Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has significantly enhanced large language models (LLMs) in knowledge-intensive tasks by incorporating external knowledge retrieval. However, existing RAG...

Join the discussion on this paper page

LLMs generate possibilities; knowledge graphs remember what works. Together, they forge the recursive memory and creative engine that enables AI systems to truly evolve themselves. Combining neural components (like large language models) with symbolic verification creates a powerful framework for self-evolution that overcomes limitations of either approach used independently. AlphaEvolve demonstrates that self-evolving systems face a fundamental tension between generating novel solutions and ensuring those solutions actually work. The paper shows how AlphaEvolve addresses this through a hybrid architecture where: Neural components (LLMs) provide creative generation of code modifications by drawing on patterns learned from vast training data Symbolic components (code execution) provide ground truth verification through deterministic evaluation Without this combination, a system would either generate interesting but incorrect solutions (neural-only approach) or be limited to small, safe modifications within known patterns (symbolic-only approach). The system can operate at multiple levels of abstraction depending on the problem: raw solution evolution, constructor function evolution, search algorithm evolution, or co-evolution of intermediate solutions and search algorithms. This capability emanates directly from the neurosymbolic integration, where: Neural networks excel at working with continuous, high-dimensional spaces and recognizing patterns across abstraction levels Symbolic systems provide precise representations of discrete structures and logical relationships This enables AlphaEvolve to modify everything from specific lines of code to entire algorithmic approaches. While AlphaEvolve currently uses an evolutionary database, a knowledge graph structure could significantly enhance self-evolution by: Capturing evolutionary relationships between solutions Identifying patterns of code changes that consistently lead to improvements Representing semantic connections between different solution approaches Supporting transfer learning across problem domains Automated, objective evaluation is the core foundation enabling self-evolution: The main limitation of AlphaEvolve is that it handles problems for which it is possible to devise an automated evaluator. This evaluation component provides the "ground truth" feedback that guides evolution, allowing the system to: Differentiate between successful and unsuccessful modifications Create selection pressure toward better-performing solutions Avoid hallucinations or non-functional solutions that might emerge from neural components alone. When applied to optimize Gemini's training kernels, the system essentially improved the very LLM technology that powers it. | 12 comments on LinkedIn

Do you want to fine-tune an LLM model for triplet extraction? These findings from a recently published paper (first comment) could save you much time. ✅ Does the choice of coding vs natural language prompts significantly impact performance? When fine-tuning these open weights and small LLMs, the choice between code and natural language prompts has a limited impact on performance. ✅ Does training fine-tuned models to include chain-of-thought (rationale) sections in their outputs improve KG construction (KGC) performance? It is ineffective at best and highly detrimental at worst for fine-tuned models. This performance decrease is observed regardless of the number of in-context learning examples provided. Attention analysis suggests this might be due to the model's attention being dispersed on redundant information when rationale is used. Without rationale lists occupying prompt space, the model's attention can focus directly on the ICL examples while extracting relations. ✅ How do the fine-tuned smaller, open-weight LLMs perform compared to the CodeKGC baseline, which uses larger, closed-source models (GPT-3.5)? The selected lightweight LLMs significantly outperform the much larger CodeKGC baseline after fine-tuning. The best fine-tuned models improve upon the CodeKGC baseline by as much as 15–20 absolute F1 points across the dataset. ✅ Does model size matter for KGC performance when fine-tuning with a small amount of training data? Yes, but not in a straightforward way. The 70 B-parameter versions yielded worse results than the 1B, 3B, and 8B models when undergoing the same small amount of training. This implies that for KGC with limited fine-tuning, smaller models can perform better than much larger ones. ✅ For instruction-tuned models without fine-tuning, does prompt language or rationale help? For models without fine-tuning, using code prompts generally yields the best results for both code LLMs and the Mistral natural language model. In addition, using rationale generally seems to help these models, with most of the best results obtained when including rationale lists in the prompt. ✅ What do the errors made by the models suggest about the difficulty of the KGC task? difficulty in predicting relations, entities, and their order, especially when dealing with specialized terminology or specific domain knowledge, which poses a challenge even after fine-tuning. Some errors include adding superfluous adjectives or mistaking entity instances for class names. ✅ What is the impact of the number of in-context learning (ICL) examples during fine-tuning? The greatest performance benefit is obtained when moving from 0 to 3 ICL examples. However, additional ICL examples beyond 3 do not lead to any significant performance delta and can even lead to worse results. This further indicates that the fine-tuning process itself is the primary driver of performance gain, allowing the model to learn the task from the input text and target output.

