Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 46 references

SubGCache: Accelerating Graph-based RAG with Subgraph-level KV Cache

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SubGCache claims that graph-based RAG can be accelerated by caching one representative subgraph's KV cache per query cluster, reducing time-to-first-token by up to 6.68x while keeping answer quality.

desk verdict A well-motivated and probably correct latency optimization for graph RAG, but the quality claim is not yet established due to undisclosed cluster counts, a prompt-changing confound, and missing token-length/truncation details. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10951 v2 pith:MTAQJQ7X submitted 2025-05-16 cs.LG

Qiuyu Zhu , Liang Zhang , Qianxiong Xu , Cheng Long , Jie Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords graph-basedRAGKVcachereusein-batchqueryprocessingsubgraph-levelcachinginferenceaccelerationhierarchicalclusteringrepresentativesubgraphtime-to-first-token
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a batch of graph-based RAG queries often retrieves overlapping subgraphs, and that this structural redundancy is a wasted opportunity: every query currently recomputes the LLM's attention states for shared context. SubGCache proposes to cluster queries by the embeddings of their retrieved subgraphs, merge each cluster's subgraphs into one representative subgraph, precompute the key-value cache for that representative once, and reuse it for every query in the cluster. On two datasets, four LLM backbones, and two graph-RAG frameworks, the paper reports consistent latency reductions, with time-to-first-token falling by up to 6.68x, while accuracy stays comparable and sometimes improves. The reason this matters is that latency-sensitive graph RAG serving tends to be dominated by prefill of retrieved context, and the paper shows that prefill can be shared rather than duplicated.

What carries the argument

The central object is the representative subgraph: the union of all nodes and edges retrieved by the queries assigned to one cluster, which serves as the shared prompt prefix and the unit of KV cache computation. The mechanism is cluster-wise cache reuse: compute the key-value tensors for the representative subgraph's prompt once, store them in GPU memory, append each query's question tokens to the cached prefix, and release the cache after the cluster is served. The load-bearing step is clustering via hierarchical clustering over pretrained GNN subgraph embeddings, because that is what decides which queries share a representative and therefore how much reuse is possible.

What would settle it

Construct a batch with two queries that cluster together because their subgraph embeddings are close, but whose answer-critical entities and relations are disjoint; if accuracy on that cluster falls well below the no-cache baseline while the speedup remains, the representative-subgraph assumption is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that subgraphs, not just text spans, can serve as reusable prompt modules for KV caching in graph-based RAG. The method detects overlap through hierarchical clustering of GNN-based subgraph embeddings, constructs a representative subgraph as the union of all retrieved subgraphs in a cluster, and processes the cluster by precomputing the KV cache of that representative's prompt and appending each query's tokens to it. The paper argues this preserves the relational context needed for accurate answers while eliminating redundant prefill, and the experiments are offered as evidence that the speedups hold across backbones and frameworks without a quality penalty.

Load-bearing premise

The representative subgraph assumption: merging all retrieved subgraphs in a cluster preserves every query's answer-critical relational context, so the LLM can answer from the union without meaningful accuracy loss.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Batch graph RAG serving can turn per-query subgraph prefill into per-cluster prefill, so latency drops roughly in proportion to how much overlap exists within a batch.
  • The benefit generalizes across LLM backbones and graph-RAG frameworks, since the reported speedups appear with Llama-3.2-3B, Llama-2-7B, Mistral-7B, and Falcon-7B on both G-Retriever and GRAG.
  • Choosing fewer clusters raises reuse but can slightly hurt accuracy in rare cases; the method degrades gracefully to standard graph RAG when every query is its own cluster.
  • Most of the TTFT gain comes from the prefill stage, as shown by PFTT reductions up to roughly 18-19x, which are larger than the total TTFT reductions.
  • Generative quality can even improve, because a merged representative subgraph sometimes supplies broader relational context than a single query's retrieved subgraph.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same union-and-cache pattern should transfer to any retrieval setting whose units have graph or overlapping structure, such as multi-document question answering with shared passages.
  • A practical extension is an adaptive cluster-number selector: the paper reports a non-monotonic latency/accuracy trade-off, so a workload-aware choice of cluster count could tune the speed-quality balance automatically.
  • A testable boundary case is two queries that embed as similar but need disjoint answer-critical relations; the paper does not isolate this case, and accuracy there would stress the representative-subgraph assumption.
  • Because the evaluation is QA-only, applying SubGCache to abstractive summarization or multi-hop explanation tasks would reveal whether merged-context noise matters more for less extractive answers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. SubGCache proposes a caching framework for graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in an in-batch query setting. The method clusters queries using GNN embeddings of their retrieved subgraphs, builds a representative subgraph for each cluster as the union of the cluster's subgraphs, precomputes the KV cache for the representative subgraph prompt, and reuses that cache across all queries in the cluster. The paper evaluates SubGCache on two datasets (Scene Graph and OAG) with two graph-based RAG methods (G-Retriever and GRAG) and four LLM backbones, reporting large reductions in response time, time-to-first-token, and prefill time, with accuracy claimed to be comparable or better than the non-cached baselines.

