Organizations: National Key Laboratory of Big Data and Decision, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China · The Center for machine learning research, Peking University, Beijing, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong, China
Domain-specific knowledge graphs (DKGs) are critical yet often suffer from limited coverage compared to General Knowledge Graphs (GKGs). Existing tasks to enrich DKGs rely primarily on extracting knowledge from external unstructured data or completing KGs through internal reasoning, but the scope and quality of such integration remain limited. This highlights a critical gap: little systematic exploration has been conducted on how comprehensive, high-quality GKGs can be effectively leveraged to supplement DKGs. To address this gap, we propose a new and practical task: domain-specific knowledge graph fusion (DKGF), which aims to mine and integrate relevant facts from general knowledge graphs into domain-specific knowledge graphs to enhance their completeness and utility. Unlike previous research, this new task faces two key challenges: (1) high ambiguity of domain relevance, i.e., difficulty in determining whether knowledge from a GKG is truly relevant to the target domain , and (2) cross-domain knowledge granularity misalignment, i.e., GKG facts are typically abstract and coarse-grained, whereas DKGs frequently require more contextualized, fine-grained representations aligned with particular domain scenarios. To address these, we present ExeFuse, a neuro-symbolic framework based on a novel Fact-as-Program paradigm. ExeFuse treats fusion as an executable process, utilizing neuro-symbolic execution to infer logical relevance beyond surface similarity and employing target space grounding to calibrate granularity. We construct new datasets to establish the first standardized evaluation suite for this task. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ExeFuse effectively overcomes domain barriers to achieve superior fusion performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Examples of domain-specific knowledge graph fusion. Figure 1 (b) demonstrates the fusion of highly relevant entities from GKG into DKG. Figure 1 (c) shows the augmented DKG.
Figure 2. The framework of ExeFuse for DKGF.
Figure 3. Comprehensive evaluation across diverse domain-specific knowledge graphs on DKGF(W-Drug) , DKGF(W-UMLS) , DKGF(D-Alex) and DKGF(D-Crunch) .
Models
Split
Seen
Unseen
All
ACC
F1
ACC
F1
ACC
F1
DistMult-F
S1
0.563
0.623
0.491
0.340
0.554
0.585
S2
0.548
0.602
0.485
0.321
0.536
0.570
Avg.
0.556
0.613
0.488
0.331
0.545
0.578
Self-RAG-F
S1
0.565
0.570
0.594
0.372
0.576
0.544
S2
0.552
0.565
0.581
0.366
0.544
0.545
Table 4. Transferability and resource robustness on DKGF(W-I) . We report performance on Seen and Unseen entities across different resource splits. “ Avg. ” denotes the average performance across S1 and S2.
Variant
DKGF(W-I) -S1
Δ
ACC
F1
Avg.
ExeFuse (Full Model)
0.680
0.690
0.685
-
I. Complexity Validation (Is the complex pipeline necessary?)
w/o Rules L (Single Affine Projection)
0.605
0.612
0.609
-11.1%
w/o Reasoning (Direct Classification)
0.577
0.583
0.580
-15.3%
II. Module Necessity (Do all components contribute?)
Table 5. Ablation study and design verification on DKGF(W-I) -S1 . “ Avg. ”: average of ACC and F1. “ Δ ”: relative performance drop in Avg.
Settings
DKGF(W-I) -S1 (Accuracy)
Cost (Efficiency and Effectiveness)
ACC
F1
Avg.
Avg. tokens
Avg. time (seconds)
Self-Consistency-F
0.592
0.561
0.577
41,561,586
178,041.6
ChatEA-F
0.596
0.566
0.581
48,162,276
254,417.4
TransH-F
0.640
0.591
0.583
0
55.7
SimpleHHEA-F
0.490
0.499
0.495
0
2628.2
ExeFuse (Ours)
0.680
0.690
0.685
0
42.6
Table 6. Accuracy and cost analysis of ExeFuse and benchmark configurations on DKGF(W-I) -S1. Avg.tokens / Avg.time : the average tokens/time cost of the model.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Models
Split
Seen
Unseen
All
ACC
F1
ACC
F1
ACC
F1
DistMult-F
S1
0.531
0.564
0.472
0.315
0.525
0.536
S2
0.582
0.591
0.490
0.342
0.575
0.562
Avg.
0.557
0.578
0.481
0.329
0.550
0.549
Self-RAG-F
S1
0.602
0.585
0.582
0.334
0.594
0.540
S2
0.585
0.550
0.601
0.355
0.577
0.532
Appendix
Table 7. Transferability and resource robustness on DKGF(Y-I) . Metrics are averaged across splits to demonstrate fusion stability under varying resource constraints.
Figure 4. Transferability results (F1) across multiple domains (Biomedical, Academic, and Business).
Figure 5. The venn diagram of correct predictions on DKGF(W-I) -S1. Intersections show shared same predictions.
Models
DKGF(W-I) -S1
DKGF(Y-I) -S1
ACC
P
R
F1
Avg.
ACC
P
R
F1
Avg.
DistMult-F
0.975
0.830
0.840
0.835
0.905
0.946
0.853
0.730
0.787
0.866
Self-RAG-F
0.970
0.849
0.731
0.785
0.878
0.936
0.897
0.603
0.721
0.829
ChatEA-F
0.973
0.888
0.737
0.806
0.889
0.938
0.937
0.583
0.719
0.828
ExeFuse
0.982
0.968
0.791
0.871
0.927
0.958
0.958
0.721
0.823
0.890
Appendix
Table 8. Performance analysis of the new task “Relevant Entity Finding (REF)”.
Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences School of Cyber Security, UCAS Beijing, China