TL;DR
This paper introduces GG Explore, a novel framework using Guidance Graphs to improve knowledge exploration in LLMs, enhancing efficiency and performance on complex tasks by bridging unstructured queries and structured knowledge retrieval.
Contribution
The paper proposes Guidance Graphs for structured semantic exploration, enabling precise, efficient knowledge retrieval and outperforming state-of-the-art methods in complex scenarios.
Findings
Achieves superior efficiency and accuracy on complex tasks.
Outperforms SOTA methods with smaller LLMs.
Maintains strong performance with reduced computational resources.
Abstract
While Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong linguistic capabilities, their reliance on static knowledge and opaque reasoning processes limits their performance in knowledge intensive tasks. Knowledge graphs (KGs) offer a promising solution, but current exploration methods face a fundamental trade off: question guided approaches incur redundant exploration due to granularity mismatches, while clue guided methods fail to effectively leverage contextual information for complex scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose Guidance Graph guided Knowledge Exploration (GG Explore), a novel framework that introduces an intermediate Guidance Graph to bridge unstructured queries and structured knowledge retrieval. The Guidance Graph defines the retrieval space by abstracting the target knowledge' s structure while preserving broader semantic context, enabling precise and efficient…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
S1. A guided graph model may help retrieve more relevant results more quickly in large KGs. S2. The computational process has been described with sufficient detail. S3. An experimental study uses a blend of small-scale LLMs to verify the claimed results.
W1. It lacks the clarity of an overall computational problem with a quantifiable design goal. W2. There is little formal justification for the strategies (as is, it seems the main strategy relies on a set of heuristics) - more needs to be shown in terms of potential guarantees of relevance, correctness, or efficiency. W3. There seems to be little discussion of LLM optimization, consistency guarantees, and uncertainty, etc. W4. The presentation needs significant improvement.
Please see stregthness
1. The ablation experiments are notably incomplete, being conducted on a single dataset and solely focusing on "Efficiency Comparison" rather than a comprehensive analysis of individual component contributions to overall performance. 2. While claiming to be state-of-the-art, the experimental results do not consistently demonstrate superior performance. 3. The paper contains several stylistic and formatting errors, such as missing periods on lines 42, 159, and 198, which detract from its profes
S1. Some code is provided. S2. Computational cost is reported.
W1. The presentation is hard to follow. - Figure 3 is confusing: terms differ from those in the text; rounds are not clearly separated; the "target" node is misleading. - The running example cannot cover all the main steps of the approach. - The input and output of each step is not clear. - One has to jump from Phase 1 in Section 3.3.2 to 3.3.3 and then back to Phase 2 in Section 3.3.2. W2. Evaluation is insufficient. - Only two public datasets are used. Considering the heuristic nature of the
1. Clear problem formulation — The paper clearly identifies the gap between semantic query interpretation and structural KG traversal and motivates the need for an intermediate reasoning representation rather than direct retrieval. 2. Guidance Graph as a structured semantic scaffold — Introducing a query-specific semantic graph as a blueprint before KG exploration is a neat idea that balances flexibility (LLM reasoning) and precision (structured navigation), improving interpretability. 3. Effect
1. Novelty is somewhat incremental. While the paper positions Guidance Graph as a new semantic-structural bridge, many prior works utilize intermediate graph-like cues for KG traversal. The distinction between those “cue graphs” and the proposed Guidance Graph is not sharply articulated, making the conceptual contribution appear more like a refined engineering pipeline than a fundamentally new formulation. 2. Pipeline complexity is relatively high. The full system involves keyword typing, semant
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
