Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Ontology-Guided, Hybrid Prompt Learning for Generalization in Knowledge Graph Question Answering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage SPARQL generator with ontology-guided hybrid prompts can answer questions over knowledge graphs it has never seen, without target training data.

desk verdict A credible two-stage KGQA architecture with honest within-dataset results, but the cross-KG 'without retraining' claim rests on an ambiguous table and needs clarification. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03992 v1 pith:7BYDH2WE submitted 2025-02-06 cs.CL cs.AI

Longquan Jiang , Junbo Huang , Cedric Möller , Ricardo Usbeck This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords knowledgegraphquestionansweringSPARQLquerygenerationontology-guidedpromptinghybridpromptlearningcross-knowledge-graphgeneralizationlargelanguagemodelsconstraineddecoding
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

This paper tries to establish that a knowledge graph question answering (KGQA) system can transfer to a new knowledge graph using only that graph's ontology and no target-specific training data. The proposed system, OntoSCPrompt, splits SPARQL generation into two stages: first it predicts a generic query skeleton with placeholders, then it fills in the entities, relations, and concepts specific to the target graph. The claimed mechanism is ontology-guided hybrid prompt learning, where the verbalized target ontology is prepended to the input together with a small set of learnable continuous vectors. On benchmarks such as CWQ, WebQSP, and LC-QuAD 1.0, the trained system performs on par with prior state of the art, and on unseen graphs such as DBLP-QuAD and CoyPu it reports usable F1 scores after pretraining on a different graph. The significance, if true, is that adapting to a new graph costs an ontology description rather than thousands of labeled question-query pairs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generic SPARQL query structure: a query skeleton with six placeholder tokens for entities, concepts, relations, variables, literals, and constraint conditions. It is what separates KG-independent semantics from KG-specific identifiers. Around it, ontology-guided hybrid prompt learning concatenates four learnable vectors with the embeddings of a textual prefix, the question, and the verbalized ontology, and tunes the whole with a negative log-likelihood objective. The skeleton makes cross-KG alignment explicit, while the ontology text and continuous vectors teach the model the target graph's naming conventions.

What would settle it

Take the released implementation, train on WebQSP only, then evaluate on the CoyPu KG test set twice: once with the true ontology in the prompt and once with the ontology replaced by a scrambled or unrelated ontology. If executed-query accuracy is essentially the same in both conditions, the claim that ontology guidance enables transfer is falsified; a large drop would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

OntoSCPrompt's central claim is that a two-stage decomposition of SPARQL generation into structure prediction and content population, steered by an ontology placed in hybrid prompts, makes KGQA transferable across heterogeneous knowledge graphs. In Stage-S the model outputs a query skeleton whose KG-specific slots are marked by six placeholders, and in Stage-C the model fills those slots using the target ontology and a retrieved subgraph. The paper reports that with only learnable prompt vectors and no target-KG fine-tuning, the model transfers within the same KG, such as a WebQSP-trained model reaching 48.8% Hits@1 on CWQ, and that fine-tuning on the target raises it to 70.4%. Across KGs, a model pretrained on LC-QuAD 1.0 improves F1 on DBLP-QuAD from 78.2 to 84.6 and on CoyPuKGQA from 80.2 to 83.3. The paper credits the constrained decoding strategies, together with the ontology-guided prompts, for keeping the generated SPARQL grammatical, structurally consistent, and executable.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a short textual description of a knowledge graph's schema, plus subgraph context retrieved from that graph, is enough for a model trained on a different graph to write correct SPARQL queries against the new graph without ever seeing target training examples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, adapting a KGQA system to a new knowledge graph reduces to obtaining the target ontology, not collecting thousands of labeled question-SPARQL pairs.
  • The six-placeholder skeleton covers single-hop, multi-hop, aggregate, and constraint-bearing queries, so the claimed generalization is not restricted to simple lookups.
  • The constrained decoding strategies are load-bearing: grammar constraints, structure-guided pruning, and subgraph constraints each contribute to the reported accuracy on WebQSP.
  • Pretraining on a general-domain KG transfers positively to low-resource domain-specific KGs, with reported gains of +6.4 F1 on DBLP-QuAD and +3.1 on CoyPuKGQA.
  • Prompt tuning alone, without fine-tuning the base model, already reaches 70.3% F1 on LC-QuAD 1.0 and 62.1% Hits@1 on WebQSP, which supports the paper's claim that the hybrid prompts carry much of the KG-adaptation load.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the strongest evidence for the core claim is the zero-shot within-KG transfer row, since the fine-tuned-on-target rows use target training data and should not be read as evidence of generalization.
  • Editorial inference: the method's ceiling depends on the ontology verbalization and the subgraph retriever; a direct test would degrade or scramble the ontology text and measure how much of the cross-KG gain disappears.
  • Editorial inference: because the structure stage is KG-agnostic, the same skeleton/content split could be applied to other structured query languages, such as SQL with schema prompts, whenever the target schema can be verbalized.
  • Editorial inference: very large ontologies may exceed the model's context window, so a natural extension is to retrieve a relevant ontology subset per question instead of providing the full verbalized ontology.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents OntoSCPrompt, a two-stage KGQA system that first predicts a generic SPARQL query structure with placeholders and then fills the placeholders with KG-specific identifiers. The method augments this two-stage framework with ontology-guided hybrid prompts (textual ontology plus learnable continuous vectors) and with task-specific constrained decoding strategies. The authors evaluate the system on WebQSP, CWQ, LC-QuAD 1.0, SimpleDBpediaQA, DBLP-QuAD, and CoyPuKGQA, reporting within-dataset results, zero-shot transfer between datasets on the same KG, and cross-KG results on DBLP-QuAD and CoyPuKGQA. The paper's central claim is that the system can match state-of-the-art KGQA systems without retraining and can generalize to unseen KGs using only the target ontology and retrieved subgraphs. The limitations section explicitly acknowledges remaining challenges, including relation directionality, SPARQL annotation style, and verbose Freebase naming conventions.

