A graph retrieval-augmented generation pipeline chooses which triples to put in the prompt, a syntax to write them in, an order to write them in, and a sentence telling the model what to do with them. We vary all four over six large language models and two knowledge-graph question answering benchmarks. Two of the four choices move the answer and the other two are flat. The first is whether the answer path, the triples needed to reach the answer, is in the prompt at all. Holding the number of triples fixed and replacing every triple that is not on the chain with material from an unrelated entity changes answer accuracy by +0.003 F1, while removing the chain costs most of what the graph was worth. Retrieval budget belongs on recall, and precision in the range we can test buys nothing. There is no retriever here: subgraphs come from gold SPARQL, so precision describes the context we build, not a system setting. The second is the grounding instruction. With no facts in the prompt, telling a model to answer using only the provided facts drops F1 from 0.299 to 0.035, a factor of 8.63. That figure describes an evaluation with an empty context arm rather than a working pipeline, and an experiment that applies the instruction to its context arm but not to its no-context baseline manufactures a spurious finding that graph context hurts at depth. We found one in our own results and retract it. Syntax, triple order and subgraph size produce no effect we can measure at multi-hop depth. The comparison that would price the grounding instruction against correct context is not measurable with a format-sensitive scorer, because the instruction determines the response format; we report it as an open contrast rather than a number.

翻译：暂无翻译