Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Ontology-grounded Automatic Knowledge Graph Construction by LLM under Wikidata schema

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that grounding an LLM's knowledge-graph construction in a Wikidata-aligned ontology, authored by the model itself from competency questions, produces KGs that beat fine-tuned baselines on Wiki-NRE and SciERC while…

desk verdict Plausible pipeline, but the headline comparison is confounded by schema provisioning; needs a controlled baseline and error bars before the core claim is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20942 v1 pith:ARWPRIEK submitted 2024-12-30 cs.AI cs.IR

Xiaohan Feng , Xixin Wu , Helen Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.IR
keywords KnowledgeGraphConstructionOntologyGroundingWikidataSchemaCompetencyQuestionsLargeLanguageModelsRelationExtractionInterpretableAIRDF
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that a large language model can build high-quality knowledge graphs by first authoring its own ontology from competency questions, aligning that ontology to Wikidata properties, and then grounding all triple generation on that ontology. The claim is that this grounding, rather than larger models or fine-tuning, is what makes the output consistent, interpretable, and competitive with specialized extractors. On the Wiki-NRE and SciERC benchmarks the constrained pipeline exceeds both fine-tuned baselines and earlier LLM baselines, while staying competitive on WebNLG. The authors also argue that the resulting Wikidata-conformant RDF triples are directly usable downstream and auditable, which they present as a path toward interpretable question answering over proprietary document sets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the authored ontology, a set of Wikidata-aligned properties derived from competency questions. The pipeline runs four stages: (1) an LLM writes up to three competency questions per document and answers them using only the document; (2) a relation-extraction prompt turns the questions into candidate properties with usage descriptions, and a sentence-embedding search against a pre-filtered Wikidata property list retrieves the top candidate, which a second LLM vetting step accepts or rejects; (3) the accepted properties are formatted into an OWL ontology, copying Wikidata descriptions, domains and ranges for matched properties; (4) the KG generation prompt is restricted to this ontology only. The ontology is what converts open-ended triple extraction into a constrained generation task and gives the output a Wikidata-compatible semantics.

What would settle it

Measure recall against the full gold standard rather than only the target-schema triples: run the pipeline on the full Wiki-NRE or SciERC test sets and compare the complete set of generated triples (or the set of facts in the document) against all gold triples for those documents. If the recall of the target-schema triples is high but overall document-level recall is low, then the competency-question step is the bottleneck; a stronger test would be to have human experts list all relations in a sample of documents and count how many of them the generated competency questions cover.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ontology grounding—not scale or fine-tuning—is what enables an LLM to construct competitive knowledge graphs in a schema-constrained setting. The pipeline first asks the LLM to write competency questions from each document, extracts candidate relations from those questions, and matches each candidate to a Wikidata property via embedding similarity followed by an LLM veto. The accepted properties are formatted into an OWL ontology, and the KG generation step is forbidden from using any property outside that ontology. With a 7-billion-parameter instruction-tuned model this achieves partial F1 of 0.66 and 0.73 on Wiki-NRE and SciERC, and 0.71 and 0.77 with a stronger proprietary model, beating the non-LLM baselines (0.484 and 0.532) and the LLM baselines (0.647 and 0.07) under the target-schema constraint. Without the constraint, scores drop to 0.60 and 0.58, which the paper explains by the model discovering a richer ontology than the test annotations cover.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that the generated competency questions, capped at three per document in the experiments, surface every fact that ought to be in the knowledge graph, so any fact not elicited by a question is absent from the final KG.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pipeline produces KGs that parse as RDF triples, so they can be consumed by standard RDF tools without bespoke post-processing.
  • The target-schema-constrained configuration matches or beats fine-tuned extractors on Wiki-NRE and SciERC, suggesting zero-shot LLM construction can be competitive without task-specific training.
  • Grounding on Wikidata properties gives the output a path to interoperability, allowing the KG to be merged with or audited against Wikidata.
  • Users can submit new competency questions to expand the ontology incrementally, providing a human-in-the-loop way to refine schema scope.
  • The no-schema-constraint configuration trades a small F1 drop for broader ontology coverage, which the paper positions as useful when mining documents of unknown schema.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the final KG is built only from (CQ, answer) pairs, the method's completeness is bounded by the competency-question generation step; increasing the number of questions per document or generating them hierarchically could raise recall but would also raise inference cost, so the pipeline's advantage may shrink as documents grow.
  • The ontology-matching step inherits the weaknesses of embedding similarity: relations that are semantically close but structurally different in Wikidata, such as inverse properties or subproperties, may be missed or conflated even with the LLM veto, so a validation pass against a gold property list would quantify this risk.
  • A testable extension is to compare the coverage of generated competency questions against a fixed set of expert-authored questions per domain; this would isolate whether the CQ stage or the later triple-extraction stage is the true recall bottleneck.
  • The claimed interpretability rests on the ontology being small enough to audit; as the property list grows, the interpretability advantage over black-box extraction may weaken.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an ontology-grounded LLM pipeline for knowledge graph construction. The pipeline first generates competency questions (CQs) from input documents and answers them, then extracts relations from the CQs, matches those relations to Wikidata properties via embedding similarity plus an LLM vetting step, formats the result as an OWL ontology, and finally constructs RDF triples from the (CQ, answer) pairs constrained by that ontology. Experiments on Wiki-NRE, SciERC, and WebNLG report partial F1 scores, with the best scores obtained under a 'target schema constrained' setting in which the ontology is restricted to the relation universe of the test set. The paper claims that the proposed approach exceeds all baselines on Wiki-NRE and SciERC under that setting and remains competitive on WebNLG, while the 'no schema constraint' setting yields lower scores but captures ontology beyond the test schema.