Significance. If the cross-KG generalization claim is substantiated, OntoSCPrompt would be a practically valuable contribution: a single system that can answer questions over a new knowledge graph without target-specific training data would reduce the cost of deploying KGQA in new domains. The two-stage structure/content separation is well motivated, the ontology-guided prompt design is coherent, and the constrained decoding strategies address a real failure mode in SPARQL generation. The paper also provides a public code repository, which is a strength for reproducibility. The main significance, however, rests on the cross-KG experiments, and those experiments are currently under-specified in a way that directly affects the headline claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.A.2, Table VI] The cross-KG experiment is the only direct evidence for the headline claim of generalizing to unseen KGs, but the training protocol is not specified. The text says the 'pre-trained' variant uses LC-QuAD 1.0, and that the model is 'adapted' to a target dataset; it never states whether the DBLP-QuAD (7,000) or CoyPuKGQA (873) training splits were used to update parameters. If those splits were used, the +6.4 and +3.1 gains are supervised adaptation, not zero-shot transfer, and no experiment in the paper supports the abstract's 'without retraining' claim. Please state explicitly whether target training data were used, and report the exact fine-tuning protocol, including epochs and learning rates.
  2. [II.C(a), I (footnote 2)] The ontology prompt in Section II.C(a) is exemplified as 'ontology: concepts: Company, Person; relations: foundedBy, birthDate, deathDate, type; entities: Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Apple Inc.', which includes A-Box entity identifiers, while Section I defines ontology/schema/T-Box as concepts and relations only. Please clarify what information is supplied to the model for an unseen KG: if target entities come from a fixed entity inventory, the wording 'only with their ontology provided' in Section IV.A.1 is misleading; if they come from subgraph retrieval or entity linking, that mechanism should be described, since it is load-bearing for the zero-shot claim.
  3. [IV.A.1, Table V] The zero-shot within-KG results (48.8 Hits@1 on CWQ, 34.0 F1 on SimpleDBpediaQA) are presented without any zero-shot baseline. The sentence 'From earlier papers, we know that other models do not achieve any hits [35]' cites Hartmann et al., which is a dataset-generation paper, not a cross-dataset zero-shot study. Please either provide a direct comparison of existing systems under the same zero-shot protocol or remove the unsupported assertion; as written, the reader cannot judge whether 48.8/34.0 is a meaningful degree of generalization.
  4. [IV.A, Table IV] All results are reported as single point estimates, with no number of runs, error bars, or significance tests. This matters for claims of state-of-the-art or competitive performance where margins are small (e.g., WebQSP 73.8 vs. HGNet 70.6, or 73.8 vs. TERP 76.8). Please report the number of independent runs and variance, or at least clearly state that these are single-run results, so the reader can calibrate the comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.B] The sentence 'We also prove that this approach with our extensions can generalize well to other KGs without retraining' uses 'prove' for an empirical claim; no formal proof is provided, and the wording should be changed to 'demonstrate' or 'show.'
  2. [IV.A.1, Table V] The notation D_A, G_A, D_B, G_B is introduced only after the table is referenced; please define it before the table and spell out that D_x is the data split and G_x is the ontology of dataset x.
  3. [III.D] The training schedule ('first set a learning rate of 0.1 to train the learnable vectors and then set a learning rate of 5e-5 to train both the learnable vectors and the base model') is under-specified; state the number of epochs or steps for each phase, the batch size, and the criterion for switching phases to make the experiments reproducible.
