Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2402.11541

Large Language Models Can Better Understand Knowledge Graphs Than We Thought

Abstract

When we integrate factual knowledge from knowledge graphs (KGs) into large language models (LLMs) to enhance their performance, the cost of injection through training increases with the scale of the models. Consequently, there is significant interest in developing prompt strategies that effectively incorporate KG information into LLMs. However, the community has not yet comprehensively understood how LLMs process and interpret KG information in different input formats and organizations within prompts, and researchers often rely on trial and error. To address this gap, we design extensive experiments to empirically study LLMs' comprehension of different KG prompts. At the literal level, we reveal LLMs' preferences for various input formats (from linearized triples to fluent natural language text). At the attention distribution level, we discuss the underlying mechanisms driving these preferences. We then investigate how the organization of structured knowledge impacts LLMs and evaluate LLMs' robustness in processing and utilizing KG information in practical scenarios. Our experiments show that (1) linearized triples are more effective than fluent NL text in helping LLMs understand KG information and answer fact-intensive questions; (2) Different LLMs exhibit varying preferences for different organizational formats of triples; (3) LLMs with larger scales are more susceptible to noisy, incomplete subgraphs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xinbang Dai, Yuncheng Hua, Tongtong Wu, Yang Sheng, Qiu Ji, Guilin Qi. 2025-01-23. Large Language Models Can Better Understand Knowledge Graphs Than We Thought. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11541

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL