pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.01410 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-02 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

GraphScout: Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Exploration Ability for Agentic Graph Reasoning

Yuchen Ying , Weiqi Jiang , Tongya Zheng , Yu Wang , Shunyu Liu , Kaixuan Chen , Mingli Song
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 18:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords GraphScoutagentic graph reasoningknowledge graphspost-traininggraph exploration toolsretrieval-augmented generationsmall language models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Small language models internalize graph reasoning by training on data from their own autonomous graph explorations.

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

The paper presents GraphScout as a way to move beyond fixed, manually guided tools for language models working with knowledge graphs. Instead of relying on predefined interactions, the approach supplies flexible exploration tools that let models generate their own structured training examples through direct graph traversal. These self-produced examples are then used for post-training so the model absorbs agentic reasoning patterns internally. Experiments across five graph domains show that this yields better results than methods built on much larger leading models, with lower token counts during inference and strong transfer to new domains.

Core claim

GraphScout equips large language models with a set of flexible graph exploration tools that enable autonomous interaction with knowledge graphs to synthesize structured training data. This data is used for post-training, allowing the models to internalize agentic graph reasoning without manual annotations or task curation. A compact model such as Qwen3-4B trained this way outperforms baselines built on leading models such as Qwen-Max by an average of 16.7 percent while using substantially fewer inference tokens and shows robust cross-domain transfer.

What carries the argument

The GraphScout framework and its flexible graph exploration tools, which let models autonomously traverse knowledge graphs to produce their own post-training data.

If this is right

  • Smaller models can match or exceed the graph-reasoning performance of much larger models at lower inference cost.
  • Agentic reasoning over graphs becomes possible without task-specific human curation or annotation.
  • The internalized exploration skill transfers across different knowledge-graph domains.
  • Token usage during inference drops because the model relies on learned patterns rather than repeated external tool calls.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same self-generation loop could be applied to other structured data sources such as databases or code repositories to internalize domain-specific reasoning.
  • Combining GraphScout-style training with existing retrieval methods might further reduce factual errors in long-horizon tasks.
  • Models trained this way could serve as more efficient backbones for multi-agent systems that need to coordinate over shared graphs.
  • If the quality of generated data improves with model scale, the method might create a positive feedback loop where larger models produce even better training sets for smaller ones.

Load-bearing premise

The data generated by the models' own graph explorations is high-quality and diverse enough to teach real reasoning skills instead of just memorizing patterns or propagating exploration mistakes.

What would settle it

Retraining a small model on the autonomously generated data produces no accuracy gain or introduces systematic errors traceable to flawed graph paths, while baselines without the data remain unchanged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01410 by Kaixuan Chen, Mingli Song, Shunyu Liu, Tongya Zheng, Weiqi Jiang, Yuchen Ying, Yu Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Qwen3-4B-Instruct with GraphScout achieves substantial gains over leading LLMs (e.g.,Qwen-Max) with prompting-based GraphRAG baselines in Healthcare dataset. • We identify the flexibility and graph exploration challenges of existing GraphRAG methods, which largely rely on man￾ually designed interaction tools and external control mech￾anisms, and highlight the need for enabling LLMs with in￾trinsic explorat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of GraphScout framework. applied to traditional graph tasks such as node classification and link prediction [31, 44], as well as graph algorithmic reasoning that requires structural understanding [8, 12, 17, 22, 38]. In contrast to the above approaches, our work focuses on enabling LLMs to perform explicit reasoning over knowledge graphs, rather than using graphs solely as feature sources or impli… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cross-Domain Generalization Performance Across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance Comparison Across Question Difficulty Levels on GRBENCH using F1-score as the metric. The Healthcare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Behavioral analysis across question difficulty levels. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average token consumption of different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Specifically, Figure 8 presents the distributions of question [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the generated dataset in terms of question difficulty levels, question structural patterns, and answer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of (a) question token lengths and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Knowledge graphs provide structured and reliable information for many real-world applications, motivating increasing interest in combining large language models (LLMs) with graph-based retrieval to improve factual grounding. Recent Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) methods therefore introduce iterative interaction between LLMs and knowledge graphs to enhance reasoning capability. However, existing approaches typically depend on manually designed guidance and interact with knowledge graphs through a limited set of predefined tools, which substantially constrains graph exploration. To address these limitations, we propose GraphScout, a training-centric agentic graph reasoning framework equipped with more flexible graph exploration tools. GraphScout enables models to autonomously interact with knowledge graphs to synthesize structured training data which are then used to post-train LLMs, thereby internalizing agentic graph reasoning ability without laborious manual annotation or task curation. Extensive experiments across five knowledge-graph domains show that a small model (e.g., Qwen3-4B) augmented with GraphScout outperforms baseline methods built on leading LLMs (e.g., Qwen-Max) by an average of 16.7\% while requiring significantly fewer inference tokens. Moreover, GraphScout exhibits robust cross-domain transfer performance. Our code will be made publicly available~\footnote{https://github.com/Ying-Yuchen/_GraphScout_}.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces GraphScout, a training-centric framework for agentic graph reasoning. LLMs are equipped with flexible graph exploration tools that enable autonomous interaction with knowledge graphs to synthesize structured training trajectories; these trajectories are then used for post-training to internalize exploration and reasoning skills without manual annotation or task curation. Experiments across five knowledge-graph domains report that a small model (Qwen3-4B) augmented with GraphScout outperforms baselines built on larger LLMs (e.g., Qwen-Max) by an average of 16.7% while using significantly fewer inference tokens and exhibiting robust cross-domain transfer.

