The subject matter of this paper is twofold. One is to review the theoretical foundation of a specific type of Semantic Networks (SNs) representing textual non-propositional knowledge. The other involves proposing a framework (ClueNetwork) for ranking candidate SNs generated through various Semantic Network Construction (SNC) processes for the type. In the first fold, it is clarified that the type serves as clues, not surrogates, of reality, making gold standards elusive. Then, it is discussed why this type nevertheless holds scientific legitimacy in terms of abduction. Grounded in this legitimacy, the three main stages of SNC, comprising Automatic Keyphrase Extraction (AKE), Edge Weighting (EW), and Community Detection (CD), are reviewed alongside their objectives and operations. In the second fold, evaluation criteria (comprising two established and one reformulated) for achieving the objectives are first defined and justified, followed by illustrative experiments based on the criteria. Thereafter, SNC is reformulated as a Process Optimization Problem (POP), and its global objective function that integrates the local criteria is defined and justified. Based on these, ClueNetwork is ultimately proposed.
Knowledge graphs over corpora of inter-referencing documents - scholarly papers, legal opinions, policy briefs - encode the topology of reference but not its stance. The standard representation collapses a rich evaluative relation into an untyped edge, losing the very content that supports community-level queries about how one document is received by another. We propose the claim network: a representational pattern in which each cross-document reference is reified as a typed claim, carrying source, target, claim text, and a four-class stance label grounded in the citation-intent literature. We give a construction pipeline applicable to any corpus of scholarly inter-referencing documents and instantiate it on a corpus of 127 papers in 3D point cloud semantic segmentation, producing a network of 8,260 typed claims. Three downstream task families demonstrate what the network enables: retrieval signal augmentation, aggregated-stance summarisation, and topological analytics. Head-to-head evaluation against standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) baselines shows that the gain over flat retrieval is the gain from the right intermediate representation rather than the wrong one.
Ning Ding, Sergio J. Rodríguez Méndez, Pouya G. Omran
Network dismantling is fundamental to analyzing the robustness and vulnerability of complex systems, yet practical heuristics must balance effectiveness and computational efficiency, and are usually designed manually by researchers. Existing large language model based automatic heuristic design methods can generate and screen candidates, yet they have difficulty further transforming candidate quality or failure states during execution into structural-level guid- ance for subsequent generation. We propose AutoSND, a three stage tree search framework for complete network dismantling pro- grams. Stage I broadly explores from simple heuristics and archives execution evidence. Stage II compiles candidate records into struc- tural policies concerning local signals, neighborhood access, and state update ranges. Stage III continues tree search conditioned on these policies and obtains the final quality prioritized and speed prioritized candidates, AutoSND-Q/S. Experiments on 12 real world networks and 3 large real world networks show that AutoSND achieves better search performance and stability and discovers more competitive and structurally interpretable network disman- tling programs. The final candidates form an interpretable structure that uses residual degree as the backbone, adjusts node order with bounded local signals, and restricts the state update range. Code is available at https://github.com/MirrorNew/AutoSND.
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are increasingly constructed through automated extraction pipelines; however, such systems often introduce spurious or incomplete triples, which degrade downstream performance. Existing evaluation practices rely heavily on task-specific metrics or small-scale manual verification, offering limited insight into the structural and semantic fidelity of extracted graphs. We propose a novel, interpretable metric for intrinsic KG quality assessment that measures how closely an automatically extracted graph approximates an "ideal" graph capturing the key noun phrases, predicate relations, and basic linguistic phenomena such as negation expressed in the source text. Our framework integrates two complementary components: (1) an entity-level assessment that evaluates completeness, resolution quality, and connectivity, and (2) a relation-level assessment that judges predicate preservation and multiplicity using lexical similarity, dependency-parse alignment, and light-weight negation handling to ensure semantic faithfulness. We evaluate our metric across multiple state-of-the-art triple extraction systems and datasets, including WebNLG, TinyButMighty, and BenchIE, demonstrating that it reliably identifies omissions, redundancy, and structural deviations that existing metrics overlook. Our work offers a scalable, model-agnostic, and interpretable framework for comparing automated KG construction methods and provides a foundation for standardised evaluation. We further validate the metric through an ablation study isolating noun and verb components, and a downstream evaluation showing that KGCQual scores correlate significantly with link prediction performance on the same extracted KGs. The code repository is available at https://github.com/kracr/kg-quality-metric.