LightRAG: Simple and Fast Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Retrieval-Augmented Generation;Large Language Model;Graph
Yes
No ethics review needed.
It is recommended to include performance results and comparative analysis on some Closed QA benchmarks to demonstrate the system's improvements and advantages in practical applications.
The system does not support direct writing to a graph database; instead, it outputs to files, which can be imported into Neo4j for visualization. However, the inability to modify the graph raises concerns, as errors made during construction cannot be easily corrected or deleted.
1. This paper is well-presented and easy to follow. The authors provide a clear motivation and a good introduction to the problem.
2. The proposed framework can be easily plugged into existing LLMs and corpus.
3. Extensive and solid experiments.
This work proposes a novel dual-layer retrieval RAG framework that seamlessly integrates graph structures into text indexing, enabling efficient and complex information retrieval. The system leverages multi-hop subgraphs to extract global information, excelling in complex, multi-domain queries. Integrating graph and vector-based methods, it reduces retrieval time and computational costs compared to traditional text chunk traversal. Incremental update algorithms ensure seamless integration of new data, maintaining real-time accuracy and relevance.
1. It is recommended to include performance results and comparative analysis on some Closed QA benchmarks to demonstrate the system's improvements and advantages in practical applications.
2. Coreference resolution and disambiguation were not performed during the graph construction process.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. Could the authors include more diverse LLMs to understand how LightRAG works on other LLMs of different size?

2. Could the authors include comparisons with more recent and advanced RAG methods like Self-RAG, FLARE, or Chain-of-Note? This would provide a more comprehensive evaluation against the current state-of-the-art.

3. could the authors provide more concrete time and space complexity analyses for both indexing and retrieval phases?

4. Could the authors discuss potential limitations or scenarios where graph-based indexing might underperform traditional methods? 

5. Could the authors include experiments that measure update times for incrementally adding new documents to strengthen this argument?

6. Could the authors provide examples and discuss how LightRAG handles queries that may not align well with the constructed graph structure? This would help understand the system's robustness to diverse query types.

7. Could the authors include a human evaluation component, even on a subset of queries, to provide insights into LightRAG's real-world effectiveness?
Originality:

1. It introduces a novel graph-based text indexing paradigm for RAG systems, moving beyond flat document representations and community based entities to capture complex entity relationships by utilizing a  comprehensive knowledge graph to facilitate rapid
and relevant document retrieval, enabling a deeper understanding of complex queries. 

2. The dual-level retrieval paradigm, combining low-level and high-level retrieval strategies, is an innovative approach to handling diverse query types.

3. The integration of graph structures with vector representations for efficient retrieval is a creative combination of existing techniques

Quality:

1. Comprehensive experimental evaluation across multiple datasets and baselines is well presented with clarity to understand how much the proposed approach outperforms other existing RAG approaches' baselines. 

2. Detailed complexity analysis of the proposed framework gives a clear idea on how GraphRAG works in two parts compared to conventional and GraphRAG approaches. 

3. Thorough ablation studies to validate the contributions of different components such as Low-level-only Retrieval, high-level-only Retrieval and hybrid mode leading to the finding of the fact that resulting variant does not show significant performance declines across
all four datasets when use of original text is eliminated in our retrieval process.


Clarity:

1. The paper is generally well-structured and clearly written with clear architecture, specific data set selection, baseline definition and experimentation results showcasing the improvement compared to baseline. 

2. The introduction clearly outlines the motivation, challenges, and contributions and the gaps that are existing in current approavhes. 

3. The methodology is explained in detail with formal definitions and algorithms

4. Experimental settings and results are presented systematically and figures/tables effectively illustrate and correlate with the framework and results

Significance:

1. It addresses key limitations of existing RAG systems, particularly in handlig complex queries and large scale datasets.

2. The proposed framework shows consistent performance improvements over state-of-the-art baselines across multiple datasets and evalution dimensions

3. The approach is scalable and adaptable to new data, making it relevant for real-world applications

4. By enhancing the capabilities of RAG systems, this work has potential impacts on various domains requring advanced information retrieval and generation and large data sets.
This paper introduces LightRAG, a novel Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system designed to enhance the performance of large language models by integrating external knowledge sources more effectively. 

