KLIPA: A Knowledge Graph and LLM-Driven QA Framework for IP Analysis

Dapeng Wu; Guanzhi Deng; Jie Liu; Linqi Song; Mingyang Liu; Peijun Zheng; Yinqiao Li; Yi Xie; Yu-Keung Ng

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 15 references

KLIPA: A Knowledge Graph and LLM-Driven QA Framework for IP Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A vision-language model that reads patent cover pages directly extracts entities more accurately and faster than an OCR-then-LLM pipeline, anchoring a knowledge-graph-plus-RAG patent QA framework.

desk verdict KLIPA is a competent engineering integration with one genuinely new empirical comparison (VQA vs OCR+LLM for patent KG construction), but the relationship-discovery evidence rests on a one-sided metric that cannot distinguish missing from hallucinated edges. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07860 v1 pith:OJXXTEBH submitted 2025-09-09 cs.IR

Guanzhi Deng , Yi Xie , Yu-Keung Ng , Mingyang Liu , Peijun Zheng , Jie Liu , Dapeng Wu , Yinqiao Li

show 1 more author

Linqi Song

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.IR

keywords patentanalysisknowledgegraphlargelanguagemodelsvision-languageretrieval-augmentedgenerationReActagentinformationextractionquestionanswering

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

KLIPA is a patent-analysis framework that builds a knowledge graph from patent documents, enriches it with retrieval-augmented generation, and fields user questions through a ReAct-style reasoning agent. The paper's central experimental claim is that constructing the graph by feeding patent cover-page images directly to a vision-language model (VQA) is both faster and more accurate than the traditional OCR-plus-LLM route: the best VQA model reaches 92.35% entity extraction accuracy versus 63.07% for the best OCR+LLM pipeline, while also producing fewer mis-clustered patents. If this holds, patent analysts could replace a fragile two-stage text pipeline with a single visual-reading step, and do so with open-source 7B models. The broader contribution is a modular, openly described architecture that any IP organization could deploy over its own patent corpus.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the VQA-based triplet extraction pipeline: a vision-language model takes the patent cover image plus a prompt that constrains entity types and output schema, and returns JSON triplets directly, eliminating OCR. Supporting machinery includes the Neo4j graph with uniqueness constraints, a multilingual embedding model (multilingual-e5-base) for semantic retrieval, and a ReAct agent—a reasoning-and-acting loop in which the model alternates between thinking and calling retrieval tools—that picks chunk-level or document-level retrieval depending on query granularity.

What would settle it

Re-run the VQA versus OCR+LLM comparison on a mixed-applicant corpus where ground-truth clusters are defined by technology classification (for instance, CPC subgroups) and compute the VQA model's misclassification ratio relative to those labels; if the VQA advantage over the OCR+LLM pipeline disappears or reverses on that metric, the paper's claim that VQA improves relationship discovery would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that directly integrating visual information through visual question answering improves both extraction speed and accuracy for patent knowledge-graph construction. On a dataset of PDF patent cover pages from a single applicant organization, the Qwen2.5-VL-7B VQA model achieved a Ratio of Accurately Extracted Entities of 92.35%, compared with 63.07% for Qwen2-7B operating on OCR text, and a Ratio of Incorrectly Classified Clusters of 7.31% versus 12.92%. The authors attribute the gain to avoiding OCR-induced layout damage and error propagation into the LLM stage. They further build KLIPA, in which this graph is queried by a ReAct agent that decides between KG traversal and RAG on the user's question.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative comparison rests on the assumption that all patents in the test set, coming from one applicant, should be linked into a single dense cluster in a correct knowledge graph; if the ground-truth structure instead separates patents by technology or inventor team, the RIC metric would penalize valid clustering and the reported relationship-quality advantage would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If VQA extraction holds, patent knowledge graphs can be built from cover pages without OCR, reducing pipeline complexity and removing an error-propagation stage.
The RAG+KG+agent combination should answer queries that require both explicit graph relations and semantic similarity, such as identifying patents that combine photovoltaic devices with wireless communication.
The framework reduces reliance on domain experts for manual filtering and categorization, according to the authors' evaluation on a university patent dataset.
The architecture's modular design with standardized interfaces means the graph-construction models and the QA models can be updated independently without re-architecting the system.

