GGC: Selective Query Correction for Reliable Text-to-SPARQL Generation

Lihui Chen; Thanh-Son Nguyen; Tuan Anh Nguyen; Ziyi Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

GGC: Selective Query Correction for Reliable Text-to-SPARQL Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Selective correction of only high-risk SPARQL queries raises accuracy from 90% to 98% while cutting rewrite cost nearly in half.

desk verdict Clean MCQA systems result: a learned Gate makes selective SPARQL correction beat both Generator-only and correct-all on accuracy and cost; generality beyond that pair is still thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28082 v1 pith:YOZTSWQP submitted 2026-07-30 cs.CL

Ziyi Yang , Thanh-Son Nguyen , Tuan Anh Nguyen , Lihui Chen This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords Text-to-SPARQLknowledgegraphquestionansweringlargelanguagemodelsselectivecorrectionqueryreliabilitysemanticparsingSPARQLgeneration

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

LLM generators can produce SPARQL that runs on a knowledge graph yet still answers the wrong question. This paper argues that the reliability problem is not only how to generate queries but when to rewrite them. It introduces Generator–Gate–Corrector: a fine-tuned generator proposes a query, a binary gate scores whether that query is risky, and a corrector rewrites only the queries the gate flags. On the MCQA movie benchmark the pipeline lifts query-level accuracy from 90.23% to 98.33%, beats a correct-everything baseline (92.34%), and uses about 45% less inference time than always correcting. The authors show most generator failures are semantic, not syntactic, so execution failure alone cannot decide when to correct; a learned gate that reads the question–query pair is needed.

What carries the argument

Generator–Gate–Corrector (GGC): a three-stage pipeline where a supervised generator emits s(0), a binary gate on the question–query pair decides g ∈ {0,1}, and a corrector rewrites only when g = 1, leaving low-risk queries untouched.

What would settle it

Train or swap in a different generator (or move to ID-based SPARQL / another KG), keep the original gate and corrector frozen, and check whether selective correction still beats both generator-only and correct-all on query-level accuracy and inference cost; collapse of the gap would falsify the claim as a general reliability method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In LLM-based Text-to-SPARQL, selective post-generation correction—triggering a corrector only on queries a learned gate marks as high-risk—raises end-to-end query accuracy well above both generator-only and correct-all pipelines, because most remaining errors are executable but semantically wrong and because unnecessary rewriting can damage already-correct queries.

Load-bearing premise

A gate and corrector trained on one generator’s errors on movie-domain label-based SPARQL will still be the right risk detector and repairer when the generator, SPARQL style, or knowledge graph changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Execution-failure triggers alone will systematically miss most Text-to-SPARQL errors if semantic failures dominate as on MCQA.
Always-on correctors can lower net accuracy by overwriting good queries; a low false-positive gate is required for safe rewrite.
Mixing some originally correct samples into corrector training stabilizes preservation without erasing repair skill.
KG execution feedback can help the gate slightly but is not required when question–query mismatch signals are strong.
Reliable Text-to-SPARQL systems should budget compute for detection-then-correct rather than uniform post-editing.

Reading between the lines

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

The same detect-then-correct pattern likely transfers to Text-to-SQL and other structured-query settings where fluent but unfaithful outputs are common.
If gate labels must be regenerated whenever the base generator changes, selective correction is a co-trained stack, not a drop-in reliability layer.
A natural next measurement is whether a weaker or frozen generator plus a strong gate–corrector can match a stronger generator-only system at lower total cost.
Case studies of logical composition failures that neither generator nor corrector fix point to needing structural or constraint-level repair, not only label rewriting.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: on MCQA this is a coherent detect-then-correct stack. Fine-tuned Llama-3.2-3B Generator hits 90.23% query accuracy; always-correct only gets to 92.34% at ~2× inference; selective GGC reaches 98.33% at ~33h vs ~60h. The useful diagnosis is that most Generator failures are executable but semantically wrong (77.7%), so execution-failure triggers miss the real problem. The Gate (RoBERTa, FPR ~0.31%, stable from τ=0.25–0.75) is what makes the cost/accuracy tradeoff work, and the over-correction case study shows why correct-all hurts.

What is actually new is not “post-correct SPARQL”—Firesparql and Text-to-SQL repair already exist—but the learned binary risk gate plus the ablations that justify it: threshold sweep, feedback on/off, Corrector mix of wrong+correct samples, and subset coordination. Those pieces are done carefully and the main table hangs together. Limitations are honest about Generator-error coupling and narrow scope.

