跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 02:00 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 02:04 — 2026-11-09 02:04(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 02:00最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 01:58(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.37728

Beyond Similarity Search: Knowledge Graph Metadata Enrichment for Enterprise Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Fakabbir Amin

原文摘要

A key challenge of RAG systems is retrieving information from enterprise documents created by multiple teams over time, where it is not possible to enrich the information using the latest information and metadata available outside the scope of organizational documentation responsibility. We investigated whether using a knowledge graph to store metadata and frequently changing information would improve upon knowledge retrieval over similarity search over embeddings. To perform the experiment, we created a snapshot of the SEC EDGAR dataset for a quarter, comprising 167,050 filings from 10,511 companies and 508,714 embedded chunks of risk-factor text. To simulate the enrichment, we created a knowledge graph of 430,257 nodes and 561,144 edges carrying an accession number on every edge. To evaluate the gain obtained via a graph-based design, we evaluated three architectures: text-to-SQL over typed columns, dense-vector RAG with HNSW cosine search, and a two-stage GraphRAG design. All architectures share the same model and temperature to allow comparison. Results are scored programmatically by an LLM as judge over 20 questions divided across four categories, each question asked three times. GraphRAG solved 16 of 20 questions on all three attempts, compared to 10 for text-to-SQL and 3 for vector RAG. GraphRAG lost on structured aggregation queries. Vector RAG lost the single-document category it was expected to win, passing 3 of 15 where GraphRAG passed 15 of 15, because company attribution is not recoverable from cosine similarity at this scale. All six confident falsehoods in the benchmark were text-to-SQL conflating distinct people who share a surname, the failure that resolving identity to an identifier before reading any text prevents structurally; GraphRAG made none. We claim no advantage beyond this corpus, this model and this question set.

cs.IR · cs.AI · cs.LG