Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Fast Think-on-Graph: Wider, Deeper and Faster Reasoning of Large Language Model on Knowledge Graph

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FastToG claims that reasoning from one knowledge-graph community to the next is more accurate, faster, and more explainable than stepping through single nodes.

desk verdict A useful community-level extension of ToG, but the missing sampling parameter and lack of error bars keep the empirical claims from being fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14300 v1 pith:VU4EKO4G submitted 2025-01-24 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LGcs.SI

Xujian Liang , Zhaoquan Gu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.LGcs.SI
keywords FastToGgraphretrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledgereasoningcommunitydetectionlocalsearchmodularitypruningcommunity-to-textconversionchain-of-thought
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

The paper argues that a graph-RAG system can get both wider and deeper evidence for an LLM by making the unit of reasoning a community of nodes rather than a single entity or triple. FastToG builds a fixed number W of parallel reasoning chains whose steps are communities found by local community detection, prunes candidate communities first by modularity and then by LLM selection, and feeds the chains to the LLM as text. On six question-answering, slot-filling, and commonsense benchmarks, the paper reports that FastToG beats node-step baselines such as Think-on-Graph, and that community-sized steps shorten the chains enough to reduce the number of LLM calls. If this is right, dense knowledge graphs stop being a cost bottleneck for retrieval-augmented generation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the community, used as the step of a reasoning chain. Instead of expanding one node at a time and asking the LLM to choose among many neighbors, FastToG partitions a locally sampled subgraph into dense groups, keeps only the top communities by modularity $Q(c)=\sum_{\rm in} - \left(\sum_{\rm tot}\right)^2/(2m)$, then lets the LLM choose among the survivors. This compresses many graph paths into a single step, which is why the paper claims fewer LLM calls and shorter chains; the two Community-to-Text converters (Triple2Text and Graph2Text) are what let the LLM read the community's internal triples at all.

What would settle it

Take a set of multi-hop knowledge-base QA questions whose gold answers sit at known distances (for example 3–5 hops) from the seed entity, run FastToG while varying the decay factor $\rho$, and measure whether the sampled subgraph still contains the gold answer at each setting; if answer entities vanish from the subgraph before the number of LLM calls drops, the claimed efficiency-accuracy trade-off fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FastToG's central claim is that 'thinking community by community' gives an LLM the same or better answer quality as stepping through graph nodes one by one, while needing fewer steps. The method starts by having the LLM extract the subject entity of the query as a single-node community, then repeatedly runs Local Community Search: it samples a local subgraph within a hop radius (dropping nodes with probability $\rho^{n-1}$ with hop $n$), detects communities on that subgraph with algorithms such as Louvain, prunes low-modularity communities in a coarse stage, asks the LLM to pick the most relevant community in a fine stage, and grows $W$ parallel chains of communities. Communities are converted to text either by joining triples (Triple2Text) or by a fine-tuned T5 summarizer (Graph2Text) before the LLM reads them. The paper reports accuracy gains over all baseline families on CWQ, WebQSP, QALD, ZSRE, TREx, and Creak, with the largest margins over Think-on-Graph (ToG), and shows in ablation that the average chain depth drops as the maximum community size grows.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that sampling neighbor nodes with probability $\rho^{n-1}$ still leaves every entity and relation needed to answer the query inside the local subgraph, because any answer entity dropped here cannot be recovered by later pruning or reasoning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the six reported benchmarks, community-based chains beat node-based Think-on-Graph by 4.4 points with gpt-4o-mini and 5.9 points with Llama-3-70b, so the community step is not only a speed trick but also improves answer accuracy.
  • Increasing the maximum community size from 1 to 2 already cuts average reasoning depth noticeably (about 0.2–0.4 on CWQ and about 1.0 on WebQSP), and the reduction translates directly into fewer calls to the LLM per question.
  • Modularity-based coarse pruning outperforms random pruning on CWQ and WebQSP in every tested configuration, so the structural quality of the retained communities matters for accuracy.
  • Setting the maximum community size too high (8 in the ablation) starts to hurt accuracy, meaning the method has an internal accuracy–efficiency trade-off rather than a monotone gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension not explored in the paper: the speed advantage should grow with graph density, because community compression collapses more paths per step on dense graphs; running FastToG on synthetic graphs with controlled density would isolate this effect from dataset difficulty.
  • The paper leaves the decay factor $\rho$ of the hop-sampling probability unspecified and does not measure whether the sampled subgraph still contains answer entities; a cheap diagnostic is to record answer-recall of the sampled subgraph against full retrieval, which would reveal the real upper bound on accuracy.
  • If community-based chains make reasoning traces shorter and more human-readable, the same macro-step idea could transfer to other structured data such as relational databases or code dependency graphs, where dense local structure can be grouped before an LLM reads it.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FastToG, a GraphRAG method that replaces single-entity reasoning steps with community-level units. After extracting the query entity, FastToG repeatedly applies Local Community Search: it samples a local subgraph, runs community detection, coarse-prunes communities by modularity, fine-prunes by an LLM, and appends the selected communities to W parallel reasoning chains. The communities are converted to text either by rule-based Triple2Text or by a fine-tuned T5-based Graph2Text module. Experiments on six datasets (CWQ, WebQSP, QALD, ZSRE, TREx, Creak) with two LLMs report exact-match accuracy, reasoning depth, and ablations over community-detection algorithms, pruning method, and community-size limit. The central claims are higher accuracy, faster reasoning, and better explainability than ToG and other GRAG baselines.

