these methods integrate information by summarizing knowledge elements, which means that the summarization process must be repeated any time new data is added.”
From HippoRAG: Neurobiologically Inspired Long-Term Memory for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [18]
The Introduction and §2.1 describe GraphRAG’s community-level summaries and identify similar hierarchical summarization approaches, supporting the claim that these methods integrate information through summaries. The paper does not say that summarization must be repeated whenever new data is added; that categorical update requirement is unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCompared to unstructured text retrieval, graph-based retrieval offers reduced noise, better coverage of entity relations, and lowered token overhead during inference.
“Compared to unstructured text retrieval, graph-based retrieval offers reduced noise, better coverage of entity relations, and lowered token overhead during inference [22, 75, 93, 101].”
From LEGO-GraphRAG: Modularizing Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Design Space Exploration (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
Section 3.1.3 describes a graph index that represents and summarizes entity relationships, and Section 7 reports more comprehensive answers than vector RAG for global questions. The paper does not establish reduced retrieval noise. Its lower per-query token cost is reported against graph-free source-text summarization, not against the vector-retrieval baseline (Table 2; Section 4.1.2). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGraphRAG has recently emerged as a promising direction by representing knowledge in graph form, enabling more structured retrieval, multi-hop reasoning with better interpretability.
“GraphRAG has recently emerged as a promising direction by representing knowledge in graph form, enabling more structured retrieval, multi-hop reasoning with better interpretability [22, 34, 123].”
From LEGO-GraphRAG: Modularizing Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Design Space Exploration (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes GraphRAG as constructing a knowledge graph of entities and relationships, then using graph communities and summaries to answer queries. Section 2.2 (page unavailable) also discusses knowledge graphs as RAG indexes that can enhance retrieval. The cited paper does not establish the further claims that GraphRAG enables multi-hop reasoning or better interpretability; its reported evaluation focuses on global sensemaking and answer quality. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGraphRAG constructs an entity-relation graph over corpora and retrieves sub-graphs to answer complex queries.
“GraphRAG takes a complementary approach, constructing an entity-relation graph over the corpora and retrieving sub-graphs to answer complex queries [3].”
From Collaborative Memory: Multi-User Memory Sharing in LLM Agents with Dynamic Access Control (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
The Introduction says GraphRAG constructs a knowledge graph with entities as nodes and relationships as edges. It then partitions the graph into communities and answers queries by processing community summaries, rather than retrieving subgraphs. The graph-construction part is supported, but the claimed retrieval mechanism is not. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGraphRAG establishes hierarchical graph-based retrieval using Leiden community detection for multi-level summarization.
“GraphRAG [6] establishes hierarchical graph-based retrieval using Leiden community detection for multi-level summarization.”
From SuperLocalMemory: Privacy-Preserving Multi-Agent Memory with Bayesian Trust Defense Against Memory Poisoning (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
HippoRAG (KG + Personalized PageRank) and GraphRAG (community-detected entity graphs) realize Combination as graph construction.
“HippoRAG (Guti´ errez et al. 2024) (KG + Personalized PageRank) and GraphRAG (Edge et al. 2024) (community-detected entity graphs) realize Combination as graph construction.”
From From Organizational Knowledge to AI Agent Memory: Empirical Validation of the SECI Model on the LongMemEval Benchmark (2026) · cites this paper as Edge et al. 2024
Existing GraphRAG studies have demonstrated the potential of integrating graph data management techniques with GraphRAG.
“Existing GraphRAG studies [22, 45, 50, 65, 71, 72, 74, 98] have demonstrated the potential of integrating graph data management techniques with GraphRAG.”