Significance. If the empirical results are valid, SubGCache addresses a real efficiency bottleneck in graph-based RAG and is, to my knowledge, the first system to reuse KV caches at the subgraph-prompt level rather than at the sentence or document level. The core mechanism is simple and the qualitative direction is credible because the latency reduction follows from exact KV cache reuse of a shared prefix. The paper also tests across multiple LLM backbones and two RAG frameworks, which is a useful breadth. However, the empirical validation currently has several load-bearing gaps: the cluster count used for the main results is not reported, the 1024-token input cap makes the context-preservation assumption questionable for coarse clusters, and the latency tables contain internally inconsistent values. The idea is promising, but the evidence as presented is not yet sufficient to support the strong empirical claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.2–A.3; Tables 4, 6, 7, 8] Under the metric definitions in Appendix A.3, TTFT is the time from query submission to the first output token and RT is the total end-to-end response time, so TTFT must be no larger than RT. Several latency rows violate this: Table 4 reports GRAG with 150 in-batch queries on Scene Graph as RT=543.09 ms with TTFT=786.74 ms; Table 6 reports GRAG with 150 queries on Scene Graph as RT=1199.54 ms with TTFT=1744.63 ms; Table 7 reports RT=1114.03 ms with TTFT=1623.39 ms for the same configuration. Table 4 also reports PFTT=396.92 ms with TTFT=251.51 ms for GRAG with 50 queries on Scene Graph, violating PFTT≤TTFT. These internal inconsistencies mean the latency numbers cannot be taken at face value and must be corrected or explained before the headline speedup claims are credible.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Table 2; Section 4.3] Table 2, the main performance table, does not state the cluster number c used for each configuration. Section 4.3 demonstrates that accuracy and TTFT vary non-monotonically with c and highlights c=1 on Scene Graph and c=2 on OAG as favorable settings. Since the reported 'up to' speedups are achieved at specific cluster granularities, every row of Table 2 (and the appendix tables) should report c. Without this, the main empirical claims are not reproducible, and it is unclear whether the results reflect a robust property of the method or a selected favorable operating point.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Appendix A.2] The representative subgraph in Section 3.3 is the union of all nodes and edges retrieved by the queries in a cluster. With the maximum input sequence length set to 1024 tokens (Appendix A.2), coarse clusters such as c=1 or c=2 can produce serialized representative subgraphs well beyond the limit, forcing truncation. The paper never reports token counts for representative subgraphs, the truncation rule, or the number of queries whose contexts are truncated. This matters because the quality claim rests on the union preserving the relational context needed by each query; if a truncated prefix omits answer-critical entities or edges, the accuracy results in the coarse-cluster regime are not explained by the method as presented.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] Accuracy is measured on 100 test queries (Appendix A.2). A 1-percentage-point difference is therefore one query, so the 0–2 point differences in Table 2 are within sampling variability, and no confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests are provided. The claim in Section 4.2 of 'only a minor drop (i.e., 1.00%) in rare cases' is also inconsistent with Table 3, which shows a 4.00-point drop for GRAG with Average linkage on OAG. The accuracy claims should either be accompanied by interval estimates or weakened to 'no clear degradation.'
  5. [Section 3.4 and Table 2] The experimental comparison changes two things at once: the input prompt (from the per-query retrieved subgraph to the cluster representative union subgraph) and the presence of KV cache reuse. The reported speedups may therefore reflect the prompt substitution (for example, a truncated or differently sized prefix) as well as the cache reuse. An ablation that uses the same representative subgraph but recomputes the KV cache per query, or a caching-only variant that reuses exact per-query subgraph prefixes, is needed to isolate the effect of subgraph-level KV caching. Without such an ablation, the causal claim that the speedup comes from the proposed caching mechanism is not fully supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.1] The two datasets are not accompanied by release links or construction scripts; please provide them for reproducibility.
  2. [Tables 6–8] Some delta rows contain malformed entries, e.g., '↑.60×' in Table 7 and '3.43×' lacking an arrow in Tables 6–8; please audit all tables for formatting and arithmetical consistency.
  3. [Section 4.4] Cluster processing time is reported only as one aggregate number; a breakdown of GNN embedding, hierarchical clustering, and representative subgraph construction would make the overhead claim easier to verify.
  4. [Section 3.4] The claim that cluster-wise cache management 'reduces memory usage' is not directly measured; please add a memory comparison or qualify the statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SubGCache's latency and quality claims are empirical comparisons, not derived from its own definitions or a load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