  4. [IV.B, Table VII] The ablation compares prompt tuning (PT) with prompt tuning plus full fine-tuning (PT+FT), but it does not isolate the contribution of the four individual learnable vectors vQ, vG, vB, and vE; the claim that each vector captures 'aspects' of the input would be better supported by a per-vector ablation.
  5. [VI (Limitations)] The limitations section is honest and relevant: relation directionality, SPARQL annotation style, and verbose Freebase naming conventions are real boundary conditions on the generalization claim. These limitations should be mentioned in the abstract or introduction so that 'generalize well' is not overpromised relative to the evidence presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported benchmark results and ablations are empirical measurements on held-out splits, and the ambiguity about cross-KG fine-tuning is a reporting gap, not a derivation-level circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: F1 and Hits@1 numbers on held-out test splits (Tables IV-VII) and ablations of prompt-tuning and constrained decoding. The two-stage structure/content decomposition and placeholder representation are adopted and extended from prior work [22] (which includes two present authors) and from Gu et al. [19]; that is research lineage, not circularity, and neither citation is invoked to prove the current generalization claim. The ontology is inserted into prompts in both training and evaluation as the method's declared design, so the target ontology is an input feature of the model, not a relabeling of the predicted output. The only substantive concern is a reporting gap: Section IV.A.2 does not state whether OntoSCPromptpre was fine-tuned on the DBLP-QuAD or CoyPuKGQA training splits, which leaves the 'without retraining' cross-KG claim under-supported; however, this is an evidence and experimental-protocol ambiguity, not circularity, because no equation or fitted parameter reduces the reported scores to the inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated. The placeholder tokens and prompt vectors are design artifacts of the method, not independent entities with falsifiable handles outside the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • Learnable prompt vectors vQ, vG, vB, vE = not reported
    Four continuous vectors trained by negative log-likelihood on the source dataset; their final values are not disclosed, so the central method depends on retraining them.
  • Learning rates for prompt vectors and base model = 0.1 and 5e-5
    Chosen by hand to stabilize training across datasets; affects all reported results in Tables IV through VII.
  • Subgraph retrieval TOP K and min score = 20 and 1e-5
    Chosen for subgraph retrieval; affects content-stage decoding and thus final accuracy.
  • Beam size = 1, 2, 4, 8
    Beam search size is a hyperparameter; Figure 2 shows that WebQSP performance varies substantially with it.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Auto-regressive language model training with negative log-likelihood is a valid learning procedure for this task.
    Used in Eq. 3 and throughout the training of both stages.
  • domain assumption A SPARQL query structure with six placeholder types covers the query space of the benchmark datasets.
    Section II.B claims coverage of single/multi-hop questions with or without constraints and aggregates, but no formal completeness proof is given.
  • domain assumption Verbalized ontology text, when prepended to the prompt, is sufficient for an LLM to understand KG schema semantics.
    Section II.C constructs prompts as '[question] [ontology]' and relies on this to bridge schema heterogeneity; the ablation only measures prompt tuning versus full fine-tuning, not ontology content.
  • domain assumption The subgraph retriever from [34] transfers to unseen KGs without retraining.
    Section III.D applies the same retriever to all KGs, with no analysis of whether retrieval quality degrades on novel schemas.
  • domain assumption Linguistically similar questions share SPARQL skeletons across different KGs.
    Section II.B motivates the generic structure representation with this claim, but it is not formally proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ontology-Guided, Hybrid Prompt Learning for Generalization in Knowledge Graph Question Answering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BYDH2WE

