Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Aligning graph embeddings with language lets a frozen LLM complete knowledge graphs, with Hits@1 gains of up to 29.8% in link prediction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

SAT uses hierarchical contrastive alignment and a unified graph instruction to tune a lightweight adapter for knowledge graph completion, reporting large link prediction gains.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A sensible architecture with a real evaluation flaw: the headline link-prediction numbers come from a top-3 beam-search protocol that is not comparable to the baselines. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01166 v1 pith:VUGX6B4S submitted 2025-09-01 cs.CL cs.AI

Enhancing Large Language Model for Knowledge Graph Completion via Structure-Aware Alignment-Tuning

Yu Liu , Yanan Cao , Xixun Lin , Yanmin Shang , Shi Wang , Shirui Pan This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords knowledge graph completionlarge language modelsgraph-text alignmentcontrastive learninginstruction tuninglink predictiontriple classificationstructure-aware reasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Knowledge graphs are incomplete, and large language models struggle to use their structure because graph embeddings and natural language live in different representation spaces. This paper claims that the gap can be closed by a two-stage recipe: first align graph embeddings with text embeddings through contrastive learning at both node and subgraph levels, then instruction-tune a frozen LLM using a lightweight adapter with a unified graph instruction. On triple classification and link prediction across four benchmarks, SAT reports large improvements, especially in link prediction Hits@1 (8.7% to 29.8% relative over the second-best baseline). If correct, the paper shows a cheap, task-unified way to inject graph structure into LLMs without per-task prompt engineering or full fine-tuning.

Core claim

The paper proposes SAT (Structure-Aware Alignment-Tuning), a framework that makes graph structure legible to LLMs for knowledge graph completion. The central claim is that hierarchical knowledge alignment — local contrastive alignment between entity nodes and their textual descriptions, plus global contrastive alignment between subgraphs and textual documents — resolves the representation-space mismatch between graph encoders and language models. Then, structural instruction tuning, which feeds a 2-hop query subgraph as graph embeddings through a unified instruction template and updates only a small knowledge adapter while freezing the LLM and graph encoder, enables structure-aware reasoning

What carries the argument

The load-bearing components are (1) hierarchical knowledge alignment, which uses multi-task contrastive learning to pull node embeddings toward their Wikipedia descriptions and subgraph embeddings toward corresponding documents, thereby placing graph structure in the language space; and (2) structural instruction tuning, which constructs a unified graph instruction that concatenates a human question with graph embeddings of a 2-hop query subgraph, and fine-tunes only a two-layer feed-forward knowledge adapter on top of a frozen LLM and frozen graph encoder. The graph encoder is a graph transformer and the text encoder is a vanilla transformer, both trained during the alignment stage and then

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that measuring Hits@1 and MRR on only the top-3 answers generated by beam search is measuring the same capability that baselines' full rankings measure; if those protocols are not comparable, the headline improvements are not supported.

