Knowledge Graphs and Their Reciprocal Relationship with Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reciprocal relationship between Large Language Models (LLMs) and Knowledge Graphs (KGs) highlights their synergistic potential in enhancing artificial intelligence (AI) applications. LLMs, with their natural language understanding and generative capabilities, support the automation of KG construction through entity recognition, relation extraction, and schema generation. Conversely, KGs serve as structured and interpretable data sources that improve the transparency, factual consistency and reliability of LLM-based applications, mitigating challenges such as hallucinations and lack of explainability. This study conducts a systematic literature review of 77 studies to examine AI methodologies supporting LLM–KG integration, including symbolic AI, machine learning, and hybrid approaches. The research explores diverse applications spanning healthcare, finance, justice, and industrial automation, revealing the transformative potential of this synergy. Through in-depth analysis, this study identifies key limitations in current approaches, including challenges in scalability with maintaining dynamic and real-time Knowledge Graphs, difficulty in adapting general-purpose LLMs to specialized domains, limited explainability in tracing model outputs to interpretable reasoning, and ethical concerns surrounding bias, fairness, and transparency. In response, the study highlights potential strategies to optimize LLM–KG synergy. The findings from this study provide actionable insights for researchers and practitioners aiming for robust, transparent, and adaptive AI systems to enhance knowledge-driven AI applications through LLM–KG integration, further advancing generative AI and explainable AI (XAI) applications.
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 | 0.010 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".