The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Knowledge Graph-Guided Retrieval Augmented Generation
Open accessAbstract
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising technology for addressing hallucination issues in the responses generated by large language models (LLMs). Existing studies on RAG primarily focus on applying semantic-based approaches to retrieve isolated relevant chunks, which ignore their intrinsic relationships. In this paper, we propose a novel Knowledge Graph-Guided Retrieval Augmented Generation (KG$^2$RAG) framework that utilizes knowledge graphs (KGs) to provide fact-level relationships between chunks, improving the diversity and coherence of the retrieved results. Specifically, after performing a semantic-based retrieval to provide seed chunks, KG$^2$RAG employs a KG-guided chunk expansion process and a KG-based chunk organization process to deliver relevant and important knowledge in well-organized paragraphs. Extensive experiments conducted on the HotpotQA dataset and its variants demonstrate the advantages of KG$^2$RAG compared to existing RAG-based approaches, in terms of both response quality and retrieval quality.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
Knowledge graph-based methods enhance semantic connectivity through structured representations, but their partial graph construction prevents establishing relationships between temporally distant nodes across conversation sessions.
“Knowledge graph-based methods (Edge et al., 2025; Guo et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2025) enhance semantic connectivity through structured representations, but their partial graph construction prevents establishing relationships between temporally distant nodes across conversation sessions.”
From Pre-Storage Reasoning for Episodic Memory: Shifting Inference Burden to Memory for Personalized Dialogue (2025) · cites this paper as Zhu et al., 2025
The Introduction and §2.1 describe a structured knowledge graph that links chunks through entities and relations, supporting the semantic-connectivity point. But §2.1 says subgraphs are combined into a complete graph, and §2.2 describes expanding connections beyond nearby chunks. The paper does not report that partial graph construction prevents links between temporally distant nodes across conversation sessions. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 52
- Nicholas Ampazis. 2024. Improving RAG quality for large language models with topic-enhanced rerank- ing. In AIAI, volume 712, pages 74-87, Corfu, Greece. Springer.
- Arian Askari, Amin Abolghasemi, Gabriella Pasi, Wes- sel Kraaij, and Suzan Verberne. 2023. Injecting the BM25 score as text improves BERT-based re-rankers. CoRR.
- Sören Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary G. Ives. 2007. DBpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. In ISWC, volume 4825, pages 722-735, Busan, Korea. Springer.
- 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.
- Marco Calamo, Francesca De Luzi, Mattia Macrì, Tom- maso Mencattini, and Massimo Mecella. 2023. CI- CERO: A GPT2-based writing assistant to investigate the effectiveness of specialized LLMs' applications in e-justice. In ECAI, volume 372, pages 3196-3203, Kraków, Poland. IOS.
- 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.
- 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.
- Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. 2024. From local to global: A graph RAG approach to query-focused summariza- tion. CoRR.
- Matous Eibich, Shivay Nagpal, and Alexander Fred- Ojala. 2024. ARAGOG: Advanced RAG output grad- ing. CoRR.
- Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024. A survey on RAG meeting LLMs: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In KDD, pages 6491-6501, Barcelona, Spain. ACM.
- Luyu Gao, Zhuyun Dai, Tongfei Chen, Zhen Fan, Ben- jamin Van Durme, and Jamie Callan. 2021. Comple- ment lexical retrieval model with semantic residual embeddings. In ECIR, volume 12656, pages 146- 160, Glasgow, UK. Springer.
- 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.
- Michael R. Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md. Faisal Mah- bub Chowdhury, Ankita Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Re2G: Retrieve, rerank, gener- ate. In NAACL, pages 2701-2715, Seattle, WA, USA. ACL.
- Mandalay Grems. 1962. A survey of languages and systems for information retrieval. Commun. ACM, 5(1):43-46.
- Zirui Guo, Lianghao Xia, Yanhua Yu, Tu Ao, and Chao Huang. 2024. LightRAG: Simple and fast retrieval- augmented generation. CoRR.
- 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.
- Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F. Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. In EMNLP, pages 7969- 7992, Singapore. ACL.
- Yishan Jiao. 2006. Maintaining stream statistics over multiscale sliding windows. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 31(4):1305-1334.
- Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S. Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehen- sion. In ACL, pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada.