The key contributions of LightRAG include:

1.  LightRAG incorporates graph structures into text indexing and retrieval processes, allowing for better representation of complex interdependencies among entities.
2. The system employs Dual-level retrieval paradigm where both low-level and high-level retrieval strategies to capture detailed information about specific entities as well as broader topics and themes.
3. By combining graph structures with vector representations, LightRAG enables fast retrieval of related entities and relationships. It also features an incremental update algorithm for quick adaptation to new data, which is an added advantage of this novel approach.
4. The graph-based approach allows for extraction of global information from multi-hop subgraphs, enhancing the system's ability to handle complex queries spanning multiple document chunks.
5. The paper presents experimental results are good  and well presented in comparing LightRAG to existing RAG baseline methods across four datasets from different domains. The evaluation focuses on comprehensiveness, diversity, empowerment, and overall performance. 
6. Results show that LightRAG consistently outperforms chunk-based retrieval methods, especially for larger datasets and complex queries requiring comprehensive consideration of the dataset's background.
7. The authors argue that LightRAG addresses key limitations of existing RAG systems, such as reliance on flat data representations and inadequate contextual awareness. 
8. The authors also compares LightRAG approach with GraphRAG which is implemented on similar lines and how LightRAG outperforms GraphRAG in retrieval speed and complexity by retrieving entities and relationships rather than community-based traversal retrieval method.
9. By incorporating graph structures and employing a dual-level retrieval paradigm, LightRAG aims to provide more coherent and contextually rich responses to user queries.
1. The paper compares LightRAG primarily to basic RAG approaches like Naive RAG and RQ-RAG. However, it lacks comparison to more recent and advanced RAG methods such as:

           a. Self-RAG (Asai et al., 2023)
           b. FLARE (Zhang et al., 2023)
           c. Chain-of-Note (Wu et al., 2023)

Including these comparisons would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of LightRAG's performance relative to the current state-of-the-art.

2. While the paper provides a brief complexity analysis in Section 3.4, it lacks detailed quantitative comparisons of computational costs between LightRAG and baseline methods. Specifically, the paper should include concrete time and space complexity analysis for both indexing and retrieval phases. Empirical runtime comparisons across different dataset sizes would help illustrate LightRAG's efficiency claims.

3. The paper focuses primarily on the strengths of LightRAG but does not adequately address potential limitations or failure cases. A more balanced discussion could include 


          a. Scenarios where graph-based indexing might underperform traditional methods
          b. Potential scalability challenges for extremely large datasets
          c. Discussion of how LightRAG handles queries that don't align well with the graph structure
          d. Future directions on how any potential limitations on LightRAG can be further researched and improved. 

4. Insufficient analysis of graph update efficiency: The paper claims that LightRAG can efficiently adapt to new data, but it lacks detailed empirical evidence supporting this claim. Including experiments that measure update times for incrementally adding new documents would strengthen this argument.

5. The experimentation uses a wide range of datasets covering multiple domains , however it could  be more diverse if more LLMs with different sizes have been included in the experiment instead of defaulting and relying only on GPT-4o-mini.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
none
1.	The dual-level retrieval approach is well-conceived, offering flexibility to handle both specific and abstract queries. This strategy appears useful for adapting responses to varied user intents, a valuable feature for broad applications.
2.	The incremental update algorithm proposed is promising in ensuring LightRAG’s adaptability to new information, enabling it to stay current in dynamic environments without needing a full index rebuild.
3.	The study evaluates LightRAG on multiple datasets across diverse domains, which provides a general understanding of its performance across different types of content.
This paper introduces LightRAG, a Retrieval-Augmented Generation system designed to improve retrieval accuracy, contextual relevance, and processing efficiency. Compared to GraphRAG, LightRAG removes the community detection part and saves computational overhead for inference queries The authors present a dual-level retrieval mechanism, combining low-level, entity-focused retrieval with high-level, topic-focused retrieval, allowing for both detailed and abstract query handling. Additionally, LightRAG features an incremental update algorithm to integrate new data dynamically, aimed at making it more responsive to changing datasets.
1.	The paper does not clearly articulate LightRAG’s advancements over prior graph-based RAG systems, particularly GraphRAG. It is unclear whether LightRAG merely omits multi-layer and community-based construction and retrieval as used in GraphRAG, or if it introduces other distinctive enhancements.
2.	The paper omits critical details on the graph construction process, such as specific techniques for entity disambiguation.
3.	How local and global query keywords are matched within the graph is not described in detail, which reduces clarity on how dual-level retrieval is operationalized.
4.	The paper lacks a discussion comparing the performance of different LLMs, missing a comparative analysis of their effectiveness within LightRAG.
5.	Although LightRAG is described as efficient, the complexity analysis provided is superficial and does not include actual runtime.
6.	Subjective metrics and limited statistical analysis reduce the rigor of the evaluation. LLM-based judgments could be supplemented with human evaluations or standardized benchmarks for improved reliability.
7.	When new data is incrementally added to the knowledge graph, the method for ensuring consistency with the pre-existing structure is not specified. Details on version control, conflict resolution, and synchronization strategies are necessary to understand how the system maintains the accuracy and coherence of the knowledge graph over time.
8.	The keyword matching approach, crucial to the dual-level retrieval paradigm, is not clearly described.
9.	While the paper claims that incremental updates maintain efficiency, it lacks quantitative data on how this approach compares to a full re-indexing in terms of accuracy and computational cost. Specifically, the paper should include benchmarks demonstrating the performance impact of incremental updates versus complete recalculations, as well as any observed trade-offs in accuracy.
10.	Line 173 contains a typographical error: "LightRAGcombines" should be corrected to "LightRAG combines."
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. During  information extraction on text chunk, was a schema specified? If so, was it manually defined or automatically optimized? How sensitive is the overall performance to schema design?

