When Is Graph Structure Worth Its Cost? The Case for Structure Pricing in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

📅 2026-09-16
📈 Citations: 0
Influential: 0
📄 PDF
🤖 AI Summary
本文提出EffiRAG系统,通过轻量级图构建与查询处理减少成本,同时保持高质量答案生成,适用于需要多文档信息的问题解答。
📝 Abstract
Graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can help answer questions that require information from many documents. However, building a graph often requires many language-model calls during ingestion. It is therefore important to ask whether its quality gains justify the additional cost. We present EffiRAG, a graph-based RAG system designed to reduce this cost. It uses the graph to locate relevant passages and generates answers from the original text. This design preserves source information while keeping graph construction and query processing lightweight. We evaluate EffiRAG on UltraDomain, which contains 120 open-ended questions from four domains. Compared with LightRAG-hybrid, EffiRAG produces the preferred answer on 93 questions. LightRAG is preferred on 7, and the remaining 20 are splits. EffiRAG also reduces total system cost by 57 percent, from USD 0.952 to USD 0.408. The cost includes language-model calls during ingestion and querying. The advantage remains as the corpus grows. At 10 and 20 documents per domain, EffiRAG uses a lightweight, non-LLM filter to skip low-salience chunks. It remains preferred over LightRAG-hybrid. It costs 4.2 times and 4.5 times less, respectively. The comparisons identify different quality-cost trade-offs. Graph-based RAG systems should therefore be evaluated by both answer quality and cost. The results favor graph structure that locates and preserves source evidence.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

Graph-based RAG
Cost
Quality
Efficiency
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

graph-based RAG
cost reduction
lightweight graph construction
source information preservation
quality-cost trade-off
🔎 Similar Papers
2024-05-26North American Chapter of the Association for Computational LinguisticsCitations: 31