Significance. If the results are substantiated, treating communities rather than individual entities as the unit of LLM reasoning is a genuinely useful idea for GraphRAG: it can shorten the number of LLM calls and provide structurally richer context. The paper also contains useful design probes, including a modularity-vs-random pruning comparison, a comparison of four community-detection algorithms plus random partitioning, and an analysis of Graph2Text hallucination types. Public code and pseudocode are supplied, which aids reproducibility. However, the empirical support is currently incomplete: the neighbor-sampling rate is unspecified and unmeasured, no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported, and the community-size hyperparameter is selected on the evaluation datasets, so the headline accuracy and efficiency claims are not yet firmly established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Community Detection on Subgraph] The exponential neighbor-sampling probability P r(x = 1) = rho^(n-1) is a free parameter that is never given a value anywhere in the manuscript. This sampling step produces the subgraph on which all subsequent community detection and pruning operate, so if rho is small, the omitted nodes and edges can never be recovered by coarse or fine pruning. The paper reports no sensitivity analysis for rho and no recall experiment measuring whether the sampled subgraph retains the entities and relations needed to answer the query. I consider this a load-bearing gap: the reported accuracy gains over ToG could partly reflect the luck of the subgraph sample rather than the community-based reasoning. Please report the value of rho used, study its effect on accuracy and depth, and measure retrieval recall of the sampled subgraph against the full local graph.
  2. [Performance on Accuracy (Tables 1 and 2)] The headline improvements "4.4% in Tab. 1 and 5.9% in Tab. 2" are selected from single datasets: 4.4% is the TREx improvement for gpt-4o-mini (68.6 vs. 64.2), and 5.9% is the CWQ improvement for llama-3-70b (46.2 vs. 40.3). Most other differences are much smaller (often 0.2 to 2.2 percentage points), and a few are negative, e.g., QALD g2t underperforms t2t by 0.2 points in Table 1. No confidence intervals, standard deviations, repeated runs, or significance tests are reported, so the reader cannot assess whether the differences are stable. Please report per-dataset variance or bootstrap confidence intervals, and give the average improvement across datasets rather than only the maximum single-dataset gain.
  3. [Ablation Study (Fig. 4)] The maximum community size M = 4 is selected after inspecting accuracy on the same evaluation datasets that are later used for the headline comparison, and the same tuning is not performed for ToG or the other baselines. This is effectively selection on the test data and biases the comparison in favor of FastToG. Please define a validation protocol (e.g., a held-out split or cross-validation) for choosing M, or report results as a function of M for both FastToG and ToG so the comparison is not confounded by asymmetric hyperparameter selection.
  4. [Performance on Efficiency (Fig. 3)] The efficiency claim is based on average reasoning depth, not wall-clock time or measured LLM calls, and the depth reduction may be entangled with the subgraph sampling in Local Community Search. If the sampled subgraph is aggressively truncated, shorter chains can simply mean that less evidence is available, which could also explain some accuracy differences. Please report actual end-to-end latency or measured LLM call counts together with accuracy, and show how the depth reduction varies with rho in the sensitivity analysis requested above.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix C (Prompt Design)] The sentence "All the prompts are open source and publicly available at xxx" contains a placeholder URL; the link must be completed before publication.
  2. [Reasoning] The sentence "Not that the length of each chain p may not be the same" should read "Note that the length of each chain p may not be the same."
  3. [The Method (Overview)] The phrase "literately detect the communities" should be "iteratively detect the communities."
  4. [Table 3] Please clarify how the random community detection ("Rand") is constructed, in particular whether it preserves the number and size constraints used by the non-random algorithms; this would make the comparison more interpretable.
  5. [Experiments (Accuracy)] The rows labeled "1-d n-w" are described in the text as representing KGP, but the table caption does not include the citation; please make the mapping from table rows to cited baselines explicit in the table caption.
  6. [Appendix B2 (Errors Analysis)] The hallucination statistics in Fig. 7 are based on manual analysis of 100 samples per dataset and per community size, but no inter-annotator agreement or confidence intervals are reported; adding this information would strengthen the G2T analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FastToG's claims are benchmark-supported rather than derived from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

FastToG is an empirical system, and its central claims (higher accuracy, faster reasoning, better explainability) are supported by external benchmark comparisons and measured LLM-call counts, not by an equation that reintroduces its own inputs. The accuracy results in Tables 1 and 2 are produced by a concrete pipeline (local subgraph sampling, community detection, modularity-based coarse pruning, LLM-based fine pruning, Community2Text, and reasoning) and are not definitionally equal to any fitted parameter. The modularity equations (1)-(4) and the call-count formula 2WD+D+2 are mechanism definitions and cost accounting, not predictions derived from the data. The unstated sampling probability rho is a serious unmeasured-recall risk, but that is a robustness and correctness concern, not a circularity. The choice M=4 from Fig. 4 is benchmark hyperparameter tuning, which may inflate reported numbers through evaluation leakage, but it does not make the final accuracy true by construction and is not a self-citation. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. Accordingly, no circular step meets the quote-and-reduction bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

FastToG rests on a small number of domain assumptions about the usefulness of communities and the reliability of LLM selection, plus several hyperparameters that are either fitted to the evaluation data (M, W, Dmax) or left unspecified (rho, k). No new entities are postulated. The modularity formula and community-detection algorithms are standard tools from the cited literature.

free parameters (5)
  • Max community size M = 4
    Set to 4 in main experiments because Fig. 4 shows accuracy peaks around M=4; this is a validation-set choice, not a parameter-free derivation.
  • Number of reasoning chains W = 3
    Taken from ToG settings, not tuned here, but the reported efficiency and accuracy depend on it.
  • Maximum reasoning depth Dmax = 5
    Taken from ToG settings; the number of LLM calls formula 2WD+D+2 depends on it.
  • Neighbor sampling decay rho = unspecified
    Used in the probability Pr(x=1)=rho^(n-1) for subgraph construction; no value is reported, so the central retrieval step is under-specified.
  • Coarse-pruning top-k count = unspecified
    Equation 5 keeps the top k communities by modularity, but k is never given in the experimental setup.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Community structure in the local subgraph aligns with question-relevant semantics.
    The whole method assumes that grouping nodes into communities and selecting communities by modularity and LLM judgment surfaces useful context for answering the query (Section Local Community Search).
  • domain assumption Random exponential neighbor sampling preserves enough structure for answering.
    The probability Pr(x=1)=rho^(n-1) is used to build a tractable subgraph; no experiment validates recall against the full graph (Section Community Detection on Subgraph).
  • domain assumption The LLM can reliably choose the most relevant community from text descriptions.
    Fine pruning and reasoning rely on the LLM correctly interpreting community-to-text conversions (Section LLMs-based Fine-Pruning).
  • domain assumption Wikidata triples are a sufficient and correct source for the answer.
    All retrieval is over Wikidata 20240101; entity linking is outsourced to initial entities from Sun et al. 2023.
  • standard math Standard community-detection algorithms are correctly implemented.
    The paper relies on Louvain, Girvan-Newman, hierarchical, and spectral clustering without modification except for the size backtracking constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast Think-on-Graph: Wider, Deeper and Faster Reasoning of Large Language Model on Knowledge Graph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VU4EKO4G

@misc{pith2026250114300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast Think-on-Graph: Wider, Deeper and Faster Reasoning of Large Language Model on Knowledge Graph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VU4EKO4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14300}
}
read the original abstract

Graph Retrieval Augmented Generation (GRAG) is a novel paradigm that takes the naive RAG system a step further by integrating graph information, such as knowledge graph (KGs), into large-scale language models (LLMs) to mitigate hallucination. However, existing GRAG still encounter limitations: 1) simple paradigms usually fail with the complex problems due to the narrow and shallow correlations capture from KGs 2) methods of strong coupling with KGs tend to be high computation cost and time consuming if the graph is dense. In this paper, we propose the Fast Think-on-Graph (FastToG), an innovative paradigm for enabling LLMs to think ``community by community" within KGs. To do this, FastToG employs community detection for deeper correlation capture and two stages community pruning - coarse and fine pruning for faster retrieval. Furthermore, we also develop two Community-to-Text methods to convert the graph structure of communities into textual form for better understanding by LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of FastToG, showcasing higher accuracy, faster reasoning, and better explainability compared to the previous works.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of 1-w 1-d Graph RAG (a), n-w Graph RAG (b), n-d Graph RAG (c) and n-w n-d GraphRAG (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A general schema of the FastToG paradigm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average Depth versus Max size of community [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy versus Max size of community [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Accuracy (%) of two pruning methods the same W, we only need to compare D to for the evalu￾ation as efficiency ϵ ∝ D. Methods IO, CoT, CoT-SC, and 1-d are not considered because the value of D is fixed at 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the retrieval by FastToG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The hallucination ratio of Graph2Text Model on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagram of construction of reasoning prompt. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    R.; Nasiri, Y.; Cui, S.; Cullen, B.; and Fulda, N

    Andrus, B. R.; Nasiri, Y.; Cui, S.; Cullen, B.; and Fulda, N. 2022. Enhanced story comprehension for large language models through dynamic document-based knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 10436--10444

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Auer, S.; Bizer, C.; Kobilarov, G.; Lehmann, J.; Cyganiak, R.; and Ives, Z. 2007. Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. In international semantic web conference, 722--735. Springer

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    F.; and Saffari, A

    Baek, J.; Aji, A. F.; and Saffari, A. 2023. Knowledge-augmented language model prompting for zero-shot knowledge graph question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04136

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    D.; Guillaume, J.-L.; Lambiotte, R.; and Lefebvre, E

    Blondel, V. D.; Guillaume, J.-L.; Lambiotte, R.; and Lefebvre, E. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment, 2008(10): P10008

    2008

  7. [7]

    D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al

    Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877--1901

    2020

  8. [8]