Significance. If the reported gains are supported by rigorous validation of the synthesized data and reproducible experimental protocols, the work could meaningfully advance efficient graph-augmented reasoning by demonstrating that smaller models can internalize autonomous exploration capabilities. The emphasis on reducing manual tool design and the planned public code release are positive factors for reproducibility and adoption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experiments] Experiments section: the headline claim of a 16.7% average improvement over Qwen-Max baselines is presented without any description of baseline implementations, task definitions, per-domain metrics, statistical significance tests, or error bars, rendering it impossible to evaluate whether the gains are supported by the results.
  2. [Method] Method section: the central claim that autonomously synthesized trajectories internalize genuine agentic reasoning rests on the unverified assumption that the generated data is high-quality; no quantitative checks (error rates for tool-induced hallucinations, filtering criteria for inconsistent explorations, or coverage statistics) are reported.
  3. [Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation: no ablation is provided that compares performance when training on the full synthesized trajectories versus filtered or human-verified subsets, leaving open the possibility that measured gains arise from memorization of generated patterns rather than robust reasoning transfer.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that GraphScout 'requires significantly fewer inference tokens' should be accompanied by concrete token counts or ratios in the main results tables.
  2. [Abstract] The footnote GitHub link should be verified to point to a complete, runnable repository upon publication.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which highlights important areas for improving the clarity and rigor of our experimental reporting. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested enhancements where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments section: the headline claim of a 16.7% average improvement over Qwen-Max baselines is presented without any description of baseline implementations, task definitions, per-domain metrics, statistical significance tests, or error bars, rendering it impossible to evaluate whether the gains are supported by the results.

    Authors: We agree that additional details are necessary for full evaluation. The current manuscript provides an overview of the experimental setup in Section 4, but we will expand it in the revision to include: (1) explicit descriptions of how Qwen-Max and other baselines were implemented and prompted, (2) precise task definitions and evaluation metrics per domain, (3) per-domain performance tables with the 16.7% average broken down, (4) results from multiple runs with error bars, and (5) statistical significance tests (e.g., paired t-tests). These additions will be placed in a new subsection of the Experiments section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method section: the central claim that autonomously synthesized trajectories internalize genuine agentic reasoning rests on the unverified assumption that the generated data is high-quality; no quantitative checks (error rates for tool-induced hallucinations, filtering criteria for inconsistent explorations, or coverage statistics) are reported.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include quantitative validation of the synthesized trajectories. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection under Method (likely 3.3) that reports: trajectory coverage statistics across domains, consistency filtering criteria and their application rates, and estimated error rates for tool-induced issues based on spot-checks or automated heuristics. This will provide evidence supporting the quality of the data used for post-training. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation: no ablation is provided that compares performance when training on the full synthesized trajectories versus filtered or human-verified subsets, leaving open the possibility that measured gains arise from memorization of generated patterns rather than robust reasoning transfer.