Soft spots, in proportion: (1) no serious LLM Text-to-SPARQL baselines in the main comparison—NSMh/QGG are answer-retrieval refs, not query generators; (2) SciQA appendix contradicts itself (table 88.09→94.47 vs text 80.70→91.62), so the only external support is not yet trustworthy; (3) Gate/Corrector are fit to one Generator’s mistakes on label-based movie SPARQL—transfer is asserted more than shown. None of that breaks the MCQA arithmetic; it caps how far you can push “reliable Text-to-SPARQL” as a general method.

Math/data/citations look fine for an applied NLP systems paper: external answer-set metrics, timed inference, standard SFT/LoRA setup, related work is on-point. No code/artifacts, so reproducibility is medium.

Who it’s for: people building KGQA or structured-query LLM pipelines who care about when to spend a second pass. I’d send it to peer review with a clear ask to fix SciQA numbers, add at least one shifted Generator or KG setting, and tighten baseline claims. Worth engaging if you work in this lane; not a must-read outside it.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Generator–Gate–Corrector (GGC), a three-stage pipeline for LLM-based Text-to-SPARQL: a fine-tuned Generator produces an initial SPARQL query, a binary Gate decides whether correction is needed, and a Corrector is invoked only on high-risk queries. The central empirical claim is that on MCQA this selective strategy raises query-level accuracy from 90.23% (Generator-only) to 98.33%, outperforming correct-all (92.34%) while cutting test inference time by about 45% relative to correct-all. The motivation is that most Generator failures are executable but semantically wrong (Table 3: 77.70% semantic vs 21.07% syntax), so execution-failure triggers miss the dominant error mode. Ablations cover Gate backbones, threshold sensitivity, KG execution feedback, Corrector training mix (wrong vs correct samples), subset-level Gate–Corrector coordination, case studies of over-correction, and a preliminary SciQA transfer experiment.

Significance. If the MCQA results hold under broader evaluation, the paper makes a useful systems contribution: selective post-generation correction is a practical reliability lever for structured query generation, not only a stronger generator. The work is concrete about the dominant failure mode (semantic, executable queries), documents over-correction risk with cases, and shows that a low-FPR Gate can both save compute and protect already-correct queries. The ablations on Corrector mix and threshold stability are informative for practitioners. Strengths include clear pipeline design, honest Limitations on Generator-error coupling and domain scope, and efficiency reporting alongside accuracy. The significance is currently more engineering/empirical than conceptual novelty (detect-then-correct is familiar from Text-to-SQL), and the generality of the reliability claim still rests heavily on one Generator–MCQA pairing plus a thin external check.

major comments (4)

[Appendix D.2, Table 13b] Appendix D.2 contradicts itself on the only non-MCQA evidence. Table 13b reports Generator-only 88.09% → GGC 94.47% query accuracy (+6.38) and item F1 98.23, while the surrounding prose states 80.70% → 91.62% (+10.92) and item F1 98.31. Until these numbers are reconciled (and gold-SPARQL-error filtering is stated once, consistently), SciQA cannot support the transfer/generality claim made in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
[Abstract; §1; §5; Limitations] The headline framing—“reliable LLM-based Text-to-SPARQL” via selective correction—overreaches the experimental base. Main results use one fine-tuned Llama-3.2-3B Generator on MCQA’s label-based movie SPARQL; Gate and Corrector are trained on that Generator’s error distribution (Limitations already notes this coupling). No shifted Generator backbone, ID-based SPARQL setting, or second full-scale KG is reported. Either add at least one clean transfer setting (different Generator and/or KG/SPARQL dialect) or narrow abstract/conclusion claims to “on MCQA, with a Gate/Corrector matched to this Generator.”
[§4.1 Compared Settings; Table 2; §2.2] Baselines for the Text-to-SPARQL claim are thin. Table 2 compares mainly Generator-only, correct-all, and two traditional KGQA systems (NSMh, QGG) that do not emit SPARQL and are not query-level comparable. Related work cites FIRESPARQL and other LLM SPARQL generators, but none appear as controlled baselines. Without at least one recent generation/correction baseline under matched data and metrics, it is hard to judge whether GGC’s gains are specific to selective gating or would be matched by stronger single-pass generation or always-on correction with a better model.
[§4.1 Evaluation Metrics; §3.6 Gate labels] Query-level accuracy is defined as answer-set match between executing the predicted SPARQL and the gold SPARQL (§4.1), not string match to gold SPARQL. That is reasonable, but the paper should quantify how often distinct SPARQL strings yield identical answer sets, and whether Gate labels (correct/incorrect) use the same criterion as the reported metric. Any mismatch between labeling criterion and evaluation criterion would inflate Gate quality and end-to-end gains. Please state the exact equality test used for both labeling and scoring.

