Evolving Graph-Based Context Modeling for Multi-Turn Conversational Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conversational Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems enhance user interactions by integrating large language models (LLMs) with external knowledge retrieval. However, multi-turn conversations present significant challenges, including implicit user intent and noisy context, which hinder accurate retrieval and response generation. Existing approaches often struggle with the unstructured conversational context and fail to model explicit relations among conversational turns. Moreover, they do not leverage historically relevant passages effectively. To overcome these limitations, we propose EvoRAG, a novel framework that maintains an evolving knowledge graph aligned with the unstructured conversational context. This graph explicitly captures relations among user queries, system responses, and relevant passages across conversational turns, serving as a structured representation of the context. EvoRAG includes three key components: (1) a dual-path retrieval module for context denoising, (2) a unified knowledge integration module for query rewriting and summarization, and (3) a graph-enhanced RAG module for accurate retrieval and response generation. Experiments on four public conversational RAG datasets show that EvoRAG significantly outperforms strong baselines, particularly in handling topic shifts and long dialogue contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".