    Authors: We agree an ablation would strengthen the claim of genuine reasoning transfer. While full human verification of all trajectories is impractical due to scale, we will add a partial ablation study in the revised Experiments section. This will compare the 4B model trained on full trajectories versus versions trained on automatically filtered subsets (using the consistency checks mentioned above) across two representative domains, with discussion of implications for memorization versus transfer. We will also note limitations of this approach. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical claims rest on external baselines

full rationale

The paper introduces GraphScout as a training framework that uses flexible graph exploration tools to autonomously synthesize data for post-training LLMs. All load-bearing claims are empirical performance comparisons (e.g., Qwen3-4B + GraphScout vs. Qwen-Max baselines) reported across five domains, with no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains present. The method description and results do not reduce any prediction or uniqueness claim to its own inputs by construction, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained empirical contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the domain assumption that knowledge graphs contain reliable structured information that can be turned into useful training signals through autonomous interaction. No free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Knowledge graphs provide structured and reliable information suitable for improving LLM factual grounding and reasoning.
    Explicitly stated as the motivation for combining LLMs with graph-based retrieval.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5548 in / 1288 out tokens · 34865 ms · 2026-05-15T18:44:39.292055+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 14 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Ziwei Chai, Tianjie Zhang, Liang Wu, Kaiqiang Han, Xiaohai Hu, Xuanwen Huang, and Yang Yang. 2025. Graphllm: Boosting graph reasoning ability of large language model.IEEE Transactions on Big Data(2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Jiawei Chen, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2024. Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 17754–17762

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Nuo Chen, Yuhan Li, Jianheng Tang, and Jia Li. 2024. Graphwiz: An instruction- following language model for graph computational problems. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 353–364

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Runjin Chen, Tong Zhao, Ajay Jaiswal, Neil Shah, and Zhangyang Wang. 2024. Llaga: Large language and graph assistant.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08170(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Zhikai Chen, Haitao Mao, Hang Li, Wei Jin, Hongzhi Wen, Xiaochi Wei, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Wenqi Fan, Hui Liu, et al . 2024. Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs.ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter25, 2 (2024), 42–61

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Eli Chien, Wei-Cheng Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Hsiang-Fu Yu, Jiong Zhang, Ol- gica Milenkovic, and Inderjit S Dhillon. 2021. Node feature extraction by self- supervised multi-scale neighborhood prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00064 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Xinnan Dai, Haohao Qu, Yifen Shen, Bohang Zhang, Qihao Wen, Wenqi Fan, Dongsheng Li, Jiliang Tang, and Caihua Shan. 2024. How do large language mod- els understand graph patterns? a benchmark for graph pattern comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05298(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    distillabs. 2025. We benchmarked 12 small language models across 8 tasks to find the best base model for fine-tuning. https://www.distillabs.ai/blog/we- benchmarked-12-small-language-models-across-8-tasks-to-find-the-best- base-model-for-fine-tuning

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Keyu Duan, Qian Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, Shuicheng Yan, Wei Tsang Ooi, Qizhe Xie, and Junxian He. 2023. Simteg: A frustratingly simple approach improves textual graph learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02565(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, Dasha Metropolitansky, Robert Osazuwa Ness, and Jonathan Larson. 2024. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow, and Bryan Perozzi. 2023. Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04560 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Junqi Gao, Xiang Zou, Ying Ai, Dong Li, Yichen Niu, Biqing Qi, and Jianxing Liu

    work page

  14. [14]

    Graph Counselor: Adaptive Graph Exploration via Multi-Agent Synergy to Enhance LLM Reasoning. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Vienna, Austria, 2465...