NodeRAG restructures knowledge into a heterograph: a rich, layered, musical graph where each node plays a different role. It’s not just smarter retrieval. It’s structured memory for AI agents. 》 Why NodeRAG? Most Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) methods retrieve chunks of text. Good enough — until you need reasoning, precision, and multi-hop understanding. This is how NodeRAG solves these problems: 》 🔹Step 1: Graph Decomposition NodeRAG begins by decomposing raw text into smart building blocks: ✸ Semantic Units (S): Little event nuggets ("Hinton won the Nobel Prize.") ✸ Entities (N): Key names or concepts ("Hinton", "Nobel Prize") ✸ Relationships (R): Links between entities ("awarded to") ✩ This is like teaching your AI to recognize the actors, actions, and scenes inside any document. 》 🔹Step 2: Graph Augmentation Decomposition alone isn't enough. NodeRAG augments the graph by identifying important hubs: ✸ Node Importance: Using K-Core and Betweenness Centrality to find critical nodes ✩ Important entities get special attention — their attributes are summarized into new nodes (A). ✸ Community Detection: Grouping related nodes into communities and summarizing them into high-level insights (H). ✩ Each community gets a "headline" overview node (O) for quick retrieval. It's like adding context and intuition to raw facts. 》 🔹 Step 3: Graph Enrichment Knowledge without detail is brittle. So NodeRAG enriches the graph: ✸ Original Text: Full chunks are linked back into the graph (Text nodes, T) ✸ Semantic Edges: Using HNSW for fast, meaningful similarity connections ✩ Only smart nodes are embedded (not everything!) — saving huge storage space. ✩ Dual search (exact + vector) makes retrieval laser-sharp. It’s like turning a 2D map into a 3D living world. 》 🔹 Step 4: Graph Searching Now comes the magic. ✸ Dual Search: First find strong entry points (by name or by meaning) ✸ Shallow Personalized PageRank (PPR): Expand carefully from entry points to nearby relevant nodes. ✩ No wandering into irrelevant parts of the graph. The search is surgical. ✩ Retrieval includes fine-grained semantic units, attributes, high-level elements — everything you need, nothing you don't. It’s like sending out agents into a city — and they return not with everything they saw, but exactly what you asked for, summarized and structured. 》 Results: NodeRAG's Performance Compared to GraphRAG, LightRAG, NaiveRAG, and HyDE — NodeRAG wins across every major domain: Tech, Science, Writing, Recreation, and Finance. NodeRAG isn’t just a better graph. NodeRAG is a new operating system for memory. ≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣ ⫸ꆛ Want to build Real-World AI agents? Join My 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀-𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 TODAY! ➠ Build Real-World AI Agents + RAG Pipelines ➠ Learn 3 Tools: LangGraph/LangChain | CrewAI | OpenAI Swarm ➠ Work with Text, Audio, Video and Tabular Data 👉𝗘𝗻𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗢𝗪 (𝟯𝟰% 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁): https://lnkd.in/eGuWr4CH | 20 comments on LinkedIn

Contribute to LMMApplication/RAKG development by creating an account on GitHub.

Official Implementation of "Affordable AI Assistants with Knowledge Graph of Thoughts" - spcl/knowledge-graph-of-thoughts

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing the development of AI assistants capable of performing diverse tasks across domains. However, current state-of-the-art LLM-driven agents face...