minor comments (5)

[Table 2; Table 5b–c] Table 5b’s default without-feedback pipeline query accuracy is 98.27%, while Table 2’s main selective result is 98.33% (aligned with Table 5c W1.0+C0.2). A short note tying the main row to the exact ablation configuration would remove ambiguity.
[§4.2–4.3; Table 2] Item-level precision for Generator-only is 37.96% versus 90.23% query accuracy (Table 2). Briefly explain this gap in the main text (over-broad answer sets on failures), since readers may otherwise distrust one of the two metrics.
[§3.2; Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced but not visually described in text beyond the equations in §3.2; ensure the camera-ready figure clearly marks the Gate decision and the selective Corrector path.
[Limitations; Appendix B; Table 2] Minor wording/typos: “Genera-tor–Gate–Corrector” line break in Limitations; inconsistent “WikiData” vs “Wikidata”; “Infer . Time” spacing in Table 2 header.
[Appendix B; Appendix D.2] Prompt templates (Appendix B) hard-code Wikidata prefixes and “Do not use wdt syntax” while SciQA uses ORKG—clarify how prompts were adapted for SciQA.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: standard supervised cascade evaluated on external answer-set match metrics.

full rationale

GGC is an empirical ML systems paper. The Generator is SFT’d NLQ→SPARQL; the Gate is a binary classifier labeled by whether the Generator’s SPARQL matches ground truth; the Corrector is SFT’d on (q, s⁰)→gold SPARQL. Headline numbers (90.23%→98.33% query acc; selective vs correct-all time) are measured by executing generated queries and comparing answer sets to gold—external to the training objectives. Training Gate/Corrector on the same Generator’s mistakes is ordinary cascading, not a derivation that forces the reported accuracy by construction. There are no self-definitional identities, no fitted constants renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorems imported from overlapping authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. Self-citation to Hoang et al. (MCQA) is dataset provenance, not load-bearing theory. SciQA table/text inconsistency is a correctness issue, not circularity. Derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim is empirical systems performance, not a theorem. It rests on standard SFT/classification practice, MCQA’s label-based SPARQL and answer-set matching as truth, and design choices (when the Gate fires, what the Corrector sees, how training mixes are built). Free parameters are ordinary ML hyperparameters and data-mix ratios that affect reported stability; axioms are domain evaluation conventions; invented entities are named pipeline modules, not new physical objects.

free parameters (5)

Gate decision threshold τ = 0.5 (default)
Binary trigger g = I[P ≥ τ]; default 0.5. Ablated at 0.25/0.50/0.75; small trigger-rate movement but still a chosen operating point for the main 98.33% result.
Corrector training mix (W1.0 + Cα) = C0.2 default
Fraction of originally correct Generator outputs mixed into Corrector SFT. Default W1.0+C0.2 chosen for cost/performance; α ∈ {0,0.2,0.5,0.8} changes query and item metrics.
Generator/Corrector SFT hyperparameters = as in Appendix A.2
LoRA r=16, α=16, LR 2e-4, 1 epoch, max len 2048, AdamW_8bit, seed 3407 on Llama-3.2-3B—choices that define the error distribution the Gate learns.
Gate classifier hyperparameters = RoBERTa default
RoBERTa-base, 3 epochs, LR 2e-5, max len 256, seed 42; backbone choice (RoBERTa vs SBERT) selected by validation metrics.
Generator fine-tune subset size = 12450 Generator train samples
12,450 of 119,409 train samples used to SFT Generator; remainder used to build Gate/Corrector labels—split size is a design choice affecting reported Generator error rate (~9.8% wrong on test).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Query-level correctness equals answer-set match between executed predicted SPARQL and executed gold SPARQL on the target KG endpoint.
Primary metric in §4.1; treats gold SPARQL and local GraphDB execution as ground truth (MCQA gold errors ~1.23% of Generator failures noted).
domain assumption Semantic inconsistency of executable SPARQL with the NLQ is detectable from the (question, s⁰) pair alone sufficiently often that a classifier Gate can replace always-on correction.
Core methodological premise in §3.4 and supported by without-feedback results in Table 5b.
standard math Standard supervised fine-tuning / binary cross-entropy training yields models whose held-out accuracy estimates the claimed pipeline gains.
Implicit throughout §3.6 and §4; no formal generalization bound.
ad hoc to paper MCQA’s movie-domain, label-based SPARQL dialect is a sufficient testbed to claim improved reliability of LLM Text-to-SPARQL generation in the abstract/conclusion framing.
Main results are MCQA-only; SciQA is preliminary and internally inconsistent; Limitations admit narrow scope.

