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

arXiv:2609.18099v1 Announce Type: new 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.

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

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.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.18099 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.18099v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18099 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

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

Subiecte conexe