@misc{pith2026250203992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ontology-Guided, Hybrid Prompt Learning for Generalization in Knowledge Graph Question Answering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BYDH2WE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03992}
}
read the original abstract

Most existing Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) approaches are designed for a specific KG, such as Wikidata, DBpedia or Freebase. Due to the heterogeneity of the underlying graph schema, topology and assertions, most KGQA systems cannot be transferred to unseen Knowledge Graphs (KGs) without resource-intensive training data. We present OntoSCPrompt, a novel Large Language Model (LLM)-based KGQA approach with a two-stage architecture that separates semantic parsing from KG-dependent interactions. OntoSCPrompt first generates a SPARQL query structure (including SPARQL keywords such as SELECT, ASK, WHERE and placeholders for missing tokens) and then fills them with KG-specific information. To enhance the understanding of the underlying KG, we present an ontology-guided, hybrid prompt learning strategy that integrates KG ontology into the learning process of hybrid prompts (e.g., discrete and continuous vectors). We also present several task-specific decoding strategies to ensure the correctness and executability of generated SPARQL queries in both stages. Experimental results demonstrate that OntoSCPrompt performs as well as SOTA approaches without retraining on a number of KGQA datasets such as CWQ, WebQSP and LC-QuAD 1.0 in a resource-efficient manner and can generalize well to unseen domain-specific KGs like DBLP-QuAD and CoyPu KG Code: \href{https://github.com/LongquanJiang/OntoSCPrompt}{https://github.com/LongquanJiang/OntoSCPrompt}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three ontology examples representing the same world facts about [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The performance of different decoding strategies on WebQSP under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Researcher Agents for Knowledge-Graph Question Answering

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A researcher agent that edits its own text-to-SPARQL prompts and rules reaches 0.22 accuracy on DB25, with predicate grounding as the dominant error source.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [35]

    Generating a large dataset for neural question answering over the DBpedia knowledge base,

    A.-K. Hartmann, E. Marx, and T. Soru, “Generating a large dataset for neural question answering over the DBpedia knowledge base,” 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Leveraging Abstract Meaning Representation for knowledge base question answering,

    P. Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, S. Ravishankar, S. Roukos, A. Gray, R. Fernandez Astudillo, M. Chang, C. Cornelio, S. Dana, A. Fokoue, D. Garg, A. Gliozzo, S. Gurajada, H. Karanam, N. Khan, D. Khan- delwal, Y .-S. Lee, Y . Li, F. Luus, N. Makondo, N. Mihindukulasooriya, T. Naseem, S. Neelam, L. Popa, R. Gangi Reddy, R. Riegel, G. Rossiello, U. Sharma, G. P....

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Natural language question answering over rdf: a graph data driven approach,

    L. Zou, R. Huang, H. Wang, J. X. Yu, W. He, and D. Zhao, “Natural language question answering over rdf: a graph data driven approach,” in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data , ser. SIGMOD ’14. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2014, p. 313–324

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Message passing for complex question answering over knowledge graphs,

    S. Vakulenko, J. D. Fernandez Garcia, A. Polleres, M. de Rijke, and M. Cochez, “Message passing for complex question answering over knowledge graphs,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , ser. CIKM ’19. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, p. 1431–1440

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Beyond i.i.d.: Three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases,

    Y . Gu, S. Kase, M. Vanni, B. Sadler, P. Liang, X. Yan, and Y . Su, “Beyond i.i.d.: Three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , ser. WWW ’21. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021, p. 3477–3488

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Don’t generate, discriminate: A proposal for grounding language models to real-world environments,

    Y . Gu, X. Deng, and Y . Su, “Don’t generate, discriminate: A proposal for grounding language models to real-world environments,” in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, Ju...

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Distribution shifts are bottlenecks: Extensive evalua- tion for grounding language models to knowledge bases,

    Y . Shu and Z. Yu, “Distribution shifts are bottlenecks: Extensive evalua- tion for grounding language models to knowledge bases,” inProceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop , N. Falk, S. Papi, and M. Zhang, Eds. St. Julian’s, Malta: Association for Computational...

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Open domain question answering using early fusion of knowledge bases and text,

    H. Sun, B. Dhingra, M. Zaheer, K. Mazaitis, R. Salakhutdinov, and W. Cohen, “Open domain question answering using early fusion of knowledge bases and text,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , E. Riloff, D. Chiang, J. Hockenmaier, and J. Tsujii, Eds. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational L...

    work page 2018

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings,

    A. Saxena, A. Tripathi, and P. Talukdar, “Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetr...

    2020

  2. [9]

    Exploiting hybrid semantics of relation paths for multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs,

    Z. Qiao, W. Ye, T. Zhang, T. Mo, W. Li, and S. Zhang, “Exploiting hybrid semantics of relation paths for multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs,” in Proceedings of the 29th International Con- ference on Computational Linguistics . Gyeongju, Republic of Korea: Inter...