From LEGO-GraphRAG: Modularizing Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Design Space Exploration (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
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
Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098679 · Cited by 2,909 · see citing works
Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models
Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09288 · Cited by 2,604 · see citing works
Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts
Liu, N. F., Lin, K., Hewitt, J., Paranjape, A., Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, F., & Liang, P. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.03172 · Cited by 1,599 · see citing works
Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models
Gemini Team, Anil, R., Borgeaud, S., Alayrac, J.-B., Yu, J., Soricut, R., Schalkwyk, J., Dai, A. M., Hauth, A., Millican, K., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.11805 · Cited by 990 · see citing works
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10997 · Cited by 876 · see citing works
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829 · see citing works
Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary StudyPreprint
Wang, J., Liang, Y.-L., Meng, F.-D., Sun, Z., Shi, H., Li, Z.-X., Xu, J.-A., Qu, J.-F., & Zhou, J. (2023) · NEWSUM · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.04048 · Cited by 669 · see citing works
Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10509 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models with Iterative Retrieval-Generation Synergy
Shao, Z., Gong, Y., Shen, Y., Huang, M., Duan, N., & Chen, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15294 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
G-Retriever: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Textual Graph Understanding and Question Answering
He, X., Tian, Y., Sun, Y., Chawla, N. V., Laurent, T., LeCun, Y., Bresson, X., & Hooi, B. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.07630 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Graph-ToolFormer: To Empower LLMs with Graph Reasoning Ability via Prompt Augmented by ChatGPTPreprint
Zhang, J. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.11116 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
RAGAs: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation
Es, S., James, J., Espinosa-Anke, L., & Schockaert, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.15217 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Baumel, T., Eyal, M., & Elhadad, M. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.07704 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Tree of Clarifications: Answering Ambiguous Questions with Retrieval-Augmented Large Language ModelsPreprint
Kim, G., Kim, S., Jeon, B., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.14696 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Demonstrate-Search-Predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive NLP
Khattab, O., Santhanam, K., Li, X. L., Hall, D., Liang, P., Potts, C., & Zaharia, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.14024 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
DARG: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models via Adaptive Reasoning GraphPreprint
Zhang, Z., Chen, J., & Yang, D.-Y. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.17271 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. J. F. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08896 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Enhancing Knowledge Graph Construction Using Large Language ModelsPreprint
Trajanoska, M., Stojanov, R., & Trajanov, D. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.04676 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet
Huang, J., Chen, X., Mishra, S., Zheng, H. S., Yu, A. W., Song, X., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01798 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval
Sarthi, P., Abdullah, S., Tuli, A., Khanna, S., Goldie, A., & Manning, C. D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.18059 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Generation-Augmented Retrieval for Open-domain Question Answering
Mao, Y., He, P., Liu, X., Shen, Y., Gao, J., Han, J., & Chen, W. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.08553 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
MultiHop-RAG: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Hop Queries
Tang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.15391 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Knowledge Graph-Augmented Language Models for Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Generation
Kang, M., Kwak, J. M., Baek, J., & Hwang, S. J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.18846 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Knowledge-Augmented Language Model Prompting for Zero-Shot Knowledge Graph Question AnsweringPreprint
Baek, J., Aji, A. F., & Saffari, A. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.04136 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Su, D., Xu, Y. H., Yu, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.03975 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Text Summarization with Latent QueriesPreprint
Xu, Y., & Lapata, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.00104 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Causal Graph Discovery with Retrieval-Augmented Generation based Large Language ModelsPreprint
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Gan, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.15301 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Retrieval-Generation Synergy Augmented Large Language ModelsPreprint
Feng, Z., Feng, X., Zhao, D., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.05149 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
FeB4RAG: Evaluating Federated Search in the Context of Retrieval Augmented GenerationPreprint
Wang, S., Khramtsova, E., Zhuang, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.11891 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
OpenAI, Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Barlaug, N. and Gulla, J. A. (2021). Neural networks for entity matching: A survey. ACM Transac- tions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 15(3):1-37.
- Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., and Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment, 2008(10):P10008.
- Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
- Cheng, X., Luo, D., Chen, X., Liu, L., Zhao, D., and Yan, R. (2024). Lift yourself up: Retrieval- augmented text generation with self-memory. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36.
- Christen, P. and Christen, P. (2012). The data matching process. Springer.
- Chung, J., Pedigo, B. D., Bridgeford, E. W., Varjavand, B. K., Helm, H. S., and Vogelstein, J. T. (2019). Graspy: Graph statistics in python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(158):1-7.
- Dang, H. T. (2006). Duc 2005: Evaluation of question-focused summarization systems. In Proceed- ings of the Workshop on Task-Focused Summarization and Question Answering, pages 48-55.
- Elmagarmid, A. K., Ipeirotis, P. G., and Verykios, V. S. (2006). Duplicate record detection: A survey. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 19(1):1-16.
- Etzioni, O., Cafarella, M., Downey, D., Kok, S., Popescu, A.-M., Shaked, T., Soderland, S., Weld, D. S., and Yates, A. (2004). Web-scale information extraction in knowitall: (preliminary re- sults). In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '04, page 100-110, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
- Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics reports, 486(3-5):75-174.
- Jin, D., Yu, Z., Jiao, P., Pan, S., He, D., Wu, J., Philip, S. Y., and Zhang, W. (2021). A survey of community detection approaches: From statistical modeling to deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(2):1149-1170.