Significance. If the central claim were cleanly supported, the contribution would be valuable: a zero-shot, fine-tuning-free KG construction pipeline that produces Wikidata-interoperable OWL ontologies and RDF output, with a natural interpretability story via competency questions. The paper also has concrete strengths: it evaluates on three datasets, includes a 7B open model and a frontier model, ships prompts in the appendix, and uses RDF parsing for its own output. However, the evaluation as presented is confounded by schema provisioning. The headline comparison gives the proposed method the gold relation universe while LLM baselines are cited from prior work and are not given the same schema, so the reported gains cannot be attributed to the ontology-grounded pipeline rather than to providing the answer key. The no-schema setting is more honest but underperforms fine-tuned baselines, and the paper does not measure recall against full document content. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim and require substantial experimental rework.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1] The target-schema-constrained setting is confounded. The authors state that in this setting they 'match all relation types in test sets to its closest equivalent in Wikidata and constrict ontology to the relation universe in test set.' Thus the proposed pipeline is given the gold relation inventory during ontology construction, while the LLM baselines from [19] and [3] are taken from prior work with no evidence that those prompts included the target schema. The headline result in Section 4.2 ('exceeds all baseline under target schema constrained setting on Wiki-NRE and SciERC') may therefore reflect schema provisioning rather than the ontology-grounded pipeline. This is the crux of the paper's claim, because the constrained setting is the only one where the method beats all baselines. I request a controlled comparison where a direct LLM baseline is given the same relation universe (or the same ontology) and the same RDF-parsing postprocessing, plus an ablation that removes the schema constraint while keeping all other components identical.
  2. [Table 1, Section 4.1 (SciERC)] The SciERC LLM baseline of 0.07 is implausibly low relative to the proposed method's 0.73, and the paper itself notes it is 'highly unlikely that Mistral-7B poses an advantage over an earlier version of GPT-4' when interpreting this result. This gap strongly suggests that the baseline was not given the target relation labels or was evaluated without comparable output postprocessing. Please verify the baseline prompt setup, the triple extraction/parsing procedure, and the exact evaluation script used for the baseline. Without this, the SciERC comparison is not interpretable.
  3. [Sections 3.1, 3.4, and 4.1 (no-schema setting)] The no-schema constraint setting is described as 'close to real-life applications when processing documents with unknown schema,' but this is also the setting that corresponds to the paper's stated goal of autonomous ontology discovery. In this setting, Mistral scores 0.60/0.58/0.68 on Wiki-NRE/SciERC/WebNLG, below the fine-tuned baselines. The paper should either reposition its central claim around the honest setting or provide additional analysis (e.g., precision/recall breakdown, oracle upper bounds) to show that the lower F1 is acceptable given the expanded ontology. In addition, because the final KG is built only from (CQ, answer) pairs (Sections 3.1 and 3.4), any fact not surfaced by a generated CQ is absent; recall against the full document content is never measured. This is a completeness limitation that should be quantified.