invented entities (1)

Generator–Gate–Corrector (GGC) pipeline
purpose: Name the selective detect-then-correct architecture for Text-to-SPARQL.
Composition of known modules (SFT generator, classifier router, SFT editor). Not a new ontological object; listed for ledger completeness as the paper’s postulated system.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GGC: Selective Query Correction for Reliable Text-to-SPARQL Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YOZTSWQP

@misc{pith2026260728082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GGC: Selective Query Correction for Reliable Text-to-SPARQL Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YOZTSWQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28082}
}

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in structured query generation, making them a natural choice for Text-to-SPARQL, which translates natural language questions into executable SPARQL queries over knowledge graphs. However, their initial outputs remain unreliable: generated queries may be executable yet semantically misaligned with input questions, leading to incorrect retrieval. To address this issue, we propose Generator-Gate-Corrector (GGC), a framework for reliable LLM-based Text-to-SPARQL generation. GGC first uses a Generator to produce an initial query, then applies a Gate to predict whether correction is needed, and finally invokes a Corrector only for selected high-risk queries. This selective correction mechanism avoids unnecessary modifications and reduces the risk of degrading originally correct queries. Experiments on MCQA show that GGC improves query-level accuracy from 90.23\% to 98.33\% while reducing inference overhead by 45\% compared with correcting all generated queries. Ablation studies show that the Gate is robust across thresholds and that Corrector training data composition affects correction effectiveness and stability. Overall, the results demonstrate that selective correction enhances the accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of LLM-based text-to-SPARQL generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28082 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

Banerjee, Debayan and Nair, Pranav Ajit and Kaur, Jivat Neet and Usbeck, Ricardo and Biemann, Chris , title =. Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2022 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3477495.3531841 , abstract =

arXiv 2022
[2]

Query Graph Generation for Answering Multi-hop Complex Questions from Knowledge Bases

Lan, Yunshi and Jiang, Jing. Query Graph Generation for Answering Multi-hop Complex Questions from Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2020. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.91

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.91 2020
[3]

Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages =

He, Gaole and Lan, Yunshi and Jiang, Jing and Zhao, Wayne Xin and Wen, Ji-Rong , title =. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages =. 2021 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3437963.3441753 , abstract =

arXiv 2021
[4]

Brown, Tom B. and Mann, Benjamin and Ryder, Nick and Subbiah, Melanie and Kaplan, Jared and Dhariwal, Prafulla and Neelakantan, Arvind and Shyam, Pranav and Sastry, Girish and Askell, Amanda and Agarwal, Sandhini and Herbert-Voss, Ariel and Krueger, Gretchen and Henighan, Tom and Child, Rewon and Ramesh, Aditya and Ziegler, Daniel M. and Wu, Jeffrey and W...

2020
[5]

Kellogg, Gregg and Hartig, Olaf and Champin, Pierre-Antoine and Seaborne, Andy , year =
[6]

Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering: A Survey , year=

Lan, Yunshi and He, Gaole and Jiang, Jinhao and Jiang, Jing and Zhao, Wayne Xin and Wen, Ji-Rong , journal=. Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering: A Survey , year=
[7]

Fine-tuned LLM s Know More, Hallucinate Less with Few-Shot Sequence-to-Sequence Semantic Parsing over W ikidata

Xu, Silei and Liu, Shicheng and Culhane, Theo and Pertseva, Elizaveta and Wu, Meng-Hsi and Semnani, Sina and Lam, Monica. Fine-tuned LLM s Know More, Hallucinate Less with Few-Shot Sequence-to-Sequence Semantic Parsing over W ikidata. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.353

doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.353 2023
[8]

PICARD : Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models

Scholak, Torsten and Schucher, Nathan and Bahdanau, Dzmitry. PICARD : Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2021. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.779

doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.779 2021

Show all 27 references

[9]

Text-to- SQL Error Correction with Language Models of Code

Chen, Ziru and Chen, Shijie and White, Michael and Mooney, Raymond and Payani, Ali and Srinivasa, Jayanth and Su, Yu and Sun, Huan. Text-to- SQL Error Correction with Language Models of Code. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisti...

2023 doi
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , year=

Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , year=

1907 arXiv
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year=

Evaluating large language models trained on code , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year=

arXiv
[12]

Sentence- BERT : Sentence Embeddings using S iamese BERT -Networks

Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna. Sentence- BERT : Sentence Embeddings using S iamese BERT -Networks. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP...