- Kim, D., Xie, L., and Ong, C. S. (2016). Probabilistic knowledge graph construction: Compositional and incremental approaches. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '16, page 2257-2262, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
- Klein, G., Moon, B., and Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE intelligent systems, 21(4):70-73.
- Kosinski, M. (2024). Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(45):e2405460121.
- Laskar, M. T. R., Hoque, E., and Huang, J. (2020). Query focused abstractive summarization via incorporating query relevance and transfer learning with transformer models. In Advances in Artificial Intelligence: 33rd Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Canadian AI 2020, Ottawa, ON, Canada, May 13-15, 2020, Proceedings 33, pages 342-348. Springer.
- Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-t., Rocktäschel, T., et al. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474.
- Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhu- moye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2024). Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
- Martin, S., Brown, W. M., Klavans, R., and Boyack, K. (2011). Openord: An open-source toolbox for large graph layout. SPIE Conference on Visualization and Data Analysis (VDA).
- Mooney, R. J. and Bunescu, R. (2005). Mining knowledge from text using information extraction. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 7(1):3-10.
- Newman, M. E. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 103(23):8577-8582.
- Ni, J., Shi, M., Stammbach, D., Sachan, M., Ash, E., and Leippold, M. (2024). AFaCTA: Assisting the annotation of factual claim detection with reliable LLM annotators. In Ku, L.-W., Martins, A., and Srikumar, V., editors, Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1890-1912, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Padmakumar, V. and He, H. (2024). Does writing with language models reduce content diversity? ICLR.
- Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Pret- tenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825-2830.
- Ram, O., Levine, Y., Dalmedigos, I., Muhlgay, D., Shashua, A., Leyton-Brown, K., and Shoham, Y. (2023). In-context retrieval-augmented language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:1316-1331.
- Ranade, P. and Joshi, A. (2023). Fabula: Intelligence report generation using retrieval-augmented narrative construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13848. · arXiv
- Salminen, J., Liu, C., Pian, W., Chi, J., Häyhänen, E., and Jansen, B. J. (2024). Deus ex machina and personas from large language models: Investigating the composition of ai-generated persona descriptions. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-20.
- Shin, J., Hedderich, M. A., Rey, B. J., Lucero, A., and Oulasvirta, A. (2024). Understanding human- ai workflows for generating personas. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pages 757-781.
- Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., and Yao, S. (2024). Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
- Tan, Z., Zhao, X., and Wang, W. (2017). Representation learning of large-scale knowledge graphs via entity feature combinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '17, page 1777-1786, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
- Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W. W., Salakhutdinov, R., and Manning, C. D. (2018). HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
- Yates, A., Banko, M., Broadhead, M., Cafarella, M., Etzioni, O., and Soderland, S. (2007). Tex- tRunner: Open information extraction on the web. In Carpenter, B., Stent, A., and Williams, J. D., editors, Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-HLT), pages 25-26, Rochester, New York, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Yuan, X., Li, J., Wang, D., Chen, Y., Mao, X., Huang, L., Xue, H., Wang, W., Ren, K., and Wang, J. (2024). S-eval: Automatic and adaptive test generation for benchmarking safety evaluation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14191. · arXiv
- Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E., et al. (2024). Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Retrieval augmented generation for large language models in healthcare: A systematic review
Amugongo, L. M., Mascheroni, P., Brooks, S., Doering, S., & Seidel, J. (2025) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000877 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Liu, S., McCoy, A. B., & Wright, A. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf008 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model-based Agents
Zhang, Z., Dai, Q., Bo, X., Ma, C., Li, R., Chen, X., Zhu, J., Dong, Z., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3748302 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Knowledge Graph-Guided Retrieval Augmented Generation
Zhu, X., Xie, Y., Liu, Y., Li, Y., & Hu, W. (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) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.449 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review
Neha, F., Bhati, D., & Shukla, D. K. (2025) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai6090226 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)
Klesel, M., & Wittmann, H. F. (2025) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-025-00945-3 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
“Further, graph-based approaches such as GraphRAG offer significant improvements by extracting knowledge graphs and structuring them hierarchically to improve RAG-based tasks (Edge et al. 2024).”
InfluentialXing, W., Song, Y., Li, C., Liu, Z., Zhu, W., & Oh, H. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13586 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
A-Mem: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents
Xu, W., Liang, Z., Mei, K., Gao, H., Tan, J., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38 · doi:10.52202/085713-0593 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
HippoRAG: Neurobiologically Inspired Long-Term Memory for Large Language Models
Gutiérrez, B. J., Shu, Y., Gu, Y., Yasunaga, M., & Su, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.14831 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
“Some other methods, such as RAPTOR [54], MemWalker [7] and GraphRAG [14], integrate information during the offline indexing phase similarly to HippoRAG and might be able to handle these more complex tasks.”