    Chan, C.-M.; Xu, C.; Yuan, R.; Luo, H.; Xue, W.; Guo, Y.; and Fu, J. 2024. Rq-rag: Learning to refine queries for retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00610

    arXiv 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Deldjoo, Y.; He, Z.; McAuley, J.; Korikov, A.; Sanner, S.; Ramisa, A.; Vidal, R.; Sathiamoorthy, M.; Kasirzadeh, A.; and Milano, S. 2024. A Review of Modern Recommender Systems Using Generative Models (Gen-RecSys). arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00579

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al-Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; Schelten, A.; Yang, A.; Fan, A.; et al. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Edge, D.; Trinh, H.; Cheng, N.; Bradley, J.; Chao, A.; Mody, A.; Truitt, S.; and Larson, J. 2024. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Elsahar, H.; Vougiouklis, P.; Remaci, A.; Gravier, C.; Hare, J.; Laforest, F.; and Simperl, E. 2018. T-REx: A Large Scale Alignment of Natural Language with Knowledge Base Triples . In chair), N. C. C.; Choukri, K.; Cieri, C.; Declerck, T.; Goggi, S.; Hasida, K.; Isahara, H.; ...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Gao, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Gao, X.; Jia, K.; Pan, J.; Bi, Y.; Dai, Y.; Sun, J.; and Wang, H. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Girvan, M.; and Newman, M. E. 2002. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 99(12): 7821--7826

    2002

  7. [15]

    X.; and Wen, J.-R

    Jiang, J.; Zhou, K.; Dong, Z.; Ye, K.; Zhao, W. X.; and Wen, J.-R. 2023. Structgpt: A general framework for large language model to reason over structured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09645

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Karpukhin, V.; O g uz, B.; Min, S.; Lewis, P.; Wu, L.; Edunov, S.; Chen, D.; and Yih, W.-t. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04906

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S.; Reid, M.; Matsuo, Y.; and Iwasawa, Y

    Kojima, T.; Gu, S. S.; Reid, M.; Matsuo, Y.; and Iwasawa, Y. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 22199--22213

    2022

  10. [18]

    u ttler, H.; Lewis, M.; Yih, W.-t.; Rockt \

    Lewis, P.; Perez, E.; Piktus, A.; Petroni, F.; Karpukhin, V.; Goyal, N.; K \"u ttler, H.; Lewis, M.; Yih, W.-t.; Rockt \"a schel, T.; et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 9459--9474

    2020

  11. [19]

    K.; Ding, B.; Bing, L.; Joty, S.; and Poria, S

    Li, X.; Zhao, R.; Chia, Y. K.; Ding, B.; Bing, L.; Joty, S.; and Poria, S. 2023. Chain of knowledge: A framework for grounding large language models with structured knowledge bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13269, 3

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Liang, K.; Meng, L.; Liu, M.; Liu, Y.; Tu, W.; Wang, S.; Zhou, S.; Liu, X.; Sun, F.; and He, K. 2024. A Survey of Knowledge Graph Reasoning on Graph Types: Static, Dynamic, and Multi-Modal. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12): 9456--9478

    2024

  13. [21]

    Modarressi, A.; Imani, A.; Fayyaz, M.; and Sch \"u tze, H. 2023. Ret-llm: Towards a general read-write memory for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14322

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ni, J.; Young, T.; Pandelea, V.; Xue, F.; and Cambria, E. 2023. Recent advances in deep learning based dialogue systems: A systematic survey. Artificial intelligence review, 56(4): 3055--3155

    2023

  15. [23]

    J.; Choi, E.; and Durrett, G

    Onoe, Y.; Zhang, M. J.; Choi, E.; and Durrett, G. 2021. Creak: A dataset for commonsense reasoning over entity knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01653

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Perevalov, A.; Diefenbach, D.; Usbeck, R.; and Both, A. 2022. Qald-9-plus: A multilingual dataset for question answering over dbpedia and wikidata translated by native speakers. In 2022 IEEE 16th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), 229--234. IEEE