Reading between the lines

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

An untested extension: the RIC metric's design—one dense cluster for a single applicant—implicitly assumes institutional affiliation is the only relationship that matters; a ground truth separating patents by technology field or inventor team could shrink or reverse the reported VQA advantage, and this is not addressed in the paper.
The VQA advantage likely generalizes to other structured documents with irregular layouts (for instance, trademarks, contracts, or laboratory reports), because the failure mode being removed is OCR layout damage; this is a testable extension the paper does not pursue.
The paper's QA examples illustrate document-grounded summarization, but the framework's distinguishing value would be demonstrated by queries whose correct answer requires traversing multiple patents through graph edges; such an evaluation is implicit but not reported.
With 7B-parameter models, the per-document extraction cost is low enough that a patent office could run this pipeline on demand; the authors imply but do not quantify the resulting operational savings.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper is best read as an engineering report, not a research claim. The genuinely useful bit is the head-to-head comparison of OCR+LLM vs VQA for building a patent KG from cover pages, with four Qwen models. That comparison, with defined extraction metrics, is not in the prior work they cite. The framework around it (KG + RAG + ReAct agent) is standard integration; no new theory, and the QA agent is only shown in two anecdotes.

Where the paper earns credit: it ships code, describes the pipeline in enough detail to reproduce, includes a limitations section that is unusually candid, and the RAE metric for field-level extraction is a reasonable, if underspecified, measure. If the only claim were "VQA beats OCR+LLM for extracting patent number, applicant, etc. from cover pages," I would believe it.

Now the soft spots. The relationship-discovery claim is the load-bearing part, and it is not supported. RIC is defined as the share of patents not connected to the main applicant cluster. That penalizes only missing links. A model that hallucinates an APPLICANT edge for every patent, regardless of whether the cover page supports it, gets RIC = 0. So the lower RIC for Qwen2.5-VL (7.31% vs 12.92%) is uninterpretable: it could mean better relationship extraction, or it could mean more aggressive edge generation. The paper's own Figure 3 caption treats denser connections as "superior information extraction," which is exactly what a hallucinating model would produce. This is not a minor quibble; it undercuts the central claim about relationship identification.

Other soft spots are proportionate. Table 1 has four scalar values, no sample sizes, no variance, no inter-annotator agreement, no description of how ground truth was labeled. The dataset is withheld, though the stated privacy reason is understandable for university patents. The abstract says "substantial improvements in knowledge extraction, discovery of novel connections, and operational efficiency," but there is no end-to-end benchmark for the QA agent, no comparison to RAG-only or KG-only baselines, and the operational efficiency claim is just the timing column.

The formalization in Section 3 is mostly standard notation and adds little, but it's not wrong. The citation pattern is fine; they cite the relevant KG-agent, R2-KG, KnowGPT, and patent KG work, and they don't overclaim novelty relative to those.

Bottom line: this paper is for readers who want to know whether to use VQA instead of OCR+LLM for patent KG populating. That question it answers provisionally. It is not a paper that validates an end-to-end patent QA system. A serious editor should send it to peer review, but the reviewers should require a precision metric for RIC, full dataset or a de-identified sample, and error bars before publication. I would not cite it in my own work yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces KLIPA, a patent-analysis framework that combines a knowledge graph, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) component, and a ReAct-based LLM agent for question answering over patent data. The experimental section compares two knowledge-graph construction pipelines---OCR followed by an LLM versus direct visual question answering (VQA) with a vision-language model---on patent cover pages, reporting extraction time, RAE, and RIC in Table 1. The authors conclude that the VQA approach is both faster and more accurate, and they provide two illustrative QA examples in Table 4. The paper also includes detailed implementation appendices with pseudocode and a GitHub repository.

Significance. If properly validated, the claim that VQA outperforms OCR+LLM for patent cover-page extraction would be a practically useful finding for automated patent database construction. The paper's open-source code, detailed pseudocode, and formalized pipeline description are strengths that aid reproducibility. However, the evaluation is currently under-powered and the RIC metric is flawed, so the central quantitative claims are not yet established. The QA agent and RAG components, which are part of the framework's title and abstract, are not quantitatively evaluated at all.

major comments (4)