Choosing the Right Format: How Knowledge Graph Layouts Impact AI Reasoning ... 👉 Why This Matters Most AI systems blend knowledge graphs (structured data) with large language models (flexible reasoning). But there’s a hidden variable: "how" you translate the graph into text for the AI. Researchers discovered that the formatting choice alone can swing performance by up to "17.5%" on reasoning tasks. Imagine solving 1 in 5 more problems correctly just by adjusting how you present data. 👉 What They Built KG-LLM-Bench is a new benchmark to test how language models reason with knowledge graphs. It includes five tasks: - Triple verification (“Does this fact exist?”) - Shortest path finding (“How are two concepts connected?”) - Aggregation (“How many entities meet X condition?”) - Multi-hop reasoning (“Which entities linked to A also have property B?”) - Global analysis (“Which node is most central?”) The team tested seven models (Claude, GPT-4o, Gemini, Llama, Nova) with five ways to “textualize” graphs, from simple edge lists to structured JSON and semantic web formats like RDF Turtle. 👉 Key Insights 1. Format matters more than assumed:   - Structured JSON and edge lists performed best overall, but results varied by task.   - For example, JSON excels at aggregation tasks (data is grouped by entity), while edge lists help identify central nodes (repeated mentions highlight connections). 2. Models don’t cheat: Replacing real entity names with fake ones (e.g., “France” → “Verdania”) caused only a 0.2% performance drop, proving models rely on context, not memorized knowledge. 3. Token efficiency:   - Edge lists used ~2,600 tokens vs. JSON-LD’s ~13,500. Shorter formats free up context space for complex reasoning.   - But concise ≠ always better: structured formats improved accuracy for tasks requiring grouped data. 4. Models struggle with directionality:   Counting outgoing edges (e.g., “Which countries does France border?”) is easier than incoming ones (“Which countries border France?”), likely due to formatting biases. 👉 Practical Takeaways - Optimize for your task: Use JSON for aggregation, edge lists for centrality. - Test your model: The best format depends on the LLM—Claude thrived with RDF Turtle, while Gemini preferred edge lists. - Don’t fear pseudonyms: Masking real names minimally impacts performance, useful for sensitive data. The benchmark is openly available, inviting researchers to add new tasks, graphs, and models. As AI handles larger knowledge bases, choosing the right “data language” becomes as critical as the reasoning logic itself. Paper: [KG-LLM-Bench: A Scalable Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Reasoning on Textualized Knowledge Graphs] Authors: Elan Markowitz, Krupa Galiya, Greg Ver Steeg, Aram Galstyan

🎁⏳ Zep packs Temporal Knowledge Graphs + Semantic Entity Extraction + Cypher Queries storage—Outperforming MemGPT with 94.8% Accuracy. Build Personalized AI… | 46 comments on LinkedIn

Breaking LLM Hallucinations in a Smarter Way! (It’s not about feeding more data) Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with factual inaccuracies, but…