What would settle it

Run SAT on FB15k-237N and CoDeX-S under the standard filtered link-prediction protocol, ranking the correct tail entity against all candidate entities, and compare Hits@1 and MRR with RED-GNN and KoPA evaluated under the identical protocol. If the large relative gains (29.1% and 29.8%) shrink or disappear, the paper's central claim is not established.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single instruction template and adapter can serve multiple KGC tasks, reducing the duplication of designing separate prompts and lowering the cost of adding new completion tasks.
  • Freezing both the LLM and graph encoder while tuning only a small adapter keeps memory and computation low enough for practical deployment on standard hardware.
  • Structure-based instructions outperform text-flattened triples, implying that relational structure itself, rather than the surface text of neighboring triples, drives the improved reasoning.
  • The learned alignment transfers across different LLM backbones (Vicuna, Llama2, Llama3) without retraining the graph encoder, suggesting the alignment is model-agnostic.
  • The link-prediction gains are concentrated in Hits@1 rather than MRR, indicating that alignment sharpens the top prediction rather than merely re-ranking a few plausible candidates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported margins depend on the evaluation protocol: SAT computes Hits@1 and MRR over only the top-3 beam-search answers, whereas most baselines rank all entities; re-scoring under the standard filtered full-ranking protocol could narrow or alter the claimed improvements.
  • GPT-4 was used both to generate the subgraph-document pairs for global alignment and as a baseline, so part of the observed gain may reflect distillation of GPT-4's extraction behavior rather than the alignment mechanism alone.
  • The same alignment-tuning recipe could generalize beyond knowledge graphs to other structure-plus-language tasks, such as table-to-text generation, code understanding over abstract syntax trees, or schema-guided dialogue, wherever a structural encoder needs to speak the language model's language.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents SAT, an LLM-based framework for knowledge graph completion (KGC). It first aligns graph embeddings with natural-language representations through local (node-description) and global (subgraph-document) contrastive learning, then performs structural instruction tuning with a unified graph-instruction template and a lightweight knowledge adapter while freezing the LLM and graph encoder. The authors evaluate triple classification and link prediction on FB15k-237N, CoDeX-S, FB15k-237, and YAGO3-10, reporting large improvements over prior methods, especially in link prediction (8.7-29.8% relative Hits@1 gains). Source code is promised.

Significance. The proposed architecture is sensible and addresses a real problem: bridging structural and textual representations for LLM-based KGC. The hierarchical alignment is a reasonable way to inject graph structure, and the unified instruction/adapter design is practical and parameter-efficient. If the reported gains hold under a comparable evaluation protocol, the method would be a useful contribution. The strongest assets are the promise of reproducible code, clear ablation studies supporting the alignment and instruction components, and transferability experiments across LLMs and datasets. However, the paper's central comparative claim rests on an evaluation protocol mismatch and on an internal contradiction in the triple-classification results, so the significance cannot be assessed from the current evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Tables 3–4] The link prediction evaluation is not commensurate with the baselines. §5.1 states 'For each query, the top-3 answers are generated using a beam-search strategy.' Hits@1 and MRR are then computed over this three-element candidate set, whereas the traditional baselines (ConvE, RotatE, RED-GNN, etc.) rank all entities under the standard filtered protocol. Under a 3-candidate protocol, a model need only place the correct entity in a short generated list; an absent correct entity yields reciprocal rank 0, so the scores are not comparable to full-ranking MRR/Hits@1. The claimed 8.7%–29.8% relative improvements are therefore unsupported. Please report SAT's Hits@1/MRR with full entity ranking (ideally filtered) and use the same protocol for all generative baselines, or clearly state that the comparison is against a different, easier evaluation.
  2. [Appendix E.1, Table 8] The text states 'SAT achieves relative F1 improvements of 1.3% and 2.4% over PKGC' on FB15k-237 and YAGO3-10, but Table 8 reports SAT F1=0.822 vs PKGC 0.846 on FB15k-237 and SAT F1=0.795 vs PKGC 0.831 on YAGO3-10. SAT's F1 is lower in both cases; only Accuracy is higher. This internal contradiction suggests selective reporting of the Accuracy metric under the label 'F1'. The claim must be corrected, and the triple-classification comparison on the large datasets should not be described as a universal F1 improvement.
  3. [§4.2, §5.1] The query subgraph construction is underspecified. For each test query, the paper says it extracts 'the k-hop neighborhoods around the anchor entities in the query from the KG' (§4.2). If the KG used at inference includes the test triple or the target tail as a neighbor, the structural prompt may leak the answer. Please state explicitly that query subgraphs are extracted from the training KG only, and verify that no test edge appears in the subgraph. This is necessary to rule out an alternative explanation for the strong Hit@1 numbers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 6 vs Appendix E.2] The efficiency analysis is internally inconsistent: Table 6 lists SAT training time as 70H on YAGO3-10, while Table 9 reports the full tuning stage as 28H (5H + 23H). Please reconcile these numbers or specify what is included in the 70H.
  2. [§4.1] The notation D is used both for the matrix of description embeddings and for the set of descriptions; D′ is similarly overloaded for the document set and the matrix in Eqs. (5)–(6). Please disambiguate.
  3. [Tables and text] YAGO3-10 is typeset inconsistently as 'Y AGO3-10' in several tables and sentences. Please standardize.
  4. [Table 3] The baseline 'TuckER' appears in Table 3 but has no corresponding entry in the reference list. Please add the citation.
  5. [Figure 4] The ablation bars in Figure 4 are reported without error bars or significance tests. Given that some differences (e.g., in panel c) are small, please report variance or at least state how many independent runs were averaged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: SAT's components are independently trained and benchmarked; the claimed gains are empirical, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step that reduces to its own inputs. The hierarchical knowledge alignment (Section 4.1, Eqs. 1-8) is a contrastive objective between graph and text encoders; its positive pairs are entity-description pairs and GPT-4-extracted subgraph-document pairs, not the KGC labels being predicted. Structural instruction tuning (Section 4.2, Eq. 9) is a standard conditional language-modeling objective trained on gold answers, with LLM and graph encoder frozen and only the adapter updated. The link prediction and triple classification results are benchmark comparisons with external baselines, not algebraic consequences of a fitted parameter. The self-citations (Liu et al. 2024; Lin et al. 2024) appear only as background context and are not load-bearing for the method or its claims. The evaluation protocol concern (Section 5.1: 'For each query, the top-3 answers are generated using a beam-search strategy') and the Appendix E.1 text/table mismatch (text claims F1 improvements while Table 8 shows lower F1 than PKGC) are validity and reporting concerns, but they are not circularity under the definitions used here. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The core free parameters are standard hyperparameters, but the subgraph hop count, beam width, and temperature directly shape the reported results. The main unstated axioms are the alignment transferability and the evaluation comparability. The latter is the most consequential: if the evaluation protocol is not comparable, the headline improvements are not valid.