SubGCache is an inference-time caching scheme, and its central claims are empirical: the paper measures latency and accuracy of the integrated system against unmodified G-Retriever and GRAG baselines. The representative subgraph is defined as the union of retrieved subgraphs in a cluster, but the claim that this union preserves enough relational context for comparable generation quality is an empirical assumption tested on held-out queries, not a consequence of the definition. The reported speedups are measured values, not quantities forced by a fitted equation. The only self-citation, reference [46], is used for OAG dataset provenance and is not load-bearing for the method's validity. The cluster-count selection in Section 4.3 is a potential experimental reporting concern, but it is not circularity: no parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. Therefore, the paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, even though its empirical robustness may be limited by small test samples and unreported cluster counts in the main results.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; the representative subgraph is an aggregation of existing graph data. The only free parameter is the cluster count, which is chosen by hand and not disclosed for the main results.

free parameters (1)
  • cluster number c = not stated for main results; evaluated over {1,2,3,4,5,10,20,30,40,50}
    The cluster count controls the reuse/quality trade-off. Headline speedups in Section 4.3 come from specific values (1 and 2), but Table 2 does not disclose the value used.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GNN embeddings of retrieved subgraphs are good enough for clustering to group queries that can share a merged subgraph without hurting answers.
    Section 3.2 uses pretrained GNN embeddings for hierarchical clustering; no direct validation of clustering quality beyond end-task accuracy on two datasets.
  • domain assumption The union of subgraphs in a cluster preserves all task-relevant relational context for each query.
    Section 3.3 constructs representative subgraphs by taking the union; the paper provides no formal guarantee, and merged context may add noise (acknowledged in Section 4.2).
  • standard math Reusing KV cache of the representative prompt prefix is exact for autoregressive attention.
    This is a standard property of transformer KV caching when the prefix tokens are identical and positions are unchanged; Section 3.4 relies on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SubGCache: Accelerating Graph-based RAG with Subgraph-level KV Cache." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTAQJQ7X

@misc{pith2026250510951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SubGCache: Accelerating Graph-based RAG with Subgraph-level KV Cache},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTAQJQ7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10951}
}
abstract

Graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables large language models (LLMs) to incorporate structured knowledge via graph retrieval as contextual input, enhancing more accurate and context-aware reasoning. We observe that for different queries, it could retrieve similar subgraphs as prompts, and thus we propose SubGCache, which aims to reduce inference latency by reusing computation across queries with similar structural prompts (i.e., subgraphs). Specifically, SubGCache clusters queries based on subgraph embeddings, constructs a representative subgraph for each cluster, and pre-computes the key-value (KV) cache of the representative subgraph. For each query with its retrieved subgraph within a cluster, it reuses the pre-computed KV cache of the representative subgraph of the cluster without computing the KV tensors again for saving computation. Experiments on two new datasets across multiple LLM backbones and graph-based RAG frameworks demonstrate that SubGCache consistently reduces inference latency with comparable and even improved generation quality, achieving up to 6.68$\times$ reduction in time-to-first-token (TTFT).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of graph-based RAG without and with caching. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of SubGCache and its integration into the standard graph-based RAG pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of cluster number on ACC (%) and TTFT (s). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cluster processing time vs. LLM response time by varying cluster numbers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Case study. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Self-rag: Learn- ing to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-rag: Learn- ing to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens

    Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2206–2240. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Hint on steroids: Batch query processing for interval data

    Panagiotis Bouros, Artur Titkov, George Christodoulou, Christian Rauch, and Nikos Mamoulis. Hint on steroids: Batch query processing for interval data. InEDBT, pages 440–446, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Batch processing of top-k spatial-textual queries.ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems (TSAS), 3 (4):1–40, 2018

    Farhana M Choudhury, J Shane Culpepper, Zhifeng Bao, and Timos Sellis. Batch processing of top-k spatial-textual queries.ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems (TSAS), 3 (4):1–40, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240): 1–113, 2023

    Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240): 1–113, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Batch query processing for web search engines

    Shuai Ding, Josh Attenberg, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, and Torsten Suel. Batch query processing for web search engines. InProceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 137–146, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

    Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, Dasha Metropolitansky, Robert Osazuwa Ness, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages ...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2:1, 2023

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yixin Dai, Jiawei Sun, Haofen Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2:1, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Prompt cache: Modular attention reuse for low-latency inference.Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 6:325–338, 2024

    In Gim, Guojun Chen, Seung-seob Lee, Nikhil Sarda, Anurag Khandelwal, and Lin Zhong. Prompt cache: Modular attention reuse for low-latency inference.Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 6:325–338, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lightrag: Simple and fast retrieval-augmented generation

    Zirui Guo, Lianghao Xia, Yanhua Yu, Tu Ao, and Chao Huang. Lightrag: Simple and fast retrieval-augmented generation. 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Retrieval-augmented generation with graphs (graphrag).arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00309, 2024

    Haoyu Han, Yu Wang, Harry Shomer, Kai Guo, Jiayuan Ding, Yongjia Lei, Mahantesh Halap- panavar, Ryan A Rossi, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Xianfeng Tang, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation with graphs (graphrag).arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00309, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:132876–132907, 2024

    Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:132876–132907,...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Rag and rau: A survey on retrieval-augmented language model in natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19543, 2024

    Yucheng Hu and Yuxing Lu. Rag and rau: A survey on retrieval-augmented language model in natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19543, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Grag: Graph retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16506, 2024

    Yuntong Hu, Zhihan Lei, Zheng Zhang, Bo Pan, Chen Ling, and Liang Zhao. Grag: Graph retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16506, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions.ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2):1–55, 2025

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qiang- long Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions.ACM Transactions on Informati...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Large language models on graphs: A comprehensive survey.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024

    Bowen Jin, Gang Liu, Chi Han, Meng Jiang, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. Large language models on graphs: A comprehensive survey.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Ragcache: Efficient knowledge caching for retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12457, 2024

    Chao Jin, Zili Zhang, Xuanlin Jiang, Fangyue Liu, Xin Liu, Xuanzhe Liu, and Xin Jin. Ragcache: Efficient knowledge caching for retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12457, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Compute or load kv cache? why not both?arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03065, 2024

    Shuowei Jin, Xueshen Liu, Qingzhao Zhang, and Z Morley Mao. Compute or load kv cache? why not both?arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03065, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.Advances in neural information processing systems,...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Sharedcontextbench: Evaluating long-context methods in kv cache reuse

    Yucheng Li, Huiqiang Jiang, Qianhui Wu, Xufang Luo, Surin Ahn, Chengruidong Zhang, Amir H Abdi, Dongsheng Li, Jianfeng Gao, Yuqing Yang, et al. Sharedcontextbench: Evaluating long-context methods in kv cache reuse

  16. [24]

    A survey of graph meets large language model: Progress and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12399, 2023

    Yuhan Li, Zhixun Li, Peisong Wang, Jia Li, Xiangguo Sun, Hong Cheng, and Jeffrey Xu Yu. A survey of graph meets large language model: Progress and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12399, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Turborag: Accelerating retrieval-augmented generation with precomputed kv caches for chunked text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07590, 2024