KET-RAG: Turbocharging AI Agents with 10x Cheaper, Smarter Knowledge Retrieval This Multi-Granular Graph Framework uses PageRank and Keyword-Chunk Graph to have the Best Cost-Quality Tradeoff ﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌ 》The Problem: Knowledge Graphs Are Expensive (and Clunky) AI agents need context to answer complex questions—like connecting “COVID vaccines” to “myocarditis risks” across research papers. But today’s solutions face two nightmares: ✸ Cost: Building detailed knowledge graphs with LLMs can cost $33,000 for a 5GB legal case. ✸ Quality: Cheap methods (like KNN graphs) miss key relationships, leading to 32% worse answers. ☆ Imagine training an AI doctor that either bankrupts you or misdiagnoses patients. Ouch. ﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌ 》The Fix: KET-RAG’s Two-Layer Brain KET-RAG merges precision (knowledge graphs) and efficiency (keyword-text maps) into one system: ✸ Layer 1: Knowledge Graph Skeleton ☆ Uses PageRank to find core text chunks (like “vaccine side effects” in medical docs). ☆ Builds a sparse graph only on these chunks with LLMs—saving 80% of indexing costs. ✸ Layer 2: Keyword-Chunk Bipartite Graph ☆ Links keywords (e.g., “myocarditis”) to all related text snippets—no LLM needed. ☆ Acts as a “fast lane” for retrieving context without expensive entity extraction. ﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌ 》Results: Beating Microsoft’s Graph-RAG with Pennies On HotpotQA and MuSiQue benchmarks, KET-RAG: ✸ Retrieves 81.6% of critical info vs. Microsoft’s 74.6%—with 10x lower cost. ✸ Boosts answer accuracy (F1 score) by 32.4% while cutting indexing bills by 20%. ✸ Scales to terabytes of data without melting budgets. ☆ Think of it as a Tesla Model 3 outperforming a Lamborghini at 1/10th the price. ﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌ 》Why AI Agents Need This AI agents aren’t just chatbots—they’re problem solvers for medicine, law, and customer service. KET-RAG gives them: ✸ Real-time, multi-hop reasoning: Connecting “drug A → gene B → side effect C” in milliseconds. ✸ Cost-effective scalability: Deploying agents across millions of documents without going broke. ✸ Adaptability: Mixing precise knowledge graphs (for critical data) with keyword maps (for speed). Paper in comments ≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣≣ 》Build Your Own Supercharged AI Agent? 🔮 Join My 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬-𝐎𝐧 𝐀𝐈 𝐀𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 TODAY! and Learn Building AI Agent with Langgraph/Langchain, CrewAI and OpenAI Swarm + RAG Pipelines 𝐄𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐎𝐖 [34% discount]: 👉 https://lnkd.in/eGuWr4CH | 10 comments on LinkedIn

The recently developed retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technology has enabled the efficient construction of domain-specific applications. However, it also has limitations, including the gap...

What is really Graph RAG? Inspired by "From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarization" paper from Microsoft! How do you combine… | 12 comments on LinkedIn

Knowledge Graphs as a source of trust for LLM-powered enterprise question answering That has been our position from the beginning when we started our research… | 29 comments on LinkedIn

Ashley Faith hosted Amy Hodler and me on a recent episode about “2025 Predictions” — here are notes I prepared, to review in 2026…

Much has been discussed about how Large Language Models, Knowledge Graphs and Search Engines can be combined in a synergistic manner. A dimension largely absent from current academic discourse is...

SimGRAG is a novel method for knowledge graph driven RAG, transforms queries into graph patterns and aligns them with candidate subgraphs using a graph…

Unlocking universal reasoning across knowledge graphs. Knowledge graphs (KGs) are powerful tools for organizing and reasoning over vast amounts of… | 11 comments on LinkedIn

My takeaways from the International Semantic Web Conference #iswc2024 Ioana keynote: Great example of data integration for journalism, highlighting the use of…

Beyond Vector Space : Knowledge Graphs and the New Frontier of Agentic System Accuracy ⛳ In the realm of agentic systems, a fundamental challenge emerges…

👉 Our paper "Understanding SPARQL Queries: Are We Already There?", explores the potential of Large Language Models (#LLMs) to generate natural-language…

Language agents have recently been used to simulate human behavior and user-item interactions for recommendation systems. However, current language agent simulations do not understand the...

Unlocking universal reasoning across knowledge graphs. Knowledge graphs (KGs) are powerful tools for organizing and reasoning over vast amounts of… | 13 comments on LinkedIn

🚀 Exciting New Research: "Graph-constrained Reasoning (GCR)" - Enabling Faithful KG-grounded LLM Reasoning with Zero Hallucination! 🧠 🎉 Proud to share our… | 11 comments on LinkedIn

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased their proficiency in answering natural language queries. However, their effectiveness is hindered by limited domain-specific...

Recently, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has achieved remarkable success in addressing the challenges of Large Language Models (LLMs) without necessitating retraining. By referencing an...

LLMs and Knowledge Graphs: A love story 💓 Researchers from University of Oxford recently released MedGraphRAG. At its core, MedGraphRAG is a framework…

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has significantly advanced large language models (LLMs) by enabling dynamic information retrieval to mitigate knowledge gaps and hallucinations in generated...

✨ Attention Information Extraction Enthusiasts ✨ I am excited to announce the release of our latest paper and model family, ReLiK, a cutting-edge… | 33 comments on LinkedIn