arXiv:2608.21610cs.AI2026-08

用分层语义残差构建高效检索树,减少上下文开销。

Semantic Compression Trees: Multi-Resolution Knowledge Retrieval via Hierarchical Semantic Residuals

  • 节点仅存与父节点的语义差异,按层级逐步下探检索
  • 相比密集检索,用30%更少的上下文达到相同准确率(F1=0.274)
  • 适合追求低延迟、低计算成本的部署场景

检索增强生成通常依赖于扁平且固定粒度的索引:文档被均匀切分并按相似性检索,忽略了原始结构的层次性。本文提出语义压缩树(SCT),一种分层索引结构,每个节点仅存储其相对于父节点的语义残差,检索通过从根节点逐层下行完成,使每次查询成本由树深度决定而非数据量。在包含50篇论文、173个问题的QASPER基准上评估,两种协议仅在是否提供相关文档上不同,全程使用置信区间和配对显著性检验。结果混合:当文档已知时,使用零大模型提取压缩器的SCT在答案质量上与密集检索相当(F1=0.274 vs. 0.277,p=0.37),上下文令牌减少30%,构建索引无需任何LLM调用;残差存储优于存储完整摘要(F1=0.274 vs. 0.205,p<0.001)。当数据量扩大50倍,扁平检索的每查询评分工作量增加48.9倍,而SCT仅增加6.4倍。但逐级下行本身未获支持:若不依赖树结构直接检索相同残差,在文档已知时性能一致(p=0.27),而在需自主选文档时表现显著更差(F1=0.122 vs. 0.165,p<0.001)。路由准确率分析显示,下行选择正确论文的概率仅为20.2%,远低于扁平检索的39.3%,因决策基于最压缩的根节点残差。结论是保留残差表示有价值,但自顶向下路由不可靠。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Retrieval-augmented generation relies mostly on flat, fixed-granularity indexes: documents are cut into uniform chunks and retrieved by similarity, discarding the hierarchical structure of the source. We introduce Semantic Compression Trees (SCT), a hierarchical index in which each node stores only its semantic residual -- the information it adds beyond its parent -- and retrieval proceeds by progressive descent from the root, so that per-query cost is governed by tree depth rather than collection size. We evaluate on QASPER (50 papers, 173 questions) under two protocols differing only in whether the benchmark supplies the relevant document, with bootstrap confidence intervals and paired significance tests throughout. The results are mixed and we report them as such. When the document is given, SCT with a zero-LLM extractive compressor matches dense retrieval on answer quality (0.274 vs. 0.277 F1, $p = 0.37$) using 30% fewer context tokens and no LLM calls to build the index, and residual storage beats storing full summaries at each node (0.274 vs. 0.205, $p < 0.001$). Increasing the collection fifty-fold multiplies flat retrieval's per-query scoring work by 48.9x and SCT's by 6.4x. Progressive descent itself is not supported. Retrieving the same residuals without the tree performs identically when the document is given ($p = 0.27$), and descent is substantially worse when the system must select the document (0.122 vs. 0.165, $p < 0.001$). Routing accuracy localises the cause: descent selects the correct paper 20.2% of the time against 39.3% for flat retrieval, because that choice is made from the root residual, the most compressed node in the tree. We conclude that the residual representation is worth keeping and top-down routing is not.

检索增强分层索引语义压缩知识检索

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。