[Appendix A.2, Table 1] The RIC metric penalizes only missing links: any patent connected to the main applicant cluster, even by a spurious or hallucinated edge, counts as correctly classified. Under the extraction prompt, a model could link every patent to the applicant organization and achieve RIC = 0% without recovering any true relationship. Therefore the RIC difference between Qwen2.5-VL-7B (7.31%) and Qwen2-7B (12.92%) does not establish better relationship discovery, and Section 4.2's claim of 'superior relationship identification' is unsupported. The metric also assumes that all patents from the same applicant should form a single dense cluster, which may not be the correct graph structure. An edge-level gold standard or a precision-oriented metric is needed.
[Section 4.1, Table 1] No sample size, variance, or statistical tests are reported for any of the four scalar values in Table 1. The statement in Section 4.2 that the VQA method 'significantly outperforms' the OCR+LLM pipeline is therefore not backed by evidence: the observed RAE differences (e.g., 92.35% vs 63.07%) could be within run-to-run or document-level noise. Moreover, the RAE ground-truth construction is not described, so the accuracy numbers cannot be independently verified. Report the number of patents, repeated runs, and a significance test or confidence intervals, and describe the labeling protocol.
[Section 3.2, Section 5, Table 4] The QA agent and RAG components are not quantitatively evaluated. Table 4 shows only two example interactions, and no retrieval or answer-quality metrics (e.g., precision/recall of retrieved patents, answer faithfulness, or a user study) are reported. The abstract and Section 5 claim 'substantial improvements in retrieval accuracy, response relevance, and overall operational efficiency,' but no experiment in the paper measures these outcomes. The paper's stated contribution is therefore only partially validated; the evaluation addresses KG construction, not the QA system that the framework name advertises.
[Appendix A.1] Equation (7) defines RAE as N_accurate/N_total, but the paper never states how the ground-truth entity set was obtained for each patent cover page. The handling of ambiguous entities, multiple inventors, or record variations is unspecified. Without this protocol, the RAE values in Table 1 are not reproducible.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract, footnote 3] The GitHub link in the footnote is github.com/gz-d/patent_kg, which is not anonymous; if a double-blind submission is intended, the authors should remove identifying information.
[Section 3.1, Equations (1)-(2)] The notation is overloaded: E denotes both the set of predefined entity types and the extraction function, and R denotes both the set of potential relationships and the relationship extraction function. Consider renaming one of each pair for clarity.
[Ethics Statement] The ethics statement says the datasets contain 'anonymized consumer data,' but the experiments use publicly available USPTO patent cover pages; this wording should be corrected.
[Appendix C, Listing 8] Listing 8 does not show a full ReAct loop (no iterative tool invocation or observation step), despite being presented as a ReAct-based reasoning framework; the pseudocode should be aligned with the claimed agent behavior.
[Figure 3] The graph visualizations in Figure 3 are not legible at print resolution; please provide zoomed views of representative clusters to support the argument about graph density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the empirical claims rest on direct A/B comparisons and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

KLIPA's central claims are system-building and direct experimental comparison. The RAE metric is a standard extraction-accuracy ratio against ground-truth entities, and the speed measurement is a direct timing comparison. The paper does not fit a parameter to a subset of the evaluation data and then 'predict' a closely related quantity; the thresholds (chunk_size=200, overlap=30) are implementation choices, not fitted to the reported metrics. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The weakest point is the RIC metric in Appendix A.2, which assumes that the ideal knowledge graph is a single densely connected cluster and only penalizes failure to connect to that cluster. This could reward spurious or hallucinated edges, and the conclusion in Section 4.2 about 'superior relationship identification' based on denser connections is therefore not fully supported. However, this is an evaluation-design and external-validity concern, not a circular derivation: the paper does not define the relationship-identification claim in terms of the metric and then reuse that definition as evidence, nor does it predict a quantity that was itself used to fit the model. The RAE results independently support the extraction-accuracy portion of the claim. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the stated evidentiary standard is present, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on standard ML tooling and hand-picked hyperparameters rather than on numerical fits or newly postulated entities. The main unexamined assumptions are domain-specific: cover-page sufficiency, the single-cluster ideal encoded in RIC, and the adequacy of generic embeddings for patent text.

free parameters (3)

chunk_size = 200
Set to 200 in Listing 1 as 'optimal for BERT-style models'; not fitted to patent retrieval performance.
chunk_overlap = 30
Set to 30 characters (15% of chunk) in Listing 1 to preserve context; heuristic, not optimized.
similarity_threshold_tau = not specified
Appears as tau in Eq. 5 and is described as predefined, but its value is never reported; it controls which documents the RAG retriever returns.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Patent cover pages contain most of the key information needed for knowledge-graph construction (patent number, name, applicants, inventors, assignee, cited patents, classifications).
Stated in Section 4.1; if cover pages omit relevant text, the KG misses information.
domain assumption All patents from the same applicant organization should form a single, densely connected central cluster in the knowledge graph.
Appendix A.2 defines RIC on this premise; it may not hold when a portfolio spans heterogeneous technologies.
domain assumption The OCR/LLM and VQA pipelines yield graphs whose correctness can be measured by RAE and RIC without expert validation of relationship semantics.
The metrics count entity matches and cluster links; they do not validate whether extracted relationships are semantically meaningful.
domain assumption The multilingual-e5-base embedding model captures patent-specific semantics well enough for hybrid retrieval.
Section 3.2 and Table 3 select this model without a comparative study.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KLIPA: A Knowledge Graph and LLM-Driven QA Framework for IP Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJXXTEBH

@misc{pith2026250907860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KLIPA: A Knowledge Graph and LLM-Driven QA Framework for IP Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJXXTEBH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07860}
}

read the original abstract

Effectively managing intellectual property is a significant challenge. Traditional methods for patent analysis depend on labor-intensive manual searches and rigid keyword matching. These approaches are often inefficient and struggle to reveal the complex relationships hidden within large patent datasets, hindering strategic decision-making. To overcome these limitations, we introduce KLIPA, a novel framework that leverages a knowledge graph and a large language model (LLM) to significantly advance patent analysis. Our approach integrates three key components: a structured knowledge graph to map explicit relationships between patents, a retrieval-augmented generation(RAG) system to uncover contextual connections, and an intelligent agent that dynamically determines the optimal strategy for resolving user queries. We validated KLIPA on a comprehensive, real-world patent database, where it demonstrated substantial improvements in knowledge extraction, discovery of novel connections, and overall operational efficiency. This combination of technologies enhances retrieval accuracy, reduces reliance on domain experts, and provides a scalable, automated solution for any organization managing intellectual property, including technology corporations and legal firms, allowing them to better navigate the complexities of strategic innovation and competitive intelligence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07860 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Patent knowledge graph construction pipeline. The process begins with language model initialization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Patent knowledge graphs from OCR+LLM and VQA. The VQA method produces denser entity connections, demonstrating superior information extraction and relationship identification. powered reasoning, and retrieval-augmented generation, KLIPA enables more efficient, accurate, and adaptive patent information retrieval. The knowledge graph organizes structured entity relationships, RAG identifies latent semantic connect… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[5]

Zhang Heyi, Wang Xin, Han Lifan, LI Zhao, CHEN Zirui, and CHEN Zhe

Chatlaw: A multi-agent collabora- tive legal assistant with knowledge graph enhanced mixture-of-experts large language model.Preprint, arXiv:2306.16092. Zhang Heyi, Wang Xin, Han Lifan, LI Zhao, CHEN Zirui, and CHEN Zhe

arXiv
[6]

Preprint, arXiv:2402.11163

Kg-agent: An efficient autonomous agent frame- work for complex reasoning over knowledge graph. Preprint, arXiv:2402.11163. Sumin Jo, Junseong Choi, Jiho Kim, and Edward Choi

arXiv
[7]

Preprint, arXiv:2502.12767

R2-kg: General-purpose dual-agent frame- work for reliable reasoning on knowledge graphs. Preprint, arXiv:2502.12767. JQ Li, BA Li, Xindong You, and XUeqiang Lyu

arXiv
[8]

A Survey on Patent Analysis: From NLP to Multimodal AI

A comprehensive sur- vey on ai-based methods for patents.Preprint, arXiv:2404.08668. L Siddharth, Lucienne TM Blessing, Kristin L Wood, and Jianxi Luo. 2022a. Engineering knowledge graph from patent database.Journal of Com- puting and Information Science in Engineering, 22(2):021008. L Siddharth, Guangtong Li, and Jianxi Luo. 2022b. En- hancing patent ret...

work page Pith review arXiv
[10]

Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s per- ception of the world at any resolution.Preprint, arXiv:2409.12191. An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Hao- ran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jia...

arXiv
[12]

Artificial Intelligence Technology analysis using Artificial Intelligence patent through Deep Learning model and vector space model

Artificial intelligence technology analysis using arti- ficial intelligence patent through deep learning model and vector space model.CoRR, abs/2111.11295. Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Zhanlin Sun, Guanying Wang, Xi Chen, Wei Zhang, and Huajun Chen

work page Pith review arXiv
[13]

Qinggang Zhang, Junnan Dong, Hao Chen, Daochen Zha, Zailiang Yu, and Xiao Huang

Long-tail relation extraction via knowledge graph embeddings and graph convolution networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.01306. Qinggang Zhang, Junnan Dong, Hao Chen, Daochen Zha, Zailiang Yu, and Xiao Huang

arXiv 1903
[14]

Patent-KG: Patent Knowledge Graph Use for Engineering Design

Patent- kg: patent knowledge graph use for engineering de- sign.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.11899. A Metrics This section provides detailed definitions for the metrics used to evaluate the performance of our knowledge graph construction methods. A.1 RAE (Ratio of Accurately Extracted Entities) The Ratio of Accurately Extracted Entities (RAE) is a metric des...

work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 15 references

[15]

Example 1: Disperse carbon nanotubes ( CNT ) in ethanol via ultrasonic treatment for 40 minutes

and Qwen2- VL-7B-Instruct (Wang et al., 2024)). The former ex- tracts entity relationships from the text obtained via OCR, while the latter recognizes information directly from the original patent documents. Name Type Availability Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct LLM Open-Source Multilingu...

