An Internal Alert along a Knowledge-Graph Search Path

Authors

  • Mark Simmons Author
  • William Wells Author
  • Justin Graham Author

Abstract

A sharpness signal can prioritize verification, while tree search supplies candidate evidence paths. Evaluation should record the signal before checking and independently assess the paths and final claims. The effect of acting on alerts needs its own comparison. Search and alert costs belong in the full review budget rather than being treated as free diagnostics. This focused synthesis develops an empirical comparison that preserves the terminal action, observation process, and total verification cost. Its proposed tests are prospective; no new simulation run, model-training result, or intervention effect is reported.

References

  1. Y. Wang, S. Fan, M. Wang, S. Gao, C. Wang, and N. Yin, “DAMR: Efficient and Adaptive Context-Aware Knowledge Graph Question Answering with LLM-Guided MCTS,” Proceedings of the 2026 International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026.
  2. S. Chen, M. Xiong, J. Liu, Z. Wu, T. Xiao, S. Gao, and J. He, “In-Context Sharpness as Alerts: An Inner Representation Perspective for Hallucination Mitigation,” Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
  3. Zhou, Yongxi, Wenbo Ye, Yuanzhe Liu, Zihan Dong, and Junwei Yao. “Style Over Substance: Content-Invariant Wrappers Flip LLM Safety-Judge Verdicts.” arXiv, 2026, arXiv:2609.08236. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.08236.
  4. Sang, Yinghao. “Towards Explainable RAG: Interpreting the Influence of Retrieved Passages on Generation.” 2025 4th International Conference on Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Control (RAIIC), IEEE, 2025, pp. 397-400. https://doi.org/10.1109/raiic65850.2025.11170170.
  5. Ovadia, Yaniv, et al. “Can You Trust Your Model’s Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02530.
  6. Bertsimas, Dimitris, and Melvyn Sim. “The Price of Robustness.” Operations Research, vol. 52, no. 1, 2004, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065.
  7. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  8. Hu, Edward J., et al. “LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models.” International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. https://openreview.net/forum?id=nZeVKeeFYf9.
  9. Guo, Chuan, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. “On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks.” Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, vol. 70, 2017, pp. 1321–1330. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/guo17a.html.
  10. Sutton, Richard S., and Andrew G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. 2nd ed., MIT Press, 2018. http://incompleteideas.net/book/the-book-2nd.html.
  11. Levine, Sergey, Aviral Kumar, George Tucker, and Justin Fu. “Offline Reinforcement Learning: Tutorial, Review, and Perspectives on Open Problems.” arXiv, 2020, arXiv:2005.01643. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01643.
  12. Kumar, Aviral, Aurick Zhou, George Tucker, and Sergey Levine. “Conservative Q-Learning for Offline Reinforcement Learning.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 1179–1191. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04779.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-15

Versions

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 9 (2025): September 2025

Section

Articles