2. Could the authors elaborate on the differences between this approach and Microsoft GraphRAG? At first glance, it appears to add keyword filtering while removing community detection components.
The paper proposes LightRAG, which effectively balances performance and efficiency in tasks need global information through knowledge graph construction.
This paper introduces LightRAG, which addresses the limitations of existing RAG systems, such as reliance on flat data representations and inadequate contextual awareness, by incorporating graph structures into text indexing and retrieval processes. This dual-level retrieval system improves information retrieval from both low-level and high-level knowledge discovery and efficiently retrieves related entities and their relationships. LightRAG also features an incremental update algorithm for timely integration of new data, ensuring the system remains effective in rapidly changing data environments.
1. The evaluation datasets are limited to college textbooks, raising questions about generalizability to other types of corpora. Additionally, the use of only one LLM makes it difficult to assess LightRAG's dependency on LLM capabilities.

2. The query construction methodology lacks sufficient justification. The authors fail to adequately explain the rationale behind their approach and its effectiveness in evaluating LightRAG. Particularly in paragraph of line 273,  it's unclear how global information is incorporated into the query construction process, which is crucial for assessing the method's effectiveness.

3. Merely using the win rates metric is not solid enough. Especially taking GraphRAG as an example, it is not clear whether it can be stated that there is a 45.56% probability of being superior to LightRAG. Moreover, in the mixed dataset, GraphRAG is even slightly higher in three dimensions, which weakens the conclusion of the experiment.

4. The use of Diversity as a metric for evaluating RAG responses is questionable. There's significant doubt whether higher diversity necessarily indicates better answers, as it might introduce excessive noise. In Table 3, the LLM's interpretation of diversity appears to align more with comprehensiveness rather than true diversity. This is particularly concerning as Diversity is presented as LightRAG's main advantage over baselines, significantly undermining confidence in the experimental results.

5. The practical implementation of low-level and high-level retrieval mechanisms lacks clarity. While Section 3.2 outlines their principles and describes a three-step process for "Integrating Graph and Vectors for Efficient Retrieval," it's unclear whether these steps represent low-level retrieval, high-level retrieval, or a combination thereof.

6. The Cost Analysis section is incomplete. While token consumption is analyzed, temporal performance analysis is missing. Although token consumption correlates with time, they're not equivalent, as input and output processing times can differ significantly. Furthermore, the analysis omits the most resource-intensive component - indexing construction - focusing only on retrieval and incremental updates.

7. Disappointingly, overall, the experimental and analysis sections of the article do not well correspond to the three challenges that the author proposed to solve in paragraph line 053.
    1. Comprehensive Information Retrieval: The query construction method is not elaborated on how to ensure globality, and the types of experimental datasets and settings are not sufficient.
    2. Enhanced Retrieval Efficiency: The author mentioned a significant reduction in response time. However, in the subsequent experiments, only the analysis of token consumption was carried out, and there was no mention of the improvement in time at all.
    3. Rapid Adaptation to New Data: No relevant experiments were provided to support this conclusion.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024lightrag,
title={Light{RAG}: Simple and Fast Retrieval-Augmented Generation},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=bbVH40jy7f},
note={under review}
}
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems enhance large language models (LLMs) by integrating external knowledge sources, enabling more accurate and contextually relevant responses tailored to user needs. However, existing RAG systems have significant limitations, including reliance on flat data representations and inadequate contextual awareness, which can lead to fragmented answers that fail to capture complex inter-dependencies. To address these challenges, we propose LightRAG, which incorporates graph structures into text indexing and retrieval processes. This innovative framework employs a dual-level retrieval system that enhances comprehensive information retrieval from both low-level and high-level knowledge discovery. Additionally, the integration of graph structures with vector representations facilitates efficient retrieval of related entities and their relationships, significantly improving response times while maintaining contextual relevance. This capability is further enhanced by an incremental update algorithm that ensures the timely integration of new data, allowing the system to remain effective in dynamic environments. Extensive experimental validation demonstrates considerable improvements in retrieval accuracy and efficiency compared to existing approaches. For the reproducibility of our results, we have made our LightRAG available anonymously at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LightRAG-2BEE.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Model Graph
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/6a708e0928419f6422e8878b02a35397540ad9f4.pdf
applications to computer vision, audio, language, and other modalities
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
LightRAG: Simple and Fast Retrieval-Augmented Generation
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission