arXiv:2606. 15246v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Provenance-enhanced statements of the form "according to $X$, $\varphi$" are pervasive in contemporary knowledge graphs, especially in domains where graph content primarily represents claims, interpretations, and hypotheses (\emph{capta}) rather than observer-independent facts (\emph{data}).
arXiv:2606. 16603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in data-intensive analytical tasks, yet their outputs are rarely verifiable: a reliance on linear text trajectories makes their reasoning difficult to audit.
arXiv:2608.23370v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) recognise patterns but do not natively track the path of exclusions that a coherent discourse demands. When an input rests...
arXiv:2606. 03705v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are widely used to mitigate the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as outdated knowledge and hallucinations.
arXiv:2604. 26180v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With recent semantic query processing engines, semantic aggregation has become a primitive operator, enabling the reduction of a relation into a natural language aggregate using an LLM.
arXiv:2511. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information.
arXiv:2608.29617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper introduces a hybrid fact-checking framework that integrates Knowledge Graph-based semantic memory with adversarial multi-agent reasoning f...
arXiv:2607. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
arXiv:2609.08869v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Analysts in emerging equity markets keep answering the same questions. Did fundamentals match the market's response? How does the local currency co-m...
arXiv:2508. 01273v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Explicit knowledge conflicts, occurring when retrieved contexts contain contradictory information, pose a fundamental challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) as they integrate increasingly diverse data sources.
Semantic Bayesian World Models (SBWMs) propose a shift from static knowledge graphs to a dynamic, probabilistic fabric of beliefs that can be updated via Bayesian conditioning and influenced by actions. The approach aims to bridge the gap between crisp factual assertions and the probabilistic reasoning of foundation models and autonomous agents, enabling richer inference in scenarios such as home‑security decisions, actuarial estimates, and planning tasks. Realizing SBWMs requires new tools for belief annotation, probabilistic entailment, semantic calibration, and protocols for belief exchange among agents.
The paper introduces GRACE, a framework that breaks down large language model (LLM) responses into atomic claims and grounds them against trusted knowledge priors using a weighted bipartite graph. Edge weights enable weighted centrality analysis to classify claims as Grounded, Refuted, or Boundary, identifying hallucinations and frontier knowledge. An objective called Return on Attention (RoA) prioritizes expert review only for high‑uncertainty claims, and verified claims become new evidence anchors, creating a loop that expands the knowledge base across iterations.
The paper introduces a typed reasoning graph framework to compare human and large language model (LLM) reasoning paths in scientific fact‑checking. By modeling explanations as graphs linking false claims to study context, findings, premises, and fallacy labels, the authors enable one‑to‑one alignment of human and LLM reasoning at the sub‑graph level. Using 84 false claims from MISSCIPLUS, they evaluate GPT‑5, Claude Opus 4.7, and Qwen3‑32B, finding distinct performance patterns: Qwen3‑32B has the lowest verdict failure rate, GPT‑5 shows the highest human alignment, and Claude Opus 4.7, while weak at verdict prediction, often produces valid reasoning in successful cases.