arXiv:2607. 28662v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models extract entities and relationships from unstructured documents fluently but inconsistently: type vocabularies fracture across documents, the same person surfaces under several name variants, relationships duplicate, and distinct individuals who share a name risk silent conflation.
By Vaibhav Dangaich, Kevin Lewis, Kundeshwar Pundalik
arXiv:2606. 18075v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a paradigm for enhancing large language models (LLMs) with external knowledge, yet existing graph-based methods face a fundamental limitation: entity-centric and chunk-centric approaches operate on representations anchored to original text without true knowledge fusion.
By Haoyang Zhong, Yifei Sun, Antong Zhang, Chunping Wang, Lei Chen, Yang Yang
arXiv:2603.28773v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate confident yet factually incorrect content when used for language generation (a phenomenon of...
By Dobrik Georgiev, Kheeran K. Naidu, Alberto Cattaneo, Federico Monti, Carlo Luschi, Daniel Justus
arXiv:2608.22762v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Knowledge graph question answering (KGQA) is a key task for evaluating KG-augmented Large Language Models (LLMs), and complex KGQA that requires multi-...
By Chenhui Liu, Jianpeng Zhou, Jiahai Wang
Build2SPARQL is a large-scale benchmark dataset for translating natural-language questions into SPARQL queries over building knowledge graphs. The dataset is generated by a KG‑grounded pipeline that produces 6,136 executable SPARQL queries and 30,680 corresponding natural-language questions across six query-pattern families and five vocabulary registers, covering 201 building KGs. Human validation shows high semantic fidelity, naturalness, and operational plausibility, and retrieval‑augmented evaluation demonstrates significant accuracy gains for open‑weight language models.
By Wooyoung Jung
arXiv:2606. 30133v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation built on knowledge graphs (Graph RAG) outperforms flat passage retrieval on multi-hop question answering by leveraging graph structure.
By Illia Makarov, Mykola Glybovets
arXiv:2603. 29875v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the key problems in Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems is that chunk-based retrieval pipelines represent the source chunks as atomic objects, mixing the information contained within such a chunk into a single vector.
By Ryszard Tuora, Mateusz Gali\'nski, Micha{\l} Godziszewski, Micha{\l} Karpowicz, Mateusz Czy\.znikiewicz, Adam Kozakiewicz, Tomasz Zi\k{e}tkiewicz
The paper introduces a neuro‑symbolic framework for constructing knowledge graphs (KGs) that are grounded in an ontology. It combines open‑domain extraction, embedding‑based canonicalization of types and predicates, and a post‑extraction LLM‑based correction step to fix ontology violations, thereby reducing token usage and improving KG consistency. The resulting KGs support symbolic querying, as evidenced by the prevalence of SPARQL graph patterns in the extracted data.
By Lorenzo Loconte, Timothy Hospedales, Cristina Cornelio
arXiv:2603. 24925v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that rely on semantic search often fail to retrieve the complete set of evidence for complex queries, particularly when information is distributed across multiple sources.
By Ruizhong Miao, Yuying Wang, Rongguang Wang, Chenyang Li, Tao Sheng, Sujith Ravi, Dan Roth
arXiv:2607. 14095v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven to be a widely successful process at improving the quality of outputs from a Large Language Model (LLM) for wider context.
By Pranav Yadav
The paper investigates a parametric approach to knowledge graph memory by compiling each entity into a LoRA adapter, enabling zero‑cost query-time retrieval via weight injection. On the MetaQA dataset, these adapters encode context‑free factual knowledge, improving exact‑match scores by up to +0.243 over a base model and achieving an oracle gap of +0.283. However, the stored knowledge is not recoverable through similarity or embedding‑based methods, indicating that knowledge is stored locally and does not transfer across semantically neighboring entities.
By Martino M. L. Pulici, Cuong Xuan Chu, Evgeny Kharlamov, Volker Tresp
arXiv:2511.04473v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Retrieval of information from graph-structured knowledge bases represents a promising direction for improving the factuality of LLMs. While various...
By Alberto Cattaneo, Carlo Luschi, Daniel Justus