free parameters (5)
  • temperature tau = not specified
    Used in similarity scaling in Eq. (3); the value or learning scheme is not reported, yet it affects contrastive alignment.
  • subgraph hop count = 2
    Selected via ablation in Figure 4(d); it defines context size and directly affects performance.
  • number of in-context examples = 3
    Tuned on CoDeX-S in Figure 8(b) as a trade-off between performance and training time.
  • embedding dimension = 128
    Appendix C sets graph and word embedding dimensions to 128; an arbitrary hyperparameter.
  • beam width for answer generation = 3
    Section 5.1 states top-3 answers are generated with beam search; this defines the evaluation candidate set and is a key factor in reported metrics.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Graph embeddings aligned by contrastive loss can be injected into a frozen LLM via a linear adapter and remain interpretable as structural context.
    The entire structural instruction tuning relies on this; not proven, only empirically tested.
  • domain assumption GPT-4-extracted triples from documents are sufficiently accurate to serve as subgraph-document pairs for global alignment.
    Section 4.1 uses GPT-4 for extraction; errors propagate to alignment quality.
  • ad hoc to paper Evaluation by generating at most 3 answers and measuring Hits@1/MRR over those is comparable to full-ranking evaluation used by baselines.
    This comparability assumption underpins the SOTA claims; it is not justified in the paper and is contradicted by standard practice.
  • domain assumption Node descriptions (first Wikipedia paragraph) are available for entities; entities without pages use names as fallback.
    Section 4.1 local alignment; final results depend on description quality and coverage.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Large Language Model for Knowledge Graph Completion via Structure-Aware Alignment-Tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUGX6B4S