2019 doi
[13]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

The llama 3 herd of models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

arXiv
[14]

Edward J Hu and yelong shen and Phillip Wallis and Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li and Shean Wang and Lu Wang and Weizhu Chen , booktitle=. Lo. 2022 , url=

2022
[15]

Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

Dettmers, Tim and Pagnoni, Artidoro and Holtzman, Ari and Zettlemoyer, Luke , title =. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2023 , publisher =

2023
[16]

Harris, Steve and Seaborne, Andy , year =
[17]

2024 , howpublished =

2024
[18]

2025 , howpublished =

2025
[19]

Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , pages=

Semi-automated Construction of Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering Dataset Using Large Language Model , author=. Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , pages=. 2024 , organization=

2024
[20]

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , volume=

Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap , author=. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

2024
[21]

International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=
[22]

Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

Wang, Wenhui and Wei, Furu and Dong, Li and Bao, Hangbo and Yang, Nan and Zhou, Ming , title =. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2020 , isbn =

2020
[23]

Investigating Large Language Models for Text-to- SPARQL Generation

D ' Abramo, Jacopo and Zugarini, Andrea and Torroni, Paolo. Investigating Large Language Models for Text-to- SPARQL Generation. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Knowledge-Augmented Methods for Natural Language Processing. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.knowledgenlp-1.5

2025 doi
[24]

Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase , year =

Vrande. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase , year =. Commun. ACM , month = sep, pages =. doi:10.1145/2629489 , abstract =

doi
[25]

FIRESPARQL: A LLM-Based Framework for SPARQL Query Generation over Scholarly Knowledge Graphs , booktitle=

Xueli Pan and Victor. FIRESPARQL: A LLM-Based Framework for SPARQL Query Generation over Scholarly Knowledge Graphs , booktitle=. 2025 , pages=. doi:10.5220/0013774000004000 , isbn=

2025 doi
[26]

Scientific Reports , year=

The SciQA Scientific Question Answering Benchmark for Scholarly Knowledge , author=. Scientific Reports , year=
[27]

ACM Comput

Shi, Liang and Tang, Zhengju and Zhang, Nan and Zhang, Xiaotong and Yang, Zhi , title =. ACM Comput. Surv. , month = sep, articleno =. 2025 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3737873 , abstract =

2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

Banerjee, Debayan and Nair, Pranav Ajit and Kaur, Jivat Neet and Usbeck, Ricardo and Biemann, Chris , title =. Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2022 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3477495.3531841 , abstract =

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Query Graph Generation for Answering Multi-hop Complex Questions from Knowledge Bases

Lan, Yunshi and Jiang, Jing. Query Graph Generation for Answering Multi-hop Complex Questions from Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2020. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.91

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.91 2020

[3] [3]

Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages =

He, Gaole and Lan, Yunshi and Jiang, Jing and Zhao, Wayne Xin and Wen, Ji-Rong , title =. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages =. 2021 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3437963.3441753 , abstract =

arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

Brown, Tom B. and Mann, Benjamin and Ryder, Nick and Subbiah, Melanie and Kaplan, Jared and Dhariwal, Prafulla and Neelakantan, Arvind and Shyam, Pranav and Sastry, Girish and Askell, Amanda and Agarwal, Sandhini and Herbert-Voss, Ariel and Krueger, Gretchen and Henighan, Tom and Child, Rewon and Ramesh, Aditya and Ziegler, Daniel M. and Wu, Jeffrey and W...

2020

[5] [5]

Kellogg, Gregg and Hartig, Olaf and Champin, Pierre-Antoine and Seaborne, Andy , year =

[6] [6]

Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering: A Survey , year=

Lan, Yunshi and He, Gaole and Jiang, Jinhao and Jiang, Jing and Zhao, Wayne Xin and Wen, Ji-Rong , journal=. Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering: A Survey , year=

[7] [7]

Fine-tuned LLM s Know More, Hallucinate Less with Few-Shot Sequence-to-Sequence Semantic Parsing over W ikidata

Xu, Silei and Liu, Shicheng and Culhane, Theo and Pertseva, Elizaveta and Wu, Meng-Hsi and Semnani, Sina and Lam, Monica. Fine-tuned LLM s Know More, Hallucinate Less with Few-Shot Sequence-to-Sequence Semantic Parsing over W ikidata. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.353

doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.353 2023

[8] [8]

PICARD : Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models

Scholak, Torsten and Schucher, Nathan and Bahdanau, Dzmitry. PICARD : Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2021. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.779

doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.779 2021