Accurate and Consistent Graph Model Generation from Text with Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph model generation from natural language description is an important task with many applications in software engineering. With the rise of large language models (LLMs), there is a growing interest in using LLMs for graph model generation. Nevertheless, LLM-based graph model generation typically produces partially correct models that suffer from three main issues: (1) syntax violations: the generated model may not adhere to the syntax defined by its metamodel, (2) constraint inconsistencies: the structure of the model might not conform to some domain-specific constraints, and (3) inaccuracy: due to the inherent uncertainty in LLMs, the models can include inaccurate, hallucinated elements. While the first issue is often addressed through techniques such as constraint decoding or filtering, the latter two remain largely unaddressed. Motivated by recent self-consistency approaches in LLMs, we propose a novel abstraction-concretization framework that enhances the consistency and quality of generated graph models by considering multiple outputs from an LLM. Our approach first constructs a probabilistic partial model that aggregates all candidate outputs and then refines this partial model into the most appropriate concrete model that satisfies all constraints. We evaluate our framework on several popular open-source and closed-source LLMs using diverse datasets for model generation tasks. The results demonstrate that our approach significantly improves both the consistency and quality of the generated graph models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".