Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2607.20925

Representing Entity Importance in AI Knowledge Systems: A Dual-Signal Framework of Audience Evaluation and Structural Authority

Abstract

AI knowledge systems require representations of entity importance for retrieval, recommendation, evidence selection, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. Yet importance is often reduced to a single score derived from either human response or graph structure. Such compression may discard distinctions that matter when an AI system must choose among entities for different tasks. This study introduces an interpretable dual-signal representation in which each entity is characterized by an audience-evaluation dimension and a structural-authority dimension. The framework is evaluated using movie entities as an empirical validation domain. IMDb non-commercial datasets provide a rating-based audience ranking, Wikidata supports entity alignment, and English Wikipedia hyperlinks form the knowledge network on which PageRank estimates structural authority. Experiments on 482 entities and 13,690 directed relationships reveal a statistically significant but weak association between the two dimensions (Spearman rho = 0.2275, p < 0.001). Their overlap is only 10% in the top 10 and 34% in the top 100, while entity-level divergence occurs in both directions. The results show that audience evaluation and structural authority are non-redundant signals and should not automatically be collapsed into a single scalar notion of importance. The contribution is not a new ranking algorithm or learned embedding, but a minimal knowledge-representation framework and an empirical test of its dimensional necessity. The findings support task-aware AI knowledge systems that preserve distinct importance signals before applying context-specific selection or aggregation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shen Xu. 2026-07-23. Representing Entity Importance in AI Knowledge Systems: A Dual-Signal Framework of Audience Evaluation and Structural Authority. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20925

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

STRUCTUREDAGENT: Planning with AND/OR Trees for Long-Horizon Web Tasks

Existing LLM-based web agents struggle on complex, long-horizon tasks due to limited in-context memory, weak planning abilities, and greedy behaviors that lead to premature termination. To address these challenges, we propose \SA{}, a hierarchical planning framework that interleaves planning and execution via dynamic $\ANDOR$ trees. The framework separates structural planning from LLM-based reasoning, enabling principled error recovery through node repair, systematic exploration of alternatives via OR nodes, and modular plans that can facilitate human intervention. On WebArena (630 tasks), \SA{} achieves a $\sim$53\% success rate vs.\ $\sim$46\% for AgentOccam, and on complex multi-constraint Amazon shopping tasks, gains reach 10\% over the strongest baseline.

cs.AI

Can Generalist Agents Automate Data Curation?

Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback. We ask whether generalist coding agents can automate this data-curation loop. We introduce *Curation-Bench*, an agent-centric benchmark that fixes the model, training recipe, and evaluation suite while giving agents command-line access to inspect data, implement policies, submit them to a fixed training/evaluation pipeline, and revise. In a vision-language instruction-tuning instantiation, out-of-the-box agents reach strong published data-selection baselines within ten iterations. However, trajectory analysis reveals a persistent *execution-research gap*: agents mainly tune local policy variants rather than explore new policy families, even when given strategy guides and paper references. Scaffolds requiring each iteration to cite, instantiate, and adapt a prior method shift agents toward method-guided exploration. The scaffolded agent autonomously composes -- without human design input -- a data-selection policy that outperforms strong published baselines at one-tenth their data budget. Overall, current agents can run the curation loop, but reliable data research requires scaffolded method adaptation, not open-ended prompting alone. Code and benchmark are open-sourced.

cs.AI

Self-Organizing Agent Teams Learn to Reason Together

Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work. When the structure of a solution is unknown, useful roles and divisions of labor cannot be specified in advance; teams must learn from experience how to organize reasoning as it unfolds. Human teams routinely adapt this way, while existing AI agent teams rely on fixed protocols, explicit task decomposition, or routing. We introduce Self-Organizing Agent Teams (SAT), fixed teams of AI agents that learn reusable strategies from prior collaborations to organize roles, conversational phases, participation, and information flow. These strategies enable what we call collaborative computation: agents exchange, challenge, repair, and synthesize partial reasoning into solutions no member produced independently. In two independent settings, we learn teamwork strategies that transfer unchanged to unseen benchmarks, using only 15 mathematics and 25 graduate-level knowledge problems. Across five mathematics and physics benchmarks, self-organizing teams average 66.7% accuracy, versus 48.8% for their strongest member, 58.7% for compute-matched inference by that agent, and 59.0% for a perfect router over members' independent answers; on AIME 2026, they exceed this router by 13.4 points. Because gains vary across benchmarks, we ask when self-organizing collaboration helps. Across eight benchmarks, demonstrability (the organizational-psychology construct of whether a team can distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning) strongly tracks improvement over the strongest member (Spearman $ρ=0.90$, $p=0.005$): teams benefit most when correct reasoning can be recognized once it appears. More broadly, these results suggest that organization itself can become an agent capability: agent teams can learn how to reason together and produce solutions their members could not reach independently.

cs.AI