Agents-K1: Towards Agent-native Knowledge Orchestration
arXiv:2606. 13669v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current LLM-based research agents have advanced through agent orchestration, yet largely overlook scientific knowledge orchestration.
The paper presents an ontology‑guided framework that uses specialized agents and large language models to extract, verify, and link factual triples from scientific publications, ensuring semantic consistency and traceability. Applied to 2,000 climate science papers, the system produced an ontology‑grounded knowledge graph with 133,990 nodes and 755,308 relations, achieving high agreement with human annotators and a 98.96% correctness rate among validated triples. The pipeline and resulting graph are publicly released for community use.
arXiv:2606. 13669v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current LLM-based research agents have advanced through agent orchestration, yet largely overlook scientific knowledge orchestration.
The quest for new materials increasingly relies on predictive models and comprehensive simulations that span scales from atomic to macroscopic levels. However, essential data necessary for these model...
arXiv:2609.17291v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The quest for new materials increasingly relies on predictive models and comprehensive simulations that span scales from atomic to macroscopic levels....
arXiv:2608.28642v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge graphs used by agentic systems are often treated as flat stores of extracted triples, with little record of who owns a fact, why it was admit...
arXiv:2608. 07700v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Translating a natural-language question into a SPARQL query that can be executed against a large knowledge graph requires resolving lexical ambiguity, grounding surface terms in the target ontology, and producing graph patterns that are both syntactically valid and semantically faithful.
OptimusKG is a multimodal biomedical labeled property graph that integrates structured and semi‑structured resources to preserve detailed, type‑specific metadata across molecular, anatomical, clinical, and environmental domains. The graph contains nearly 191,000 nodes, over 21.8 million edges, and more than 67 million property instances derived from 18 ontologies, with a top‑level schema that enforces node and edge constraints while retaining granular provenance. Validation using the PaperQA3 agent found that 70.0% of sampled edges are supported by literature evidence, and the graph offers a standardized resource for machine learning, knowledge‑grounded retrieval, and hypothesis generation in biomedical research.
arXiv:2610.33018v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scholarly Knowledge Graphs (SKGs) support literature search, scientific discovery, and agent-assisted research. Yet, most approaches to SKG construct...
arXiv:2608. 15193v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly adopted in scientific research, external knowledge bases, knowledge graphs, and long-term memory have improved information retrieval and task continuity.
arXiv:2604. 03496v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Knowledge graph generation typically relies either on predefined ontologies or on schema-free extraction.
arXiv:2608. 14228v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Life science knowledge graphs make large collections of structured data available through SPARQL, but each resource uses its own schema, identifiers, and links.
arXiv:2606. 17076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) has generated thousands of peer-reviewed publications documenting model configurations, evaluation procedures, emergent constraints, and projection uncertainties.
The paper investigates how different types of ontologies—curated, LLM-generated, and data-derived—serve as checkers for large language model agents answering questions over knowledge graphs. By evaluating these ontologies as prompt context, as checkers, or both, across both open-weight and proprietary agents on public and a large private graph, the study quantifies the trade-offs between errors caught and false alarms. It finds that curated ontologies can flag more correct answers than other sources but are only marginally more precise than random, and that combining sources or providing specific feedback offers limited benefits.