    2022

  17. [25]

    Petroni, F.; Piktus, A.; Fan, A.; Lewis, P.; Yazdani, M.; De Cao, N.; Thorne, J.; Jernite, Y.; Karpukhin, V.; Maillard, J.; Plachouras, V.; Rockt \"a schel, T.; and Riedel, S. 2021. KILT : a Benchmark for Knowledge Intensive Language Tasks. In Toutanova, K.; Rumshisky, A.; Zet...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Raffel, C.; Shazeer, N.; Roberts, A.; Lee, K.; Narang, S.; Matena, M.; Zhou, Y.; Li, W.; and Liu, P. J. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research, 21(140): 1--67

    2020

  19. [27]

    Sun, J.; Xu, C.; Tang, L.; Wang, S.; Lin, C.; Gong, Y.; Shum, H.-Y.; and Guo, J. 2023. Think-on-graph: Deep and responsible reasoning of large language model with knowledge graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07697

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Talmor, A.; and Berant, J. 2018. The Web as a Knowledge-Base for Answering Complex Questions. In Walker, M.; Ji, H.; and Stent, A., eds., Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Thurnbauer, M.; Reisinger, J.; Goller, C.; and Fischer, A. 2023. Towards Resolving Word Ambiguity with Word Embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13417

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A.; Waltman, L.; and Van Eck, N

    Traag, V. A.; Waltman, L.; and Van Eck, N. J. 2019. From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific reports, 9(1): 1--12

    2019

  23. [31]

    Vrande c i \'c , D.; and Kr \"o tzsch, M. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Communications of the ACM, 57(10): 78--85

    2014

  24. [32]

    Wang, J.; Huang, W.; Shi, Q.; Wang, H.; Qiu, M.; Li, X.; and Gao, M. 2022 a . Knowledge prompting in pre-trained language model for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08536

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wang, R.; Tang, D.; Duan, N.; Wei, Z.; Huang, X.; Cao, G.; Jiang, D.; Zhou, M.; et al. 2020. K-adapter: Infusing knowledge into pre-trained models with adapters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01808

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Wang, X.; Wei, J.; Schuurmans, D.; Le, Q.; Chi, E.; Narang, S.; Chowdhery, A.; and Zhou, D. 2022 b . Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A.; Siu, A.; Zhang, R.; and Derr, T

    Wang, Y.; Lipka, N.; Rossi, R. A.; Siu, A.; Zhang, R.; and Derr, T. 2024. Knowledge graph prompting for multi-document question answering. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 19206--19214

    2024

  28. [36]

    V.; Zhou, D.; et al

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q. V.; Zhou, D.; et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 24824--24837

    2022

  29. [37]

    H.; Shi, P.; Zhong, R.; Scholak, T.; Yasunaga, M.; Wu, C.-S.; Zhong, M.; Yin, P.; Wang, S

    Xie, T.; Wu, C. H.; Shi, P.; Zhong, R.; Scholak, T.; Yasunaga, M.; Wu, C.-S.; Zhong, M.; Yin, P.; Wang, S. I.; et al. 2022. Unifiedskg: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Yamada, I.; Asai, A.; Shindo, H.; Takeda, H.; and Matsumoto, Y. 2020. LUKE: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01057

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yih, W.-t.; Richardson, M.; Meek, C.; Chang, M.-W.; and Suh, J. 2016. The Value of Semantic Parse Labeling for Knowledge Base Question Answering. In Erk, K.; and Smith, N. A., eds., Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume...

    2016

  32. [40]

    Zhang, Z.; Han, X.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, X.; Sun, M.; and Liu, Q. 2019. ERNIE: Enhanced language representation with informative entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07129

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zheng, C.; Zhou, H.; Meng, F.; Zhou, J.; and Huang, M. 2023. Large language models are not robust multiple choice selectors. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

Pith tools

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