←back to thread

451 points liukidar | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.422s | source

Hey there HN! We’re Antonio, Luca, and Yuhang, and we’re excited to introduce Fast GraphRAG, an open-source RAG approach that leverages knowledge graphs and the 25 years old PageRank for better information retrieval and reasoning.

Building a good RAG pipeline these days takes a lot of manual optimizations. Most engineers intuitively start from naive RAG: throw everything in a vector database and hope that semantic search is powerful enough. This can work for use cases where accuracy isn’t too important and hallucinations are tolerable, but it doesn’t work for more difficult queries that involve multi-hop reasoning or more advanced domain understanding. Also, it’s impossible to debug it.

To address these limitations, many engineers find themselves adding extra layers like agent-based preprocessing, custom embeddings, reranking mechanisms, and hybrid search strategies. Much like the early days of machine learning when we manually crafted feature vectors to squeeze out marginal gains, building an effective RAG system often becomes an exercise in crafting engineering “hacks.”

Earlier this year, Microsoft seeded the idea of using Knowledge Graphs for RAG and published GraphRAG - i.e. RAG with Knowledge Graphs. We believe that there is an incredible potential in this idea, but existing implementations are naive in the way they create and explore the graph. That’s why we developed Fast GraphRAG with a new algorithmic approach using good old PageRank.

There are two main challenges when building a reliable RAG system:

(1) Data Noise: Real-world data is often messy. Customer support tickets, chat logs, and other conversational data can include a lot of irrelevant information. If you push noisy data into a vector database, you’re likely to get noisy results.

(2) Domain Specialization: For complex use cases, a RAG system must understand the domain-specific context. This requires creating representations that capture not just the words but the deeper relationships and structures within the data.

Our solution builds on these insights by incorporating knowledge graphs into the RAG pipeline. Knowledge graphs store entities and their relationships, and can help structure data in a way that enables more accurate and context-aware information retrieval. 12 years ago Google announced the knowledge graph we all know about [1]. It was a pioneering move. Now we have LLMs, meaning that people can finally do RAG on their own data with tools that can be as powerful as Google’s original idea.

Before we built this, Antonio was at Amazon, while Luca and Yuhang were finishing their PhDs at Oxford. We had been thinking about this problem for years and we always loved the parallel between pagerank and the human memory [2]. We believe that searching for memories is incredibly similar to searching the web.

Here’s how it works:

- Entity and Relationship Extraction: Fast GraphRAG uses LLMs to extract entities and their relationships from your data and stores them in a graph format [3].

- Query Processing: When you make a query, Fast GraphRAG starts by finding the most relevant entities using vector search, then runs a personalized PageRank algorithm to determine the most important “memories” or pieces of information related to the query [4].

- Incremental Updates: Unlike other graph-based RAG systems, Fast GraphRAG natively supports incremental data insertions. This means you can continuously add new data without reprocessing the entire graph.

- Faster: These design choices make our algorithm faster and more affordable to run than other graph-based RAG systems because we eliminate the need for communities and clustering.

Suppose you’re analyzing a book and want to focus on character interactions, locations, and significant events:

  from fast_graphrag import GraphRAG
  
  DOMAIN = "Analyze this story and identify the characters. Focus on how they interact with each other, the locations they explore, and their relationships."
  
  EXAMPLE_QUERIES = [
      "What is the significance of Christmas Eve in A Christmas Carol?",
      "How does the setting of Victorian London contribute to the story's themes?",
      "Describe the chain of events that leads to Scrooge's transformation.",
      "How does Dickens use the different spirits (Past, Present, and Future) to guide Scrooge?",
      "Why does Dickens choose to divide the story into \"staves\" rather than chapters?"
  ]
  
  ENTITY_TYPES = ["Character", "Animal", "Place", "Object", "Activity", "Event"]
  
  grag = GraphRAG(
      working_dir="./book_example",
      domain=DOMAIN,
      example_queries="\n".join(EXAMPLE_QUERIES),
      entity_types=ENTITY_TYPES
  )
  
  with open("./book.txt") as f:
      grag.insert(f.read())
  
  print(grag.query("Who is Scrooge?").response)
This code creates a domain-specific knowledge graph based on your data, example queries, and specified entity types. Then you can query it in plain English while it automatically handles all the data fetching, entity extractions, co-reference resolutions, memory elections, etc. When you add new data, locking and checkpointing is handled for you as well.

This is the kind of infrastructure that GenAI apps need to handle large-scale real-world data. Our goal is to give you this infrastructure so that you can focus on what’s important: building great apps for your users without having to care about manually engineering a retrieval pipeline. In the managed service, we also have a suite of UI tools for you to explore and debug your knowledge graph.