    2022

  3. [10]

    ReaRev: Adaptive reasoning for ques- tion answering over knowledge graphs,

    C. Mavromatis and G. Karypis, “ReaRev: Adaptive reasoning for ques- tion answering over knowledge graphs,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Y . Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, and Y . Zhang, Eds. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: Association for ...

    2022

  4. [11]

    Free- base: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge,

    K. Bollacker, C. Evans, P. Paritosh, T. Sturge, and J. Taylor, “Free- base: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data , ser. SIGMOD ’08. New York, NY , USA: As...

    2008

  5. [12]

    Variational reasoning for question answering with knowledge graph,

    Y . Zhang, H. Dai, Z. Kozareva, A. J. Smola, and L. Song, “Variational reasoning for question answering with knowledge graph,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Confere...

    2018

  6. [13]

    An Empirical Study of Pre-trained Language Models in Simple Knowledge Graph Question Answering,

    N. Hu, Y . Wu, G. Qi, D. Min, J. Chen, J. Z. Pan, and Z. Ali, “An Empirical Study of Pre-trained Language Models in Simple Knowledge Graph Question Answering,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2303.10368, Mar. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Can ChatGPT Replace Traditional KBQA Models? An In-depth Analysis of the Question Answering Performance of the GPT LLM Family,

    Y . Tan, D. Min, Y . Li, W. Li, N. Hu, Y . Chen, and G. Qi, “Can ChatGPT Replace Traditional KBQA Models? An In-depth Analysis of the Question Answering Performance of the GPT LLM Family,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2303.07992, Mar. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Retrieve- Rewrite-Answer: A KG-to-Text Enhanced LLMs Framework for Knowl- edge Graph Question Answering,

    Y . Wu, N. Hu, S. Bi, G. Qi, J. Ren, A. Xie, and W. Song, “Retrieve- Rewrite-Answer: A KG-to-Text Enhanced LLMs Framework for Knowl- edge Graph Question Answering,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2309.11206, Sep. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Survey of hallucination in natural language generation,

    Z. Ji, N. Lee, R. Frieske, T. Yu, D. Su, Y . Xu, E. Ishii, Y . J. Bang, A. Madotto, and P. Fung, “Survey of hallucination in natural language generation,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 12, mar 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Is GPT fit for kgqa? - preliminary results,

    G. Klager and A. Polleres, “Is GPT fit for kgqa? - preliminary results,” in Joint Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Knowledge Graph Generation From Text and the First International BiKE Challenge co-located with 20th Extended Semantic Conference (ESWC 2023), ...

    2023

  11. [18]

    A two-stage approach towards generalization in knowledge base question answering,

    S. Ravishankar, D. Thai, I. Abdelaziz, N. Mihindukulasooriya, T. Naseem, P. Kapanipathi, G. Rossiello, and A. Fokoue, “A two-stage approach towards generalization in knowledge base question answering,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Y...

    2022

  12. [19]

    Few- shot text-to-sql translation using structure and content prompt learning,

    Z. Gu, J. Fan, N. Tang, L. Cao, B. Jia, S. Madden, and X. Du, “Few- shot text-to-sql translation using structure and content prompt learning,” Proc. ACM Manag. Data , vol. 1, no. 2, jun 2023

    2023

  13. [20]

    Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data,

    S. Auer, C. Bizer, G. Kobilarov, J. Lehmann, R. Cyganiak, and Z. Ives, “Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data,” in The Semantic Web , K. Aberer, K.-S. Choi, N. Noy, D. Allemang, K.-I. Lee, L. Nixon, J. Golbeck, P. Mika, D. Maynard, R. Mizoguchi, G. Schreiber, and P. Cudr´e...

    2007

  14. [21]

    Dblp-quad: A question answering dataset over the DBLP scholarly knowledge graph,

    D. Banerjee, S. Awale, R. Usbeck, and C. Biemann, “Dblp-quad: A question answering dataset over the DBLP scholarly knowledge graph,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Bibliometric- enhanced Information Retrieval co-located with 45th European Con- ference on ...

