CalSync โ€” Automate Outlook Calendar Colors

Auto-color-code events for your team using rules. Faster visibility, less admin. 10-user minimum ยท 12-month term.

CalSync Colors is a service by CPI Consulting

This article “GraphRAG Explained” will explain what is GraphRAG and how incorporated with LLM.

What is GraphRAG?

Graph-Based Retrieval Augmented Generation is a way to supercharge Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) by storing your knowledge as a graph and retrieving context via relationshipsโ€”not just text similarity. Instead of pulling a few semantically similar chunks, GraphRAG traverses nodes and edges (people, products, events, their connections) to assemble a precise, multi-hop context for a large language model (LLM).

At a high level, GraphRAG blends two strengths: graphs capture structure and provenance, while LLMs generate fluent, task-aware responses. The result is a system that answers complex questions (why, how, what-if) with better grounding, transparency, and control than flat vector search alone.

GraphRAG Explained

Why graphs help RAG

Traditional RAG treats knowledge as independent chunks. That works for FAQs or one-hop lookups. But many enterprise questions require stitching facts across sources: โ€œWho approved the change that caused last weekโ€™s outage?โ€ or โ€œWhich suppliers indirectly depend on Vendor X?โ€ A graph naturally models entities and relationships so you can:

  • Retrieve by structure: follow edges across systems, time, and teams.
  • Do multi-hop reasoning: chain facts without brute-forcing huge context windows.
  • Preserve provenance: every node/edge can point to the exact source passage.
  • Reduce duplication: unify entities, normalize synonyms, and de-duplicate facts.
  • Explain answers: show paths and citations, not just paragraphs.

Architecture at a glance

  1. Ingest: Collect documents, tables, tickets, code, logs.
  2. Extract: Use LLMs and rules to identify entities, attributes, and relations; create triples or structured records.
  3. Build the graph: Upsert nodes/edges in a graph store; attach provenance and metadata.
  4. Index: Create hybrid indexes: graph indexes (labels, properties), text/keyword, and vector embeddings.
  5. Summarize: Generate concise node summaries and community-level summaries for scalable retrieval.
  6. Plan queries: Classify intent; generate Cypher/Gremlin queries; combine with vector search if needed.
  7. Retrieve subgraph: Pull relevant nodes, paths, and supporting passages.
  8. Construct context: Assemble citations and summaries into a compact prompt.
  9. Generate: Ask the LLM to answer using only provided context; include paths/citations.
  10. Evaluate & improve: Track accuracy, groundedness, path correctness, and cost/latency.

When to use GraphRAG (and when not)

  • Great fit: cross-document analysis (incidents, audits), investigations (fraud, supply chain risk), research (biomed, legal), software and architecture Q&A, codebase and dependency queries, enterprise knowledge consolidation.
  • Overkill: simple FAQ, short-lived contexts, or domains with minimal relationships.
  • Costs: upfront schema design, extraction pipelines, and operations; LLM calls for extraction and query planning; graph storage.

Data modeling essentials

Start small and evolve. Define:

  • Node labels: e.g., Person, System, Service, Document, Incident, Vendor.
  • Edge types: e.g., OWNS, DEPENDS_ON, REPORTED, CAUSED, MENTIONS, CITES.
  • Properties: name, ids, timestamps, categories, confidence scores.
  • Provenance: source_id, passage_offset, url, revision.
  • Versioning: updated_at, valid_from/valid_to; soft-delete with flags.

Indexing pipeline (LLM-assisted extraction)

Use an LLM to turn unstructured text into nodes and edges. Validate with schemas and confidence thresholds before writing to the graph.

Notes:

  • Constrain outputs with schemas and validators; reject low-confidence edges.
  • Deduplicate using canonical keys and alias tables.
  • Summarize nodes and communities to keep context compact.

Query pipeline (hybrid structural + semantic)

At query time, classify the question, plan a graph query, retrieve supporting passages, and then generate the answer.

# Pseudocode for a GraphRAG query

def plan_graph_query(question: str) -> str:
    system = "You translate questions into Cypher over our schema."
    schema_hint = "Nodes: Service, Incident, Vendor; Rels: DEPENDS_ON, CAUSED, SUPPLIES"
    user = f"Question: {question}\nReturn only Cypher. {schema_hint}"
    cypher = llm_complete(system=system, user=user)
    return cypher.strip()


def retrieve_context(question: str):
    cypher = plan_graph_query(question)
    subgraph = neo4j.run(cypher)  # nodes, edges, properties