@misc{pith2026250901166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Large Language Model for Knowledge Graph Completion via Structure-Aware Alignment-Tuning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUGX6B4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01166}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Knowledge graph completion (KGC) aims to infer new knowledge and make predictions from knowledge graphs. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities. LLM-enhanced KGC methods primarily focus on designing task-specific instructions, achieving promising advancements. However, there are still two critical challenges. First, existing methods often ignore the inconsistent representation spaces between natural language and graph structures. Second, most approaches design separate instructions for different KGC tasks, leading to duplicate works and time-consuming processes. To address these challenges, we propose SAT, a novel framework that enhances LLMs for KGC via structure-aware alignment-tuning. Specifically, we first introduce hierarchical knowledge alignment to align graph embeddings with the natural language space through multi-task contrastive learning. Then, we propose structural instruction tuning to guide LLMs in performing structure-aware reasoning over KGs, using a unified graph instruction combined with a lightweight knowledge adapter. Experimental results on two KGC tasks across four benchmark datasets demonstrate that SAT significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods, especially in the link prediction task with improvements ranging from 8.7% to 29.8%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01166 by Shirui Pan, Shi Wang, Xixun Lin, Yanan Cao, Yanmin Shang, Yu Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of LLM-enhanced KGC methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overall framework of our SAT. (a) Hierarchical knowledge alignment, comprising local and global alignments, aligns graph structural representations with the natural language space. (b) Structural instruction tuning enables LLMs to perform structure-aware reasoning over KGs through a lightweight tuning strategy. Large Language Models. LLMs have emerged as a powerful new paradigm for diverse tasks throug… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of graph instruction design. Graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparative experiments of SAT on triple classification. (a) Knowledge alignment removes local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transferability study of our SAT on different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of graph embeddings. 5.6 Transferability Investigation To assess the transferability of SAT across differ￾ent LLMs and cross-domain datasets, we carry out experiments in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of graph embeddings. F In-Context Learning Recently, in-context learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful technique that incorporates task ex￾amples directly into the prompts. However, the effectiveness of ICL is significantly dependent on the selection of relevant examples. Unlike previous methods that rely primarily on the textual semantics of the query, we propose the structural ICL, which … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Additional experiments on ICL. Effect of Structural ICL. To assess the impact of structural ICL, we implement experiments with different retrieval mechanisms. As shown in Fig￾ure 8(a), we observe a noticeable improvement when structural ICL is introduced. Moreover, struc￾tural ICL outperforms textual ICL, which we at￾tribute to the fact that textual similarity is insuffi￾cient for capturing graph structure… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Vinay Chaudhri, Chaitanya Baru, Naren Chittar, Xin Dong, Michael Genesereth, James Hendler, Aditya Kalyanpur, Douglas Lenat, Juan Sequeda, Denny Vrande c i \'c , et al. 2022. Knowledge graphs: introduction, history and, perspectives. AI Magazine, 43(1):17--29

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Chen Chen, Yufei Wang, Bing Li, and Kwok-Yan Lam. 2022. Knowledge is flat: A seq2seq generative framework for various knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4005--4017

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Chen Chen, Yufei Wang, Aixin Sun, Bing Li, and Kwok-Yan Lam. 2023. Dipping plms sauce: bridging structure and text for effective knowledge graph completion via conditional soft prompting. In 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2023, pages 11489--11503. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Zhongwu Chen, Long Bai, Zixuan Li, Zhen Huang, Xiaolong Jin, and Yong Dou. 2024. A new pipeline for knowledge graph reasoning enhanced by large language models without fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1366--1381

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Xiou Ge, Yun Cheng Wang, Bin Wang, and C-C Jay Kuo. 2023. Compounding geometric operations for knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6947--6965

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Yuxia Geng, Jiaoyan Chen, Yuhang Zeng, Zhuo Chen, Wen Zhang, Jeff Z Pan, Yuxiang Wang, and Xiaoliang Xu. 2023. Prompting disentangled embeddings for knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language model. Available at SSRN 4790015

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Lingbing Guo, Zhongpu Bo, Zhuo Chen, Yichi Zhang, Jiaoyan Chen, Yarong Lan, Yangyifei Luo, Qian Li, Qiang Zhang, Wen Zhang, et al. 2024 a . Mkgl: Mastery of a three-word language. In 38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Lingbing Guo, Zhongpu Bo, Zhuo Chen, Yichi Zhang, Jiaoyan Chen, Yarong Lan, Mengshu Sun, Zhiqiang Zhang, Yangyifei Luo, Qian Li, et al. 2024 b . Mkgl: Mastery of a three-word language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07526