- ACL.
- Jean Kaddour, Joshua Harris, Maximilian Mozes, Her- bie Bradley, Roberta Raileanu, and Robert McHardy. 2023. Challenges and applications of large language models. CoRR.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- ACL.
- Xianming Li and Jing Li. 2024. AoE: Angle-optimized embeddings for semantic textual similarity. In ACL, pages 1825-1839, Bangkok, Thailand. ACL.
- Yinheng Li. 2023. A practical survey on zero-shot prompt design for in-context learning. In RANLP, pages 641-647, Varna, Bulgaria. INCOMA.
- 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.
- Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paran- jape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2024b. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 12:157-173.
- Yang Liu, Xiaobin Tian, Zequn Sun, and Wei Hu. 2024c. Finetuning generative large language models with dis- crimination instructions for knowledge graph com- pletion. In ISWC, Baltimore, MD, USA. Springer.
- Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. 2023. Query rewriting for retrieval- augmented large language models. CoRR.
- Laurent Mombaerts, Terry Ding, Adi Banerjee, Florian Felice, Jonathan Taws, and Tarik Borogovac. 2024. Meta knowledge for retrieval augmented large lan- guage models. CoRR.
- Zach Nussbaum, John X. Morris, Brandon Duderstadt, and Andriy Mulyar. 2024. Nomic embed: Training a reproducible long context text embedder. CoRR.
- Anupam Purwar and Rahul Sundar. 2023. Keyword aug- mented retrieval: Novel framework for information retrieval integrated with speech interface. In AIML- Systems, pages 58:1-58:5, Bangalore, India. ACM.
- Xubin Ren, Jiabin Tang, Dawei Yin, Nitesh V. Chawla, and Chao Huang. 2024. A survey of large lan- guage models for graphs. In KDD, pages 6616-6626, Barcelona, Spain. ACM.
- Priyanka Sen, Sandeep Mavadia, and Amir Saffari. 2023. Knowledge graph-augmented language models for complex question answering. In NLRSE, pages 1-8, Toronto, Canada. ACL.
- Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions. In NAACL, pages 641-651, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. ACL.
- 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.
- 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.
- Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. MuSiQue: Multi- hop questions via single-hop question composition. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 10:539-554.
- Yu Wang, Nedim Lipka, Ryan A. Rossi, Alexa F. Siu, Ruiyi Zhang, and Tyler Derr. 2024a. Knowledge graph prompting for multi-document question an- swering. In AAAI, pages 19206-19214, Vancouver, Canada. AAAI.
- Yujing Wang, Hainan Zhang, Liang Pang, Binghui Guo, Hongwei Zheng, and Zhiming Zheng. 2024b. MaFeRw: Query rewriting with multi-aspect feed- backs for retrieval-augmented large language models. CoRR.
- 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.
- Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, and Niklas Muennighoff. 2023. C-Pack: Packaged resources to advance general Chinese embedding. CoRR.
- 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.
- Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan S. Kankanhalli. 2024b. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limita- tion of large language models. CoRR.
- Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Ben- gio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answer- ing. In EMNLP, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Bel- gium. ACL.
- 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.
- Wen-tau Yih, Matthew Richardson, Christopher Meek, Ming-Wei Chang, and Jina Suh. 2016. The value of semantic parse labeling for knowledge base question answering. In ACL, Berlin, Germany. ACL.
- Wenhao Yu. 2022. Retrieval-augmented generation across heterogeneous knowledge. In NAACL, pages 52-58, Seattle, WA, USA. ACL.
- Wenzheng Zhao, Yuanning Cui, and Wei Hu. 2023. Im- proving continual relation extraction by distinguish- ing analogous semantics. In ACL, pages 1162-1175, Toronto, Canada. ACL.
- Angelo Ziletti and Leonardo D'Ambrosi. 2024. Re- trieval augmented text-to-SQL generation for epi- demiological question answering using electronic health records. In NAACL, pages 47-53, Mexico City, Mexico. ACL.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhu, X., Xie, Y., Liu, Y., Li, Y., & Hu, W.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing University (CN)
- Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.06864
- OpenAlex
- W4407423017
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62272219)
- 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, knowledge graphs, hallucination mitigation, large language models, semantic search, response coherence, HotpotQA
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