  4. [Section 4.1 (SciERC property selection)] The statement 'For property conjunction, evaluate for, compare, feature of in SciERC, we select the closest properties proposed by LLM based on our subjective opinion' introduces manual, subjective alignment of the generated ontology to the gold schema. This is a form of supervision toward the test labels and directly affects the SciERC result. It should be reported as a free parameter, and ideally replaced with an automatic selection rule (or at least the manual choices should be documented and the sensitivity of the results to alternative choices reported).
  5. [Section 4.1 (experimental protocol)] All experiments are reported as a single run with no error bars, no standard deviations, and no significance tests. The differences between the proposed method and some baselines are small (e.g., Wiki-NRE 0.66 vs. 0.647; WebNLG 0.74 vs. 0.728), so it is not clear that these differences are meaningful without variance estimates. Please report multiple runs (or bootstrap/confidence intervals) and, where feasible, use the same evaluation script for all systems.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2] Typographical errors: 'As mentiond in Introduction' should be 'As mentioned in Introduction'; 'canocalization' should be 'canonicalization'; 'grouding' should be 'grounding'.
  2. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'constrict ontology' should be 'constrain ontology'.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Our proposed approach exceeds all baseline under target schema constrained setting on Wiki-NRE and SciERC datasets' is imprecise because Table 1 shows that on WebNLG the proposed method (0.74) does not exceed the fine-tuned baseline (0.767). Please clarify the claim to match the table.
  4. [Appendix A] The note that the official WebNLG annotation only contains place-of-birth and nationality triples for the sample document is useful, but it appears only in an appendix and only for one example. Please move this caveat into the main evaluation section and clarify how the partial F1 scoring handles such cases across the dataset.
  5. [Appendix C] The prompt in C.3 contains a duplicated phrase ('all relationships and concepts concepts mentioned'), and the prompt in C.5 has 'clousre' instead of 'closure'. These should be fixed.
  6. [Appendix C] The paper states 'All prompts are reused across all datasets,' but the ontology used in the KG-generation prompt necessarily differs between the constrained and unconstrained settings. Please clarify which parts are held fixed and which vary.
  7. [References] Reference [14] is cited as 'AutoKG' in the text but the bibliography entry title is 'AutoKG: Efficient Automated Knowledge Graph Generation for Language Models', which is a different work from reference [13] (also titled 'AutoKG'). Please disambiguate these citations and ensure the correct reference is cited in Section 4.3.3.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline target-schema-constrained result is partly circular: the ontology is constricted to the test-set relation universe and the KG prompt forbids other properties, so the relation-label space is supplied by the evaluation set; SciERC property matches are also hand-selected.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 (Experiment settings) and Appendix C.6 (KG generation prompt)]
    "Target schema constrained: In this setting, we match all relation types in test sets to its closest equivalent in Wikidata and constrict ontology to the relation universe in test set. ... Do not include new properties other than those in ontology. Only use those properties in the ontology."