2024
[2007]

InAAAI, volume 7, pages 1962–

Freebase: A shared database of structured general human knowledge. InAAAI, volume 7, pages 1962–

1962
[2019]

Yongmin Yoo, Dongjin Lim, and Kyungsun Kim

Kg- bert: Bert for knowledge graph completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03193. Yongmin Yoo, Dongjin Lim, and Kyungsun Kim

1909 arXiv
[2021]

Cross-domain retrieval in the legal and patent domains: A reproducibility study. InAd- vances in Information Retrieval - 43rd European Con- ference on IR Research, ECIR 2021, Virtual Event, March 28 - April 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part II, vol- ume 12657 ofLecture Notes in Compu...

2021
[2023]

Enhancing knowledge graph construc- tion using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04676. Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhi- hao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, Mengfei Du, Xuancheng Ren, Rui Men,...

arXiv
[2024]

Jiaxi Cui, Munan Ning, Zongjian Li, Bohua Chen, Yang Yan, Hao Li, Bin Ling, Yonghong Tian, and Li Yuan

Leverage knowledge graph and large language model for law article recommenda- tion: A case study of chinese criminal law.Preprint, arXiv:2410.04949. Jiaxi Cui, Munan Ning, Zongjian Li, Bohua Chen, Yang Yan, Hao Li, Bin Ling, Yonghong Tian, and Li Yuan
[2025]

5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923

Qwen2. 5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923. Kurt Bollacker, Robert Cook, and Patrick Tufts

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Zhang Heyi, Wang Xin, Han Lifan, LI Zhao, CHEN Zirui, and CHEN Zhe

Chatlaw: A multi-agent collabora- tive legal assistant with knowledge graph enhanced mixture-of-experts large language model.Preprint, arXiv:2306.16092. Zhang Heyi, Wang Xin, Han Lifan, LI Zhao, CHEN Zirui, and CHEN Zhe

arXiv

[2] [6]

Preprint, arXiv:2402.11163

Kg-agent: An efficient autonomous agent frame- work for complex reasoning over knowledge graph. Preprint, arXiv:2402.11163. Sumin Jo, Junseong Choi, Jiho Kim, and Edward Choi

arXiv

[3] [7]

Preprint, arXiv:2502.12767

R2-kg: General-purpose dual-agent frame- work for reliable reasoning on knowledge graphs. Preprint, arXiv:2502.12767. JQ Li, BA Li, Xindong You, and XUeqiang Lyu

arXiv

[4] [8]

A Survey on Patent Analysis: From NLP to Multimodal AI

A comprehensive sur- vey on ai-based methods for patents.Preprint, arXiv:2404.08668. L Siddharth, Lucienne TM Blessing, Kristin L Wood, and Jianxi Luo. 2022a. Engineering knowledge graph from patent database.Journal of Com- puting and Information Science in Engineering, 22(2):021008. L Siddharth, Guangtong Li, and Jianxi Luo. 2022b. En- hancing patent ret...

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [10]

Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s per- ception of the world at any resolution.Preprint, arXiv:2409.12191. An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Hao- ran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jia...

arXiv

[6] [12]

Artificial Intelligence Technology analysis using Artificial Intelligence patent through Deep Learning model and vector space model

Artificial intelligence technology analysis using arti- ficial intelligence patent through deep learning model and vector space model.CoRR, abs/2111.11295. Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Zhanlin Sun, Guanying Wang, Xi Chen, Wei Zhang, and Huajun Chen

work page Pith review arXiv

[7] [13]

Qinggang Zhang, Junnan Dong, Hao Chen, Daochen Zha, Zailiang Yu, and Xiao Huang

Long-tail relation extraction via knowledge graph embeddings and graph convolution networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.01306. Qinggang Zhang, Junnan Dong, Hao Chen, Daochen Zha, Zailiang Yu, and Xiao Huang

arXiv 1903

[8] [14]

Patent-KG: Patent Knowledge Graph Use for Engineering Design

Patent- kg: patent knowledge graph use for engineering de- sign.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.11899. A Metrics This section provides detailed definitions for the metrics used to evaluate the performance of our knowledge graph construction methods. A.1 RAE (Ratio of Accurately Extracted Entities) The Ratio of Accurately Extracted Entities (RAE) is a metric des...

work page Pith review arXiv