    Songshuo Lu, Hua Wang, Yutian Rong, Zhi Chen, and Yaohua Tang. Turborag: Accelerating retrieval-augmented generation with precomputed kv caches for chunked text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07590, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The refinedweb dataset for falcon llm: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116, 2023

    Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamza Alobeidli, Baptiste Pannier, Ebtesam Almazrouei, and Julien Launay. The refinedweb dataset for falcon llm: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only.arXiv pre...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    In-context retrieval-augmented language models.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:1316–1331, 2023

    Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. In-context retrieval-augmented language models.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:1316–1331, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 68539–68551, 2023

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 68539–68551, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03509, 2020

    Yunsheng Shi, Zhengjie Huang, Shikun Feng, Hui Zhong, Wenjin Wang, and Yu Sun. Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03509, 2020. 11

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Shamane Siriwardhana, Rivindu Weerasekera, Elliott Wen, Tharindu Kaluarachchi, Rajib Rana, and Suranga Nanayakkara. Improving the domain adaptation of retrieval augmented generation (rag) models for open domain question answering.Transactions of the Association for Computation...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Introducing mpt-7b: A new standard for open-source, commercially usable llms.DataBricks (May, 2023) www

    MosaicML NLP Team et al. Introducing mpt-7b: A new standard for open-source, commercially usable llms.DataBricks (May, 2023) www. mosaicml. com/blog/mpt-7b, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10509, 2022

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10509, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Graph attention networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Can language models solve graph problems in natural language?Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36:30840–30861, 2023

    Heng Wang, Shangbin Feng, Tianxing He, Zhaoxuan Tan, Xiaochuang Han, and Yulia Tsvetkov. Can language models solve graph problems in natural language?Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36:30840–30861, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Cacheblend: Fast large language model serving for rag with cached knowledge fusion

    Jiayi Yao, Hanchen Li, Yuhan Liu, Siddhant Ray, Yihua Cheng, Qizheng Zhang, Kuntai Du, Shan Lu, and Junchen Jiang. Cacheblend: Fast large language model serving for rag with cached knowledge fusion. InProceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems, pages ...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Evaluation of retrieval-augmented generation: A survey

    Hao Yu, Aoran Gan, Kai Zhang, Shiwei Tong, Qi Liu, and Zhaofeng Liu. Evaluation of retrieval-augmented generation: A survey. InCCF Conference on Big Data, pages 102–120. Springer, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Prompting large language model for machine translation: A case study

    Biao Zhang, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. Prompting large language model for machine translation: A case study. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 41092– 41110. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Oag: Toward linking large-scale heterogeneous entity graphs

    Fanjin Zhang, Xiao Liu, Jie Tang, Yuxiao Dong, Peiran Yao, Jie Zhang, Xiaotao Gu, Yan Wang, Bin Shao, Rui Li, et al. Oag: Toward linking large-scale heterogeneous entity graphs. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining...

    2019

  34. [42]

    An enhanced batch query architecture in real-time recommendation

    Qiang Zhang, Zhipeng Teng, Disheng Wu, and Jiayin Wang. An enhanced batch query architecture in real-time recommendation. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 5078–5085, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Benchmarking large language models for news summarization.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:39–57, 2024

    Tianyi Zhang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, Percy Liang, Kathleen McKeown, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Benchmarking large language models for news summarization.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:39–57, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473, 2024

    Penghao Zhao, Hailin Zhang, Qinhan Yu, Zhengren Wang, Yunteng Geng, Fangcheng Fu, Ling Yang, Wentao Zhang, Jie Jiang, and Bin Cui. Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Efficiently programming large language models using sglang

    Lianmin Zheng, Liangsheng Yin, Zhiqiang Xie, Jeff Huang, Chuyue Sun, Cody_Hao Yu, Shiyi Cao, Christos Kozyrakis, Ion Stoica, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Efficiently programming large language models using sglang. 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    name: eye glasses; attribute: black; (x,y,w,h): (330, 125, 25, 7)

    Qiuyu Zhu, Liang Zhang, Qianxiong Xu, and Cheng Long. Hierpromptlm: A pure plm-based framework for representation learning on heterogeneous text-rich networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12857, 2025. 12 Table 5: Datasets. Dataset Textual Graph Question Answer SceneGraph node id,...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.