Retrieval-Augmented Few-Shot Medical Image Segmentation With Foundation Models
Zhao, L., Chen, X., Chen, E. Z., Liu, Y., Chen, T., & Sun, S. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2025.3568479 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models
Mei, L., Yao, J., Ge, Y., Wang, Y., Bi, B., Cai, Y., Liu, J., Li, M., Li, Z.-Z., Zhang, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13334 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
LEGO-GraphRAG: Modularizing Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Design Space Exploration
Cao, Y., Gao, Z., Li, Z., Xie, X., Zhou, S. K., & Xu, J. (2025) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3748191.3748194 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Enhancing memory retrieval in generative agents through LLM-trained cross attention networks
Hong, C., & He, Q. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1591618 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Agentic Reasoning: A Streamlined Framework for Enhancing LLM Reasoning with Agentic Tools
Wu, J., Zhu, J., Liu, Y., Xu, M., & Jin, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04644 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering
Zhou, C., Chai, H., Chen, W., Guo, Z., Shan, R., Song, Y., Xu, T., Yang, Y., Yu, A., Zhang, W., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08224 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
KARMA: Augmenting Embodied AI Agents with Long-and-Short Term Memory Systems
Wang, Z., Yu, B., Zhao, J., Sun, W., Hou, S., Liang, S., Hu, X., Han, Y., & Gan, Y. (2025) · 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra55743.2025.11128047 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
AriGraph: Learning Knowledge Graph World Models with Episodic Memory for LLM Agents
Anokhin, P., Semenov, N., Sorokin, A., Evseev, D., Kravchenko, A., Burtsev, M., & Burnaev, E. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.04363 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“However, these studies do not address the context of functioning within an interactive environment, nor do they take into account the updates to knowledge graphs prompted by new experiences.”
Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory
He, Z., Lin, W., Zheng, H., Zhang, F., Jones, M. W., Aitchison, L., Xu, X., Liu, M., Kristensson, P. O., & Shen, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00489 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Furthermore, using graph structures to construct non-parametric memory is highly effective for processing retrieval tasks from large-scale non-parametric memory, particularly for queries involving multiple entities [174, 173].”
MemOS: An Operating System for Memory-Augmented Generation (MAG) in Large Language Models
Li, Z., Song, S., Wang, H., Niu, S., Chen, D., Yang, J., Xi, C., Lai, H., Zhao, J., Wang, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22101 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“C L ] 28 M a y 2025 incorporates external knowledge sources [3, 8, 10, 11, 38], it effectively serves as an ad hoc textual patch and lacks a structured, unified mechanism for memory management.”
Kim, S., Lee, Y., Kim, S., Kim, H., & Cho, S. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1204 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
MAGMA: A Multi-Graph based Agentic Memory Architecture for AI Agents
Jiang, D., Li, Y., Li, G., & Li, B. (2026) · Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1709 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Evaluating Memory in LLM Agents via Incremental Multi-Turn Interactions
Hu, Y., Wang, Y., & McAuley, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.05257 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Representative systems include GraphRAG [10], RAPTOR [39], HippoRAG-V2 [12], Cognee, Zep [37], and Mem0 [7], where Mem0 also offers a graph-augmented variant, Mem0 g , built on structured factual knowledge.”
HingeMem: Boundary Guided Long-Term Memory with Query Adaptive Retrieval for Scalable Dialogues
Zhong, Y., Gao, Y., & Wang, H. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026 · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792089 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
REMem: Reasoning with Episodic Memory in Language Agent
Shu, Y., Jonnalagedda, S. P., Gao, X., Gutiérrez, B. J., Qi, W., Das, K., Sun, H., & Su, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13530 · Cited by 1
Cherif, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00009
“Graph-Based Episodic Memory (GEM) extracts entities and relations from each turn to build a persistent knowledge graph, enabling structured, associative recall [7, 8].”
