A Storage-Retrieval Gap in Parametric Knowledge Graph Memory
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Graph retrieval-augmented generation places retrieved subgraphs into the model's context window at query time, paying a recurring token cost and exposing source data on every call. We study an alternative: compiling a knowledge graph offline into a bank of LoRA adapters, one per entity, that serve as a parametric knowledge layer queried by injecting weights rather than text, at zero query-time context cost. On the MetaQA dataset, we find that subgraph-trained adapters encode context-free factual knowledge that generalizes to unseen questions: on single-valued relations the adapter gains $+0.243$ exact-match score over a base model that is nearly blind closed-book ($0.007$), and only the correct adapter recovers this knowledge (an oracle gap of $+0.283$ over the base model). However, the stored knowledge is not recoverable by similarity: given a query with no subgraph, embedding-based and weight-space geometry retrieval both perform at chance, because a semantically neighbouring entity's adapter does not contain the answer - knowledge is stored locally and does not transfer. Weight geometry correlates with subgraph semantics ($ρ= +0.329$) but not with functional retrievability. We quantify the byte and context-token costs against graph retrieval-augmented generation and discuss deployment implications. Our results establish that parametric knowledge graph memory is feasible for storing knowledge, and identify selecting and composing the right adapters by a mechanism other than semantic similarity as the central open problem - motivating a learned, query-conditioned composition mechanism.
Results and benchmarks
Graph retrieval-augmented generation places retrieved subgraphs into the model's context window at query time, paying a recurring token cost and exposing source data on every call.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: LoRA / Parameter-efficient tuning.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing
Methods
LoRA / Parameter-efficient tuning
Domains
Information Retrieval
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.