    # Also pull relevant passages via vector or keyword search
    passages = vector_store.search(question, top_k=10)

    # Build concise context with citations
    context = build_context(subgraph, passages)
    return context, cypher


def answer_with_grounding(question: str):
    context, cypher = retrieve_context(question)
    system = "Answer only from the provided context. Cite node keys and passage ids."
    user = f"Question: {question}\nContext:\n{context}\n" 
    answer = llm_complete(system=system, user=user)
    return {"answer": answer, "cypher": cypher, "context": context}

# Example
result = answer_with_grounding("Which services indirectly depend on Vendor X and were affected by Incident-42?")
print(result["answer"])  # includes citations and graph paths

Example Cypher patterns

// Multi-hop dependency (up to 3 levels)
MATCH (v:Vendor {name:$vendor})<-[:SUPPLIES*1..3]-(s:Service)
RETURN DISTINCT s.name

// Root-cause chain with time window
MATCH (i:Incident {id:$id})-[:CAUSED]->(s:Service)-[:DEPENDS_ON*1..2]->(d:Service)
WHERE i.started_at > datetime() - duration('P30D')
RETURN i, s, d

// Retrieve provenance for an edge
MATCH (a)-[r:DEPENDS_ON]->(b)
RETURN a.key, b.key, r.source_id, r.evidence

Community summaries (scaling trick)

A practical GraphRAG technique is community-level summarization. Detect clusters (e.g., services that co-change or co-occur), then summarize each cluster once. At query time, retrieve a few summaries first; only expand into detailed nodes if needed. This reduces tokens and latency while preserving coverage.

Evaluation and quality

  • Answer correctness: human or programmatic grading against gold labels.
  • Groundedness: is every claim supported by provided nodes/passages?
  • Path correctness: does the cited graph path logically support the claim?
  • Coverage/Recall: fraction of necessary nodes/edges retrieved.
  • Latency: ingestion, planning, retrieval, and generation breakdown.
  • Cost: per query token spend and ingestion cost.

Automate with synthetic question generation over your graph, assert path and citation presence, and measure drift after updates.

Performance and cost tips

  • Cache query plans and subgraphs for recurring questions.
  • Use community summaries and node summaries to shrink prompts.
  • Limit traversal depth; prefer k-shortest paths or weighted walks.
  • Hybrid retrieval: combine graph constraints with vector re-ranking.
  • Enforce budgets: max nodes/edges, max tokens, and early stopping.
  • Incremental updates: stream changes, avoid full re-extraction.
  • Store confidence scores and filter low-quality edges at query time.

Tooling choices

  • Graph stores: Neo4j, Memgraph, TigerGraph, Amazon Neptune, ArangoDB. Choose based on query language, scale, and ops maturity.
  • Frameworks: LangChain and LlamaIndex include graph and knowledge-graph RAG modules; some projects provide ready-made GraphRAG pipelines with community summaries and reporting.
  • Embeddings: Use modern embedding models for passages and graph elements; store in a vector DB or in the graph as properties.
  • Pipelines: Orchestrate with your favorite scheduler; enforce schema validation and retries.

Security, governance, and trust

  • Apply row-/edge-level security: filter nodes and edges per user at query time.
  • Mask PII and sensitive attributes; log accesses for audits.
  • Track provenance per node/edge; show citations in answers by default.
  • Control drift: monitor changes in extraction quality and schema usage.

Common pitfalls

  • Over-extraction: Too many low-confidence edges bloat the graph. Enforce thresholds and human review for critical domains.
  • Schema churn: Frequent label/property changes break prompts and queries. Version your schema and prompts.
  • Unbounded traversals: Depth-unlimited queries explode token usage. Cap depth and fan-out.
  • Context sprawl: Raw passages plus subgraphs can exceed limits. Summarize aggressively and re-rank.
  • Opaque answers: Always include paths and citations; hide them only in UI if necessary.

A minimal checklist to get started

  1. Pick a sharp use case (e.g., incident root cause, supplier risk).
  2. Define a small schema and provenance policy.
  3. Build an extraction prompt with validation; process 100โ€“500 docs.
  4. Upsert into a graph DB; create basic indexes and embeddings.
  5. Implement query planning (LLM-to-Cypher) with a handful of patterns.
  6. Add community and node summaries; enforce budgets and citations.
  7. Evaluate on a test set; iterate on schema, prompts, and ranking.
  8. Productionize with monitoring, ACLs, and cost controls.

Bottom line

GraphRAG elevates RAG from โ€œfind similar textโ€ to โ€œretrieve the right structured evidence.โ€ If your domain is relational and your questions are multi-hop, a graph-first index can improve accuracy, explainability, and efficiency. Start small: define a schema, extract reliable edges, and wire a simple query planner. You can expand to community summaries and hybrid retrieval once the core loop is working. The payoff is a system that answers the questions your organization actually asksโ€”grounded, traceable, and fast enough to trust.


Discover more from CPI Consulting -Specialist Azure Consultancy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.