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yixin Dai, Jiawei Sun, Haofen Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 2, 1 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Team GLM, Aohan Zeng, Bin Xu, Bowen Wang, Chenhui Zhang, Da Yin, Dan Zhang, Diego Rojas, Guanyu Feng, Hanlin Zhao, et al. 2024. Chatglm: A fam- ily of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12793(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al . 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Xiaojun Guo, Ang Li, Yifei Wang, Stefanie Jegelka, and Yisen Wang. 2025. G1: Teaching LLMs to Reason on Graphs with Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18499(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Zirui Guo, Lianghao Xia, Yanhua Yu, Tu Ao, and Chao Huang. 2024. Lightrag: Simple and fast retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05779 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Bernal J Gutiérrez, Yiheng Shu, Yu Gu, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Yu Su. 2024. Hipporag: Neurobiologically inspired long-term memory for large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems37 (2024), 59532– 59569

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering. Inproceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web. 507–517

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Daniel Scott Himmelstein, Antoine Lizee, Christine Hessler, Leo Brueggeman, Sabrina L Chen, Dexter Hadley, Ari Green, Pouya Khankhanian, and Sergio E Baranzini. 2017. Systematic integration of biomedical knowledge prioritizes drugs for repurposing.elife6 (2017), e26726

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Zixiao Huang, Lifeng Guo, Wenhao Li, Junjie Sheng, Chuyun Shen, Haosheng Chen, Bo Jin, Changhong Lu, and Xiangfeng Wang. 2025. GraphThought: Graph Combinatorial Optimization with Thought Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11607(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Bowen Jin, Gang Liu, Chi Han, Meng Jiang, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2024. Large language models on graphs: A comprehensive survey.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering(2024). Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Yuchen Ying, Weiqi Jiang, Tongya Zheng, Yu Wang, Shunyu Liu, Kaixuan Chen, and Mingli Song

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Bowen Jin, Chulin Xie, Jiawei Zhang, Kashob Kumar Roy, Yu Zhang, Zheng Li, Ruirui Li, Xianfeng Tang, Suhang Wang, Yu Meng, et al . 2024. Graph chain- of-thought: Augmenting large language models by reasoning on graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07103(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Bowen Jin, Wentao Zhang, Yu Zhang, Yu Meng, Xinyang Zhang, Qi Zhu, and Jiawei Han. 2023. Patton: Language model pretraining on text-rich networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12268(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick SH Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering.. InEMNLP (1). 6769–6781

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Savini Kashmira, Jayanaka L Dantanarayana, KrisztiĂĄn Flautner, Lingjia Tang, and Jason Mars. 2025. GraphRunner: A Multi-Stage Framework for Efficient and Accurate Graph-Based Retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08945(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    TN Kipf. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907(2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Jérôme Kunegis. 2013. Konect: the koblenz network collection. InProceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web. 1343–1350

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Wenda Li, Tongya Zheng, Shunyu Liu, Yu Wang, Kaixuan Chen, Hanyang Yuan, Bingde Hu, Zujie Ren, Mingli Song, and Gang Chen. 2025. Towards Efficient LLM-aware Heterogeneous Graph Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17923 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Tianqianjin Lin, Pengwei Yan, Kaisong Song, Zhuoren Jiang, Yangyang Kang, Jun Lin, Weikang Yuan, Junjie Cao, Changlong Sun, and Xiaozhong Liu. 2024. Langgfm: A large language model alone can be a powerful graph foundation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14961(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Cheng- gang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Lihui Liu. 2025. Graph-O1: Monte Carlo Tree Search with Reinforcement Learning for Text-Attributed Graph Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17912(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Renjie Liu, Haitian Jiang, Xiao Yan, Bo Tang, and Jinyang Li. 2025. PolyG: Effective and Efficient GraphRAG with Adaptive Graph Traversal.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02112(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Rui Lu, Zhenyu Hou, Zihan Wang, Hanchen Zhang, Xiao Liu, Yujiang Li, Shi Feng, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. 2025. Deepdive: Advancing deep search agents with knowledge graphs and multi-turn rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10446(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Haoran Luo, Haihong E, Guanting Chen, Qika Lin, Yikai Guo, Fangzhi Xu, Zemin Kuang, Meina Song, Xiaobao Wu, Yifan Zhu, and Luu Anh Tuan. 2025. Graph-R1: Towards Agentic GraphRAG Framework via End-to-end Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2507.21892 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21892