    2023

  15. [22]

    A structure and content prompt- based method for knowledge graph question answering over scholarly data,

    L. Jiang, X. Yan, and R. Usbeck, “A structure and content prompt- based method for knowledge graph question answering over scholarly data,” in Joint Proceedings of Scholarly QALD 2023 and SemREC 2023 co-located with 22nd International Semantic Web Conference ISWC 2023, Athens,...

    2023

  16. [23]

    Text2kgbench: A benchmark for ontology-driven knowledge graph generation from text,

    N. Mihindukulasooriya, S. Tiwari, C. F. Enguix, and K. Lata, “Text2kgbench: A benchmark for ontology-driven knowledge graph generation from text,” in The Semantic Web – ISWC 2023: 22nd International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, Greece, November 6–10, 2023, Proceedings, Par...

    2023

  17. [24]

    Compositional generalization via semantic tagging,

    H. Zheng and M. Lapata, “Compositional generalization via semantic tagging,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 , M.-F. Moens, X. Huang, L. Specia, and S. W.-t. Yih, Eds. Punta Cana, Dominican Republic: Association for Computational Lingui...

    2021

  18. [25]

    Machine translation decoding beyond beam search,

    R. Leblond, J.-B. Alayrac, L. Sifre, M. Pislar, L. Jean-Baptiste, I. Antonoglou, K. Simonyan, and O. Vinyals, “Machine translation decoding beyond beam search,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , M.-F. Moens, X. Huang, L...

    2021

  19. [26]

    Controllable abstractive summa- rization,

    A. Fan, D. Grangier, and M. Auli, “Controllable abstractive summa- rization,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Neural Machine Translation and Generation , A. Birch, A. Finch, T. Luong, G. Neubig, and Y . Oda, Eds. Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computational Lingui...

    2018

  20. [27]

    Grammar-constrained neural semantic parsing with LR parsers,

    A. Baranowski and N. Hochgeschwender, “Grammar-constrained neural semantic parsing with LR parsers,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 , C. Zong, F. Xia, W. Li, and R. Navigli, Eds. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, ...

    2021

  21. [28]

    Grammar-constrained decoding for structured NLP tasks without finetuning,

    S. Geng, M. Josifoski, M. Peyrard, and R. West, “Grammar-constrained decoding for structured NLP tasks without finetuning,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association ...

    2023

  22. [29]

    Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering,

    J. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Yu, J. Tang, J. Tang, C. Li, and H. Chen, “Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, D...

    2022

  23. [30]

    ReasoningLM: En- abling structural subgraph reasoning in pre-trained language models for question answering over knowledge graph,

    J. Jiang, K. Zhou, X. Zhao, Y . Li, and J.-R. Wen, “ReasoningLM: En- abling structural subgraph reasoning in pre-trained language models for question answering over knowledge graph,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , H....

    2023

  24. [31]

    PullNet: Open domain question answering with iterative retrieval on knowledge bases and text,

    H. Sun, T. Bedrax-Weiss, and W. Cohen, “PullNet: Open domain question answering with iterative retrieval on knowledge bases and text,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natura...

    2019

  25. [32]

    Outlining and filling: Hierarchical query graph generation for answering complex questions over knowledge graphs,

    Y . Chen, H. Li, G. Qi, T. Wu, and T. Wang, “Outlining and filling: Hierarchical query graph generation for answering complex questions over knowledge graphs,” IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng., vol. 35, no. 8, p. 8343–8357, aug 2023

    2023

  26. [33]

    LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences,

    M. Guo, J. Ainslie, D. Uthus, S. Ontanon, J. Ni, Y .-H. Sung, and Y . Yang, “LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, M. Carpuat, M.-C. de Marneffe, and I. V . Meza Ruiz, Eds. Seat...

    2022

  27. [34]

    Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering,

    J. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Yu, J. Tang, J. Tang, C. Li, and H. Chen, “Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , S. Muresan...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Coarse-to-fine decoding for neural semantic parsing,

    L. Dong and M. Lapata, “Coarse-to-fine decoding for neural semantic parsing,” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), I. Gurevych and Y . Miyao, Eds. Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computational...

    2018

  29. [37]

    Knowledge-augmented language model prompting for zero-shot knowledge graph question answering,

    J. Baek, A. F. Aji, and A. Saffari, “Knowledge-augmented language model prompting for zero-shot knowledge graph question answering,” in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Reasoning and Structured Explanations (NLRSE) , B. Dalvi Mishra, G. Durrett, P. Jansen, D...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.