Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper explores how large language models (LLMs) can reason effectively using incomplete knowledge graphs, addressing the challenge that these graphs often do not provide a complete account of truth. The authors introduce a theoretical framework that incorporates entity anchors and relation residuals to characterize soft grounding, allowing LLMs to maintain support for trajectories that are not directly observed but are not contradicted by the evidence. Key results include the demonstration that soft grounding, regulated by KL divergence, can achieve stability under evidence perturbations while clarifying the limitations of hard conditioning in reasoning tasks.
Soft grounding enables LLMs to navigate incomplete knowledge graphs without sacrificing the integrity of unobserved truths, reshaping our understanding of model reasoning under uncertainty.
Knowledge graphs can guide large language models (LLMs) reasoning, but the graph seen by a system is usually a retrieved, linked, temporally scoped, and incomplete evidence state rather than a complete account of truth. We develop a theoretical perspective on grounding observable LLM trajectories under such incomplete graph evidence.The evidence state induces entity anchors, typed relation residuals, path energies, and support regions, while the language model supplies a prior over candidate trajectories. We show that, under open-world incompleteness, no hard rule based only on the observed state can both reject every false unsupported trajectory and retain every true-but-unobserved one.We then characterize soft grounding as a KL-regularized deformation of the LLM prior: finite slack preserves support for unsupported but non-contradicted trajectories, whereas hard conditioning appears as an infinite-penalty limit.The framework also yields stability bounds under evidence perturbations and clarifies the constraint regimes appropriate for GraphRAG, KGQA, graph agents, constrained decoding, and faithful generation. The claims are evidence-relative: KG compatibility is treated as declared support, not factual truth.