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Qingyu Guo, Fuzhen Zhuang, Chuan Qin, Hengshu Zhu, Xing Xie, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020. A survey on knowledge graph-based recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34(8):3549--3568

    2020

  13. [13]

    Jiabang He, Jia Liu, Lei Wang, Xiyao Li, and Xing Xu. 2024. Mocosa: Momentum contrast for knowledge graph completion with structure-augmented pre-trained language models. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pages 1--6. IEEE

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Yuntong Hu, Zhihan Lei, Zheng Zhang, Bo Pan, Chen Ling, and Liang Zhao. 2024. Grag: Graph retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16506

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Pengcheng Jiang, Shivam Agarwal, Bowen Jin, Xuan Wang, Jimeng Sun, and Jiawei Han. 2023. Text-augmented open knowledge graph completion via pre-trained language models. In 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2023, pages 11161--11180. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Pengcheng Jiang, Lang Cao, Cao Xiao, Parminder Bhatia, Jimeng Sun, and Jiawei Han. 2024 a . Kg-fit: Knowledge graph fine-tuning upon open-world knowledge. Advances in neural information processing systems

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Pengcheng Jiang, Lang Cao, Cao Xiao, Parminder Bhatia, Jimeng Sun, and Jiawei Han. 2024 b . Kg-fit: Knowledge graph fine-tuning upon open-world knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16412

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Haotian Li, Bin Yu, Yuliang Wei, Kai Wang, Richard Yi Da Xu, and Bailing Wang. 2023. Kermit: Knowledge graph completion of enhanced relation modeling with inverse transformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14770

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Ren Li, Yanan Cao, Qiannan Zhu, Guanqun Bi, Fang Fang, Yi Liu, and Qian Li. 2022 a . How does knowledge graph embedding extrapolate to unseen data: a semantic evidence view. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 5781--5791

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Rui Li, Jianan Zhao, Chaozhuo Li, Di He, Yiqi Wang, Yuming Liu, Hao Sun, Senzhang Wang, Weiwei Deng, Yanming Shen, et al. 2022 b . House: Knowledge graph embedding with householder parameterization. In International conference on machine learning, pages 13209--13224. PMLR

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Xixun Lin, Wenxiao Zhang, Fengzhao Shi, Chuan Zhou, Lixin Zou, Xiangyu Zhao, Dawei Yin, Shirui Pan, and Yanan Cao. 2024. Graph neural stochastic diffusion for estimating uncertainty in node classification. In 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR). MLResearchPress

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Yu Liu, Yanan Cao, Shi Wang, Qingyue Wang, and Guanqun Bi. 2024. Generative models for complex logical reasoning over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 492--500

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Maosong Sun, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2018. Entity-duet neural ranking: Understanding the role of knowledge graph semantics in neural information retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07591

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Linhao Luo, Yuan-Fang Li, Reza Haf, and Shirui Pan. 2024. Reasoning on graphs: Faithful and interpretable large language model reasoning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Xin Lv, Yankai Lin, Yixin Cao, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, and Jie Zhou. 2022. Do pre-trained models benefit knowledge graph completion? a reliable evaluation and a reasonable approach. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Jesse G Meyer, Ryan J Urbanowicz, Patrick CN Martin, Karen O’Connor, Ruowang Li, Pei-Chen Peng, Tiffani J Bright, Nicholas Tatonetti, Kyoung Jae Won, Graciela Gonzalez-Hernandez, et al. 2023. Chatgpt and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges. BioData Mining, 16(1):20

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982--3992

    2019

  29. [29]

    Tara Safavi and Danai Koutra. 2020. Codex: A comprehensive knowledge graph completion benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07810

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne Van Den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In The semantic web: 15th international conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3--7, 2018, proceedings 15, pages 593--607. Springer

