WildGraphBench
GraphRAG systems answer 1,100 questions over long, mixed reference documents behind Wikipedia articles in 12 topics, from single facts to section summaries.
Ground truth comes from citation-linked statements. 41 HF paper upvotes.
- Made by
- USTC and Metastone Technology (DeepResearch Bench team)
- Released
- February 2026
- Kind
- Reasoning over long documents
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
In the authors’ words
Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) organizes external knowledge as a hierarchical graph, enabling efficient retrieval and aggregation of scattered evidence across multiple documents. However, many existing benchmarks for GraphRAG rely on short, curated passages as external knowledge, failing to adequately evaluate systems in realistic settings involving long contexts and large-scale heterogeneous documents. To bridge this gap, we introduce WildGraphBench, a benchmark designed to assess GraphRAG performance in the wild. We leverage Wikipedia's unique structure, where cohesive narratives are grounded in long and heterogeneous external reference documents, to construct a benchmark reflecting real-word scenarios. Specifically, we sample articles across 12 top-level topics, using their external references as the retrieval corpus and citation-linked statements as ground truth, resulting in 1,100 questions spanning three levels of complexity: single-fact QA, multi-fact QA, and section-level summarization. Experiments across multiple baselines reveal that current GraphRAG pipelines help on multi-fact aggregation when evidence comes from a moderate number of sources, but this aggregation paradigm may overemphasize high-level statements at the expense of fine-grained details, leading to weaker performance on summarization tasks. Project page:https://github.com/BstWPY/WildGraphBench.
HippoRAG2 tops the leaderboard with 64.3%
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
- 1 HippoRAG2 64.3%
- 2 NaiveRAG 59.8%
- 3 LightRAG (hybrid) 56.8%
- 4 MS GraphRAG (global) 54.5%
- 5 LinearRAG 44.9%
- 6 MS GraphRAG (local) 38.2%
- 7 BM25 36.8%
- 8 Fast-GraphRAG 33.6%
Source: Official WildGraphBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HippoRAG2 | 64.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | NaiveRAG | 59.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | LightRAG (hybrid) | 56.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | MS GraphRAG (global) | 54.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | LinearRAG | 44.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | MS GraphRAG (local) | 38.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | BM25 | 36.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | Fast-GraphRAG | 33.6% | Official leaderboard |
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Long context
- MRCR v2 In use Multi-round coreference: retrieve the n-th of several similar requests hidden in a long synthetic conversation, up to 1M tokens.
Muse Spark 1.3 98.5%
- LongBench v2 In use 503 multiple-choice questions over 8K-2M-word contexts (QA, dialogue, code repos, structured data). Accuracy.
Inkling 2 Small 70.6%
- GraphWalks In use A graph is given as an edge list in long context. The model answers BFS or parent queries, scored by F1. Claude Fable 5 99.96%
- OpenAI MRCR v2 In use Models read a long synthetic chat that hides 2, 4 or 8 identical writing requests and must reproduce the response to the i-th one. Scored by mean string match ratio per context bin.
Gemini 3.7 Flash 89%
- CL-bench In use Model must learn new knowledge from a supplied long context (rules, procedures, data) and solve tasks. Strict LLM-verified rubrics. GPT-5.4 27.9%
- AA-LCR 1.1 In use Models answer 100 questions that need reasoning across sets of real documents of about 100K tokens. An LLM equality checker with a fixed system prompt compares each answer with the key.
Step 5 Preview 88.3%