    The grounding ontology is constructed from the test set's relation inventory, and the KG-generation prompt permits only properties from that ontology. Consequently, every evaluated output relation must belong to the gold relation universe, so the partial-F1 score measures a decoder whose label space was provided by the test set rather than autonomously discovered. The paper's own no-schema setting scores lower (0.60/0.58/0.68), confirming that the headline 'exceeds all baseline under target schema constrained setting' is attributable in substantial part to test-schema provisioning by construction, although correct subject/object assignment is still not guaranteed.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Experiment settings)]
    "For property conjunction, evaluate for, compare, feature of in SciERC, we select the closest properties proposed by LLM based on our subjective opinion."

    For three SciERC gold relations, the paper substitutes the pipeline's automated ontology matching with the authors' own hand-picked correspondence after seeing the gold schema. This post hoc selection aligns the proposed Wikidata properties to the gold relation labels, so the SciERC constrained score (0.73/0.77) partly reflects manual schema tuning rather than the autonomous ontology-grounded pipeline. The triple extraction itself remains nontrivial, but the relation-matching component of the reported F1 is fit to the evaluation labels.

full rationale

The paper has a genuinely autonomous configuration: the no-schema constraint results (0.60 Wiki-NRE, 0.58 SciERC, 0.68 WebNLG for Mistral) are produced without giving the pipeline the test-set relation universe, and they show the pipeline has real independent content. However, the headline comparison in Section 4.2 is made in the target-schema-constrained setting, where Section 4.1 states the ontology is constricted to the test set's relation universe and Appendix C.6 instructs the generator to use only ontology properties. This makes the output relation-label space coincide with the gold relation labels by construction, so the win over baselines is partly an artifact of test-schema provisioning. The SciERC hand-selection of property matches for three gold relations is a further post hoc alignment of the ontology to the evaluation labels. These are not full closed loops: the LLM still must extract correct entities and choose the right relation instance, and the no-schema results demonstrate some transferable ability. But the central claim that the ontology-grounded pipeline 'exceeds all baseline' rests on a setting that leaks the target relation schema, so the evidence is partially circular. Score 6 rather than 8 because the no-schema setting provides independent evidence and the correct-triple extraction is not forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unvalidated modeling assumptions: the LLM-generated CQs and answers define the complete knowledge scope, embedding-based top-1 retrieval plus LLM vetting correctly maps relations to Wikidata properties, and the evaluation protocol (partial F1 on triplets, one-pass) is a faithful measure of KG quality. No new physical entities are introduced; the newly minted properties in expansion mode are unvalidated schema entries.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of CQs per document = 3
    Chosen for efficiency; affects knowledge coverage of the KG; not tuned.
  • Top-1 candidate retrieval in ontology matching = 1
    The nearest Wikidata property by embedding similarity is always selected; no threshold or re-ranking beyond LLM vetting; could propagate mismatches.
  • Embedding model for property descriptions = bge-small-en
    Choice of sentence encoder affects retrieval quality; only one model tested.
  • Wikidata datatype filter = item, quantity, string, monolingual text, point in time
    Excludes some Wikidata property types to reduce context size; may exclude relevant properties.
  • Manual property matches for SciERC = evaluate for, compare, feature of
    Authors selected closest properties 'based on our subjective opinion' for three SciERC relation types; this is a hand-engineered choice affecting reported SciERC F1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM-generated CQs are representative of the document's knowledge scope.
    The pipeline relies on CQs to scope the KG; if they miss topics, triples are missing (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Wikidata property descriptions are sufficient for semantic matching of domain-specific relations.
    The pipeline matches extracted relations to Wikidata properties using embedding similarity over descriptions; if the domain contains relations not covered by Wikidata, the match is incorrect or new properties must be created (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption LLM answers to CQs are faithful to the document and do not hallucinate.
    The CQ-answer pairs are the sole source of KG triples; the prompt instructs the model not to make up answers, but there is no verification against the document (Sections 3.1 and 3.4).
  • domain assumption Partial F1 computed on triplets is a valid measure of KG quality.
    Evaluation uses partial F1 following [18], which may not penalize incomplete or semantically equivalent triples; the paper notes gold annotations may be incomplete (Section 4.1).
invented entities (1)
  • LLM-minted properties (when expansion is allowed)
    purpose: Extend the ontology when extracted relations have no Wikidata equivalent.
    No independent evidence is provided that these new properties correspond to real-world semantics; they are generated by the LLM and are not validated against any external ontology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ontology-grounded Automatic Knowledge Graph Construction by LLM under Wikidata schema." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ARWPRIEK

@misc{pith2026241220942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ontology-grounded Automatic Knowledge Graph Construction by LLM under Wikidata schema},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ARWPRIEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20942}
}
read the original abstract