Lodhiya, H., McManus, A., & Walker, R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.27844
AriadneMem: Threading the Maze of Lifelong Memory for LLM Agents
Zhu, W., Chen, X., Wang, Z., Wang, J., Dong, X., Huang, M., Cai, R., Sang, H., Wang, H., Qiu, P., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.03290
GroupMemBench: Benchmarking LLM Agent Memory in Multi-Party Conversations
Yang, J., Lai, K.-H., Wang, X., Chang, S., Harari, Y., & Gabrilovich, E. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14498
MemGym: a Long-Horizon Memory Environment for LLM Agents
Xu, W., Wang, Y., Mei, K., Liang, K., Wang, Z., Jin, M., Zhang, H., Zhang, S.-X., Hua, W., Sahu, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20833
MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks
He, Z., Wang, Y., Zhi, C., Hu, Y., Chen, T.-P., Yin, L., Chen, Z., Wu, T. A., Ouyang, S., Wang, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16313
“We consider different retrieval methods, including BM25, an embedding-based RAG method that retrieves based on semantic similarity (using OpenAI text-embedding-3-small ), and two structured RAG approaches, MemoRAG (Qian et al., 2025) and GraphRAG (Edge et al., 2024), in our evaluation.”
Beyond Similarity: Trustworthy Memory Search for Personal AI Agents
Zhang, J., Chen, K., Ma, J., Hu, Y., He, L., Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Yang, X., Zhang, T., & Jia, R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.06054
“Given a user query, the agent embeds the query and stored memories, ranks candidate memories by cosine similarity, and places the top-ranked memories into the model context [4], [5], [8], [9].”
Collaborative Memory: Multi-User Memory Sharing in LLM Agents with Dynamic Access Control
Rezazadeh, A., Li, Z., Lou, A., Zhao, Y., Wei, W., & Bao, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.18279
“…abstraction for managing contextual memory over time [13]; MemTree employs a hierarchical memory structure for organizing and retrieving information dynamically [14]; and GraphRAG constructs a graph-based memory of entities and relations to enable structured knowledge access [3, 17].”
Selective Forgetting: A Graph-Based Memory Framework for Long-Term LLM Agents
Rusu, T., Khanzadeh, S., & Alalfi, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.28978
Accurate and Efficient Long-Term Memory for LLM Agents
Zhao, Z., Guo, X., Lv, L., Wang, M., Li, M., & Li, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.16211
“GraphRAG [Edge et al., 2024] uses graph-based retrieval for query-focused summarization, demonstrating the benefit of graph structure for information retrieval.”
BrowseComp-ZH: Benchmarking Web Browsing Ability of Large Language Models in Chinese
Zhou, P., Leon, B., Ying, X., Zhang, C., Shao, Y., Ye, Q., Chong, D., Jin, Z., Xie, C., Cao, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.19314
“In parallel, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks Guu et al. (2020); Lewis et al. (2020) have been widely adopted in QA Wiratunga et al. (2024), summarization Edge et al. (2024), and fact verification Martin et al. (2024), serving as a mechanism for injecting external knowledge into LLMs.”
A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents
Huang, W.-C., Zhang, W., Liang, Y., Bei, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, T., Pan, X., Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Wei, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06052
MemX: A Local-First Long-Term Memory System for AI Assistants
Sun, L. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.16171
Synapse: Empowering LLM Agents with Episodic-Semantic Memory via Spreading Activation
Jiang, H., Chen, J., Pan, Y., Chen, L., You, W., Zhou, Y., Zhang, R., Abate, Y., & Liu, T. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1108
Żatuchin, D. (2026) · Research Square (preprint) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9801639/v1
TaSR-RAG: Taxonomy-guided Structured Reasoning for Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Sun, J., Xie, Y., Shi, J., Wang, S., & Han, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.09341
The Attribution-Compression Frontier in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Mody, D. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.14245
AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications
Zhao, Y., Yuan, B., Huang, J., Yuan, H., Yu, Z., Xu, H., Hu, L., Shankarampeta, A., Huang, Z., Ni, W., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.22769
Graphs Meet AI Agents: Taxonomy, Progress, and Future Opportunities
Bei, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, S., Chen, W., Zhou, S., Chen, H., Li, Y., Bu, J., Pan, S., Yu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.18019
- Authors
- Edge, D., Trinh, H., Cheng, N., Bradley, J., Chao, A., Mody, A., Truitt, S., Metropolitansky, D., Ness, R. O., & Larson, J.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2404.16130
- OpenAlex
- W4395686609
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 65 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 16
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Space Exploration and Technology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- virtual assistants, voice assistants, human spaceflight, voice interaction, user-centered design, design requirements, multimodal interaction, retrieval-augmented generation, knowledge graphs, augmented reality, Artemis program, Mars missions, safety-critical environments
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
