A Comprehensive Evaluation of Neural SPARQL Query Generation From Natural Language Questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the field of neural machine translation (NMT) for SPARQL query generation has witnessed significant growth. Incorporating the copy mechanism with traditional encoder-decoder architectures and using pre-trained encoder-decoder and large language models have set new performance benchmarks. This paper presents various experiments that replicate and expand upon recent NMT-based SPARQL generation studies, comparing pre-trained language models (PLMs), non-pre-trained language models (NPLMs), and large language models (LLMs), highlighting the impact of question annotation and the copy mechanism and testing various fine-tuning methods using LLMs. In particular, we provide a systematic error analysis of the models and test their generalization ability. Our study demonstrates that the copy mechanism yields significant performance enhancements for most PLMs and NPLMs. Annotating the data is pivotal to generating correct URIs, with the “tag-within” strategy emerging as the most effective approach. Additionally, our findings reveal that the primary source of errors stems from incorrect URIs in SPARQL queries that are sometimes replaced with hallucinated URIs when using base models. This does not happen using the copy mechanism, but it sometimes leads to selecting wrong URIs among candidates. Finally, the performance of the tested LLMs fell short of achieving the desired outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".