We propose an ontology-grounded approach to Knowledge Graph (KG) construction using Large Language Models (LLMs) on a knowledge base. An ontology is authored by generating Competency Questions (CQ) on knowledge base to discover knowledge scope, extracting relations from CQs, and attempt to replace equivalent relations by their counterpart in Wikidata. To ensure consistency and interpretability in the resulting KG, we ground generation of KG with the authored ontology based on extracted relations. Evaluation on benchmark datasets demonstrates competitive performance in knowledge graph construction task. Our work presents a promising direction for scalable KG construction pipeline with minimal human intervention, that yields high quality and human-interpretable KGs, which are interoperable with Wikidata semantics for potential knowledge base expansion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20942 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of proposed approach. In this work, we propose a novel approach that harnesses the reasoning power of LLMs and the structured schema of Wikidata to construct high-quality KGs for proprietary knowledge domains. Our approach begins by discovering the scope of knowledge through the generation of Competency Questions (CQ) and answers from unstructured documents. We then summarize the relations and prop￾erties … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Survey on Evaluating Quality and Trustworthiness in LLM-Generated Data

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A metric-oriented survey that classifies intrinsic quality and trustworthiness metrics for LLM-generated data across six modalities and documents systematic evaluation gaps in the current literature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    Zhang, H

    B. Zhang, H. Soh, Extract, Define, Canonicalize: An LLM-based Framework for Knowledge Graph Construction, 2024. arXiv:2404.03868

    arXiv 2024

  2. [3]

    Y. Zhu, X. Wang, J. Chen, S. Qiao, Y. Ou, Y. Yao, S. Deng, H. Chen, N. Zhang, LLMs for Knowledge Graph Construction and Reasoning: Recent Capabilities and Future Opportu- nities, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.13168. arXiv:2305.13168

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.13168 2024

  3. [1]

    Hogan, E

    A. Hogan, E. Blomqvist, M. Cochez, C. D’amato, G. D. Melo, C. Gutierrez, S. Kirrane, J. E. L. Gayo, R. Navigli, S. Neumaier, A.-C. N. Ngomo, A. Polleres, S. M. Rashid, A. Rula, L. Schmelzeisen, J. Sequeda, S. Staab, A. Zimmermann, Knowledge graphs, ACM Comput. Surv. 54 (2021). URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3447772. doi:10.1145/3447772

    doi:10.1145/3447772 2021

  4. [2]

    S. Ji, S. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, P. S. Yu, A survey on knowledge graphs: Represen- tation, acquisition, and applications, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 33 (2020) 494–514. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:211010433

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Petroni, T

    F. Petroni, T. Rocktäschel, P. Lewis, A. Bakhtin, Y. Wu, A. H. Miller, S. Riedel, Language models as knowledge bases?, in: Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2019. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:202539551

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Achiam, S

    OpenAI, J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, R. Avila, I. Babuschkin, S. Balaji, V. Balcom, P. Baltescu, H. Bao, M. Bavarian, J. Belgum, I. Bello, J. Berdine, G. Bernadett-Shapiro, C. Berner, L. Bogdonoff, O. Boiko, M. Boyd, A.-L. Brakman, G. Brockman, T. Brooks, M. Brundag...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Agrawal, T

    G. Agrawal, T. Kumarage, Z. Alghamdi, H. Liu, Can Knowledge Graphs Reduce Hallucinations in LLMs? : A Survey, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.07914. arXiv:2311.07914

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.07914 2024

  8. [7]

    Agichtein, L

    E. Agichtein, L. Gravano, Snowball: extracting relations from large plain-text collections, in: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, DL ’00, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2000, p. 85–94. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 336597.336644. doi:10.1145/336597.336644

    arXiv

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Zhang, V

    Y. Zhang, V. Zhong, D. Chen, G. Angeli, C. D. Manning, Position-aware attention and supervised data improve slot filling, in: M. Palmer, R. Hwa, S. Riedel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computatio...

    2017 doi

  2. [9]

    Mintz, S

    M. Mintz, S. Bills, R. Snow, D. Jurafsky, Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data, in: K.-Y. Su, J. Su, J. Wiebe, H. Li (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natu...

    2009

  3. [10]

    X. L. Dong, E. Gabrilovich, G. Heitz, W. Horn, N. Lao, K. Murphy, T. Strohmann, S. Sun, W. Zhang, Knowledge vault: A web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion, in: The 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’14, New York...

    2014

  4. [11]

    Bosselut, H

    A. Bosselut, H. Rashkin, M. Sap, C. Malaviya, A. Celikyilmaz, Y. Choi, COMET: Com- monsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction, in: A. Korhonen, D. Traum, L. Màrquez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2019 doi

  5. [12]

    Y. Chen, Y. Liu, L. Dong, S. Wang, C. Zhu, M. Zeng, Y. Zhang, AdaPrompt: Adap- tive model training for prompt-based NLP, in: Y. Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, Y. Zhang (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Associ- ation for Computational Lingui...

    2022

  6. [13]

    S. Yu, T. He, J. Glass, AutoKG: Constructing Virtual Knowledge Graphs from Unstruc- tured Documents for Question Answering, 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2008.08995. arXiv:2008.08995

    2021 doi arXiv

  7. [14]

    B. Chen, A. L. Bertozzi, AutoKG: Efficient Automated Knowledge Graph Generation for Language Models, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.14740. arXiv:2311.14740

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [15]

    S. J. Semnani, V. Z. Yao, H. C. Zhang, M. S. Lam, WikiChat: Stopping the Hallucina- tion of Large Language Model Chatbots by Few-Shot Grounding on Wikipedia, 2023. arXiv:2305.14292

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    B. D. Trisedya, G. Weikum, J. Qi, R. Zhang, Neural relation extraction for knowledge base enrichment, in: A. Korhonen, D. Traum, L. Màrquez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2019 doi

  10. [17]

    Y. Luan, L. He, M. Ostendorf, H. Hajishirzi, Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreferencefor scientific knowledge graph construction, in: Proc. Conf. Empirical Methods Natural Language Process. (EMNLP), 2018

    2018

  11. [18]

    Castro Ferreira, C

    T. Castro Ferreira, C. Gardent, N. Ilinykh, C. van der Lee, S. Mille, D. Moussallem, A. Shi- morina, The 2020 bilingual, bi-directional WebNLG+ shared task: Overview and evalua- tion results (WebNLG+ 2020), in: T. Castro Ferreira, C. Gardent, N. Ilinykh, C. van der Lee, S. Mil...

    2020

  12. [20]

    R. Han, T. Peng, C. Yang, B. Wang, L. Liu, X. Wan, Is information extraction solved by chatgpt? an analysis of performance, evaluation criteria, robustness and errors, 2023. arXiv:2305.14450

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. de las Casas, F. Bres- sand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, L. R. Lavaud, M.-A. Lachaux, P. Stock, T. L. Scao, T. Lavril, T. Wang, T. Lacroix, W. E. Sayed, Mistral 7b, 2023.arXiv:2310.06825

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. Chen, S. Xiao, P. Zhang, K. Luo, D. Lian, Z. Liu, Bge m3-embedding: Multi-lingual, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation,

  15. [23]

    Josifoski, N

    M. Josifoski, N. De Cao, M. Peyrard, F. Petroni, R. West, GenIE: Generative information extraction, in: M. Carpuat, M.-C. de Marneffe, I. V. Meza Ruiz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hum...

    2022

  16. [24]

    D. Ye, Y. Lin, P. Li, M. Sun, Packed levitated marker for entity and relation extraction, in: S. Muresan, P. Nakov, A. Villavicencio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Association for Computa...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Dognin, I

    P. Dognin, I. Padhi, I. Melnyk, P. Das, ReGen: Reinforcement learning for text and knowledge base generation using pretrained language models, in: M.-F. Moens, X. Huang, L. Specia, S. W.-t. Yih (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    T. Li, G. Zhang, Q. D. Do, X. Yue, W. Chen, Long-context llms struggle with long in-context learning, 2024. arXiv:2404.02060

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mohammad F i r o u z i

    F. Brei, J. Frey, L.-P. Meyer, Leveraging small language models for text2sparql tasks to improve the resilience of ai assistance, 2024. arXiv:2405.17076. A. Sample generated KG This KG was generated under no schema constraint setting for this document: Mohammad Firouzi ( Born ...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [342]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.342

    2022 doi

  21. [6068]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022

    URL: https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.448. doi:10.18653/v1/2022. findings-emnlp.448

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.