We have a free hosted solution with up to 100 monthly requests. When you’re ready to grow, we have paid plans that scale with you. And of course you can self host our open-source engine.

Give us a spin today at https://circlemind.co and see our code at https://github.com/circlemind-ai/fast-graphrag

We’d love feedback :)

[1] https://blog.google/products/search/introducing-knowledge-gr...

[2] Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Firl, A. (2007). Google and the Mind: Predicting Fluency with PageRank. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1069–1076. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40064705

[3] Similarly to Microsoft’s GraphRAG: https://github.com/microsoft/graphrag

[4] Similarly to OSU’s HippoRAG: https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/HippoRAG

https://vhs.charm.sh/vhs-4fCicgsbsc7UX0pemOcsMp.gif

Show context
LASR ◴[] No.42177909[source]
So I've done a ton of work in this area.

Few learnings I've collected:

1. Lexical search with BM25 alone gives you very relevant results if you can do some work during ingestion time with an LLM.

2. Embeddings work well only when the size of the query is roughly on the same order of what you're actually storing in the embedding store.

3. Hypothetical answer generation from a query using an LLM, and then using that hypothetical answer to query for embeddings works really well.

So combining all 3 learnings, we landed on a knowledge decomposition and extraction step very similar to yours. But we stick a metaprompter to essentially auto-generate the domain / entity types.

LLMs are naively bad at identifying the correct level of granularity for the decomposed knowledge. One trick we found is to ask the LLM to output a mermaid.js mindmap to hierarchically break down the input into a tree. At the end of that output, ask the LLM to state which level is the appropriate root for a knowledge node.

Then the node is used to generate questions that could be answered from the knowledge contained in this node. We then index the text of these questions and also embed them.

You can directly match the user's query from these questions using purely BM25 and get good outputs. But a hybrid approach works even better, though not by that much.

Not using LLMs are query time also means we can hierarchically walk down the root into deeper and deeper nodes, using the embedding similiarity as a cost function for the traversal.

replies(12): >>42178169 #>>42178206 #>>42178645 #>>42178703 #>>42179361 #>>42179704 #>>42183748 #>>42184367 #>>42185058 #>>42185435 #>>42186316 #>>42193843 #
siquick ◴[] No.42179704[source]
> 1. Lexical search with BM25 alone gives you very relevant results if you can do some work during ingestion time with an LLM

Can you expand on what the LLM work here is and it’s purpose?

> 3. Hypothetical answer generation from a query using an LLM, and then using that hypothetical answer to query for embeddings works really well.

Interesting idea, going to add to our experiments. Thanks.

replies(1): >>42182734 #
andai ◴[] No.42182734[source]
It seems to come down to keyword expansion, though I'd be curious if there's more to it than just asking "please generate relevant keywords".
replies(1): >>42184700 #
sdesol ◴[] No.42184700[source]
Something that I'm working on is making it easy to fix spelling and grammatical errors in documents that can affect BM25 and embeddings. So in addition to generating keyword/metadata with LLM, you could also ask it to clean the document; however, based on what I've learned so far, fixing spelling and grammatical errors should involve humans in the process, so you really can't automate this.
replies(2): >>42185565 #>>42186383 #
1. andai ◴[] No.42186383[source]
Fascinating. I think the process could be automated, though I don't know if it's been invented yet. You would want to use the existing autocomplete tech (probabilistic models based on Levenshtein distance and letter proximity on keyboard?) in combination with actually understanding the context of the article and using that to select the right correction. Actually, it sounds fairly trivial to slap those two together, and the 2nd half sounds like something a humble BERT could handle? (I've heard people getting great results with BERTs in current year, though they usually fine-tune them on their particular domain.)

I actually think even BERT could be overkill here -- I have a half-baked prototype of a keyword expansion system that should do the trick here. The idea is is to construct a data structure of keywords ahead of time (e.g. by data-mining some portion of Common Crawl), where each keyword has "neighbors" -- words that often appear together and (sometimes, but not always) signal relatedness. I didn't take the concept very far yet, but I give it better than even odds! (Especially if the resulting data structure is pruned by a half-decent LLM -- my initial attempts resulted in a lot of questionable "neighbors" -- though I had a fairly small dataset so it's likely I was largely looking at noise.)

replies(1): >>42187734 #
2. sdesol ◴[] No.42187734[source]
> I think the process could be automated

It can definitely be automated in my opinion, if you go with a supermajority workflow. Something that I've noticed with LLMs is it's very unlikely for all high-quality LLM models to be wrong at the same time. So if you go by a supermajority, the changes are almost certainly valid.

Having said all of that, I still believe we are not addressing the root cause of bad searches which is "garbage in, garbage out". I strongly believe the true calling for LLM will be to help us curate and manage data, at scale.