Hierarchical Lexical Graph for Enhanced Multi-Hop Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external evidence, yet it still falters when answers must be pieced together across semantically distant documents. We close this gap with the Hierarchical Lexical Graph (HLG), a three-tier index that (i) traces every atomic proposition to its source(ii) clusters propositions into latent topics, and (iii) links entities and relations to expose cross-document paths. On top of HLG we build two complementary, plug-and-play retrievers: StatementGraphRAG, which performs fine-grained entity-aware beam search over propositions for high-precision factoid questions, and TopicGraphRAG, which selects coarse topics before expanding along entity links to supply broad yet relevant context for exploratory queries. Additionally, existing benchmarks lack the complexity required to rigorously evaluate multi-hop summarization systems, often focusing on single-document queries or limited datasets. To address this, we introduce a synthetic dataset generation pipeline that curates realistic, multi-document question-answer pairs, enabling robust evaluation of multi-hop retrieval systems. Extensive experiments across five datasets demonstrate that our methods outperform naive chunk-based RAG, achieving an average relative improvement of 23.1% in retrieval recall and correctness. Open-source Python library is available at https://github.com/awslabs/graphrag-toolkit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".