arXiv preprint ·
When Does Better Confidence Improve a Knowledge-Graph Audit?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Confidence estimates guide human review in LLM-built knowledge graphs, but better error prediction can yield little improvement in an audit. We study this gap through repairability, selection headroom and label validity. Modelling non-adaptive auditing as budgeted covering, we characterise the minimal decision-relevant error statistics and bound the regret of scalar-preserving first-order planning by a structural mass $Δ^{\mathrm{cl}}$. We simulate ideal repair against benchmark-aligned labels for five extraction configurations and two cross-document graphs on Re-DocRED, followed by frozen confirmation on test and replication on 500 hash-selected training documents. On the held-out cross-document graphs, an error-rate $\times$ fan-out queue leaves 3.98-4.74 percentage points more errors than a joint model with the same actions. By comparison, opening shared actions for that joint planner reduces residual errors by 0.89-1.43 points relative to its own fact-only plans, in point estimates. Equivalence between joint and independent-block models remains inconclusive. Generic LLM verification improves three of four model-budget configurations on each held-out set. LLM adjudication identifies possible benchmark omissions.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
HyFlash: A Prefix-Memory Prior for On-Device Speculative Decoding
Phonological Knowledge of Chinese Characters in Language Models
Encoding and Propagation of Grammatical Number in Large Language Models
Matching the Training-Time Weight Rule in Inference-Time Expert Deactivation
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.