    2018

  31. [31]

    Fabian M Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. 2007. Yago: a core of semantic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 697--706

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.10197

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Zhaoxuan Tan, Zilong Chen, Shangbin Feng, Qingyue Zhang, Qinghua Zheng, Jundong Li, and Minnan Luo. 2023. Kracl: Contrastive learning with graph context modeling for sparse knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 2548--2559

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Jiabin Tang, Yuhao Yang, Wei Wei, Lei Shi, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. Graphgpt: Graph instruction tuning for large language models. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 491--500

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Komal Teru, Etienne Denis, and Will Hamilton. 2020. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 9448--9457. PMLR

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Kristina Toutanova and Danqi Chen. 2015. Observed versus latent features for knowledge base and text inference. In Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on continuous vector space models and their compositionality, pages 57--66

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Th \'e o Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, \'E ric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2071--2080. PMLR

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Shikhar Vashishth, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha Talukdar. 2019. Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2017

  41. [41]

    Changjian Wang, Xiaofei Zhou, Shirui Pan, Linhua Dong, Zeliang Song, and Ying Sha. 2022 a . Exploring relational semantics for inductive knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 4184--4192

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Liang Wang, Wei Zhao, Zhuoyu Wei, and Jingming Liu. 2022 b . Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4281--4294

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176--194

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Yanbin Wei, Qiushi Huang, James T Kwok, and Yu Zhang. 2024. Kicgpt: Large language model with knowledge in context for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02389

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Yanbin Wei, Qiushi Huang, Yu Zhang, and James Kwok. 2023. Kicgpt: Large language model with knowledge in context for knowledge graph completion. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Derong Xu, Ziheng Zhang, Zhenxi Lin, Xian Wu, Zhihong Zhu, Tong Xu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yefeng Zheng, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Multi-perspective improvement of knowledge graph completion with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01972

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2014. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6575

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    Rui Yang, Jiahao Zhu, Jianping Man, Li Fang, and Yi Zhou. 2024 a . Enhancing text-based knowledge graph completion with zero-shot large language models: A focus on semantic enhancement. Knowledge-Based Systems, 300:112155

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Rui Yang, Jiahao Zhu, Jianping Man, Li Fang, and Yi Zhou. 2024 b . Exploiting large language models capabilities for question answer-driven knowledge graph completion across static and temporal domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10819

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. Kg-bert: Bert for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Liang Yao, Jiazhen Peng, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2023. Exploring large language models for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13916

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Ruosong Ye, Caiqi Zhang, Runhui Wang, Shuyuan Xu, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. Natural language is all a graph needs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Seongjun Yun, Minbyul Jeong, Raehyun Kim, Jaewoo Kang, and Hyunwoo J Kim. 2019. Graph transformer networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Honggen Zhang, June Zhang, and Igor Molybog. 2024 a . Hasa: Hardness and structure-aware contrastive knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, pages 2116--2127

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Shuai Zhang, Yi Tay, Lina Yao, and Qi Liu. 2019. Quaternion knowledge graph embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Yichi Zhang, Zhuo Chen, Lingbing Guo, Yajing Xu, Wen Zhang, and Huajun Chen. 2024 b . Making large language models perform better in knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 233--242

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Yichi Zhang, Zhuo Chen, Wen Zhang, and Huajun Chen. 2023. Making large language models perform better in knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06671

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Yongqi Zhang and Quanming Yao. 2022. Knowledge graph reasoning with relational digraph. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022, pages 912--924

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Zhanqiu Zhang, Jianyu Cai, Yongdong Zhang, and Jie Wang. 2020. Learning hierarchy-aware knowledge graph embeddings for link prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 3065--3072

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Zhaocheng Zhu, Zuobai Zhang, Louis-Pascal Xhonneux, and Jian Tang. 2021. Neural bellman-ford networks: A general graph neural network framework for link prediction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:29476--29490

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  62. [62]

    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...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.