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Haoran Luo, Haihong E, Guanting Chen, Yandan Zheng, Xiaobao Wu, Yikai Guo, Qika Lin, Yu Feng, Zemin Kuang, Meina Song, Yifan Zhu, and Luu Anh Tuan. 2025. HyperGraphRAG: Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Hypergraph-Structured Knowledge Representation. arXiv:2503.21322 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 21322

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Zihan Luo, Xiran Song, Hong Huang, Jianxun Lian, Chenhao Zhang, Jinqi Jiang, Xing Xie, and Hai Jin. 2024. Graphinstruct: Empowering large language models with graph understanding and reasoning capability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04483(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Vipula Rawte, Amit Sheth, and Amitava Das. 2023. A survey of hallucination in large foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05922(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Benedek Rozemberczki and Rik Sarkar. 2020. Characteristic Functions on Graphs: Birds of a Feather, from Statistical Descriptors to Parametric Models. InProceed- ings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’20). ACM, 1325–1334

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. 2024. HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07567(2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Jiashuo Sun, Chengjin Xu, Lumingyuan Tang, Saizhuo Wang, Chen Lin, Yeyun Gong, Lionel M Ni, Heung-Yeung Shum, and Jian Guo. 2023. Think-on-graph: Deep and responsible reasoning of large language model on knowledge graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07697(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Jiabin Tang, Yuhao Yang, Wei Wei, Lei Shi, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. Graphgpt: Graph instruction tuning for large language models. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 491–500

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Limin Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su. 2008. Ar- netminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. InProceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 990–998

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    SMTI Tonmoy, SM Zaman, Vinija Jain, Anku Rani, Vipula Rawte, Aman Chadha, and Amitava Das. 2024. A comprehensive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.013136 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288(2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903(2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Mengting Wan and Julian McAuley. 2018. Item recommendation on monotonic behavior chains. InProceedings of the 12th ACM conference on recommender systems. 86–94

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    Heng Wang, Shangbin Feng, Tianxing He, Zhaoxuan Tan, Xiaochuang Han, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2023. Can language models solve graph problems in natural language?Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), 30840– 30861

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Kuansan Wang, Zhihong Shen, Chiyuan Huang, Chieh-Han Wu, Yuxiao Dong, and Anshul Kanakia. 2020. Microsoft academic graph: When experts are not enough.Quantitative Science Studies1, 1 (2020), 396–413

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. 2018. How powerful are graph neural networks?arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826(2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Ruosong Ye, Caiqi Zhang, Runhui Wang, Shuyuan Xu, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Language is All a Graph Needs. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, Yvette Graham and Matthew Purver (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, St. Julian’s, Malta, 1955–1973. https://aclanthology. org/2024.findings-eacl.132/

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Chuanyue Yu, Kuo Zhao, Yuhan Li, Heng Chang, Mingjian Feng, Xiangzhe Jiang, Yufei Sun, Jia Li, Yuzhi Zhang, Jianxin Li, et al. 2025. Graphrag-r1: Graph retrieval- augmented generation with process-constrained reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23581(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Jianan Zhao, Meng Qu, Chaozhuo Li, Hao Yan, Qian Liu, Rui Li, Xing Xie, and Jian Tang. 2022. Learning on large-scale text-attributed graphs via variational inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14709(2022). A Implementation Details A.1 RL Hyperparameters The experimental settings [41] for training Base model using our GraphScout framework are shown in Table...

    work page arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Aphasia, Primary Progressive

    Find the disease "Aphasia, Primary Progressive"

    work page

  59. [59]

    Find which genes are downregulated in this disease

    work page

  60. [60]

    Find which cellular components are associated with those genes

    work page

  61. [61]

    Aphasia, Primary Progressive

    Determine which cellular component is involved with the most genes Let me first use the node_id_retriever to find the ID for "Aphasia, Primary Progressive". <tool_call> {"name": "node_id_retriever", "arguments": {"queries": ["Aphasia, Primary Progressive"], "topk": 2}} </tool_call> <tool_response> {'topk': 2,'results': [[{'node_id':'D018888', 'node_type':...

    work page 2018