CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Semantic Web and OntologiesAdvanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic Modeling

CS-KG 2.0: A Large-scale Knowledge Graph of Computer Science

Open access
Dessí, Danilo, Osborne, Francesco, Buscaldi, Davide, Reforgiato Recupero, Diego, Motta, Enrico·2025·Scientific Data
DOI 10.1038/s41597-025-05200-8PMC PMC12149285
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rapid evolution of AI and the increased accessibility of scientific articles through open access marks a pivotal moment in research. AI-driven tools are reshaping how scientists explore, interpret, and contribute to the body of scientific knowledge, offering unprecedented opportunities. Nonetheless, a significant challenge remains: dealing with the overwhelming number of papers published every year. A promising solution is the use of knowledge graphs, which provide structured, interconnected, and formalized frameworks that improve the capabilities of AI systems to integrate information from the literature. This paper presents the last version of the Computer Science Knowledge Graph (CS-KG 2.0), an extensive knowledge base generated from 15 million research papers. CS-KG 2.0 describes 25 million entities linked by 67 million relationships, offering a nuanced representation of the scientific knowledge within the field of computer science. This innovative resource facilitates new research opportunities in key areas such as analysis and forecasting of research trends, hypothesis generation, smart literature search, automatic production of literature review, and scientific question-answering.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41597-025-05200-8

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. [1]Xu, J. et al. Building a pubmed knowledge graph. Scientific data 7, 205 (2020). 32591513 PMC7320186 · DOI
  2. [2]Cadeddu, A. et al. A comparative analysis of knowledge injection strategies for large language models in the scholarly domain. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 133, 108166 (2024). · DOI
  3. [3]Khanal, S. S., Prasad, P., Alsadoon, A. & Maag, A. A systematic review: machine learning based recommendation systems for e-learning. Education and Information Technologies 25, 2635–2664 (2020). · DOI
  4. [5]Buscaldi, D. et al. Citation prediction by leveraging transformers and natural language processing heuristics. Information Processing & Management 61, 103583 (2024). · DOI
  5. [7]Krenn, M. et al. Forecasting the future of artificial intelligence with machine learning-based link prediction in an exponentially growing knowledge network. Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 1326–1335 (2023). · DOI
  6. [8]Borrego, A. et al. Completing scientific facts in knowledge graphs of research concepts. IEEE Access 10, 125867–125880 (2022). · DOI
  7. [9]Meloni, A. et al. Integrating conversational agents and knowledge graphs within the scholarly domain. Ieee Access 11, 22468–22489 (2023). · DOI
  8. [11]Bornmann, L. & Mutz, R. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 2215–2222, 10.1002/asi.23329 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  9. [13]Fathalla, S., Auer, S. & Lange, C. Towards the semantic formalization of science. In Hung, C., Cerný, T., Shin, D. & Bechini, A. (eds.) SAC ’20: The 35th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, online event, [Brno, Czech Republic], March 30 - April 3, 2020, 2057–2059, 10.1145/3341105.3374132 (ACM, 2020). · DOI
  10. [14]Jiang, A. Q. et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825 (2023). · arXiv
  11. [15]Touvron, H. et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023). · arXiv
  12. [16]Huang, W. et al. How good are low-bit quantized llama3 models? an empirical study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14047 (2024). · arXiv
  13. [17]Team, G. et al. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295 (2024). · arXiv
  14. [19]Gan, L. et al. Hidden entity detection from github leveraging large language models. In Workshop on Deep Learning and Large Language Models for Knowledge Graphs (2024).
  15. [20]Lewis, P. et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, 9459–9474 (2020).
  16. [21]Dacrema, M. F., Cremonesi, P. & Jannach, D. Are we really making much progress? A worrying analysis of recent neural recommendation approaches. In Bogers, T., Said, A., Brusilovsky, P. & Tikk, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 16-20, 2019, 101–109, 10.1145/3298689.3347058 (ACM, 2019). · DOI
  17. [22]Anelli, V. W. et al. Elliot: A comprehensive and rigorous framework for reproducible recommender systems evaluation. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 2405–2414 (2021).
  18. [23]Auer, S. et al. Towards a knowledge graph for science. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on web intelligence, mining and semantics, 1–6 (2018).
  19. [24]Kuhn, T. & Dumontier, M. Genuine semantic publishing. Data Science 1, 139–154 (2017). · DOI
  20. [25]Peng, C., Xia, F., Naseriparsa, M. & Osborne, F. Knowledge graphs: Opportunities and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review 1–32 (2023). PMC10068207 37362886
  21. [26]Hogan, A. et al. Knowledge graphs. ACM Computing Surveys (Csur) 54, 1–37 (2021). · DOI
  22. [28]Kumar, A., Singh, S. S., Singh, K. & Biswas, B. Link prediction techniques, applications, and performance: A survey. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 553, 124289 (2020). · DOI
  23. [29]Nayyeri, M. et al. Trans4e: Link prediction on scholarly knowledge graphs. Neurocomputing 461, 530–542, 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.02.100 (2021). · DOI
  24. [30]Lehmann, J. et al. Dbpedia–a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic web 6, 167–195 (2015). · DOI
  25. [31]Nuzzolese, A. G., Gentile, A. L., Presutti, V. & Gangemi, A. Semantic web conference ontology-a refactoring solution. In European semantic web conference, 84–87 (Springer, 2016).
  26. [32]Kelley, A. & Garijo, D. A framework for creating knowledge graphs of scientific software metadata. Quantitative Science Studies 2, 1423–1446 (2021). · DOI
  27. [33]Groth, P., Gibson, A. & Velterop, J. The anatomy of a nanopublication. Information services & use 30, 51–56 (2010). · DOI
  28. [34]Kuhn, T. et al. Decentralized provenance-aware publishing with nanopublications. PeerJ Computer Science 2, e78 (2016). · DOI
  29. [35]Peroni, S. & Shotton, D. The spar ontologies. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2018: 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8–12, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 17, 119–136 (Springer, 2018).
  30. [36]Salatino, A., Osborne, F. & Motta, E. Cso classifier 3.0: a scalable unsupervised method for classifying documents in terms of research topics. International Journal on Digital Libraries 1–20 (2022).
  31. [38]Färber, M., Lamprecht, D., Krause, J., Aung, L. & Haase, P. Semopenalex: The scientific landscape in 26 billion rdf triples. In International Semantic Web Conference, 94–112 (Springer, 2023).
  32. [39]Jaradeh, M. Y. et al. Open research knowledge graph: next generation infrastructure for semantic scholarly knowledge. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Capture, 243–246 (2019).
  33. [40]Dessì, D. et al. Ai-kg: an automatically generated knowledge graph of artificial intelligence. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2020: 19th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, Greece, November 2–6, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 19, 127–143 (Springer, 2020).
  34. [41]Dessí, D., Osborne, F., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Buscaldi, D. & Motta, E. Cs-kg: A large-scale knowledge graph of research entities and claims in computer science. In International Semantic Web Conference, 678–696 (Springer, 2022).
  35. [42]Schindler, D., Zapilko, B. & Krüger, F. Investigating software usage in the social sciences: A knowledge graph approach. In European Semantic Web Conference, 271–286 (Springer, 2020).
  36. [43]Zhang, Y., Wang, M., Saberi, M. & Chang, E. From big scholarly data to solution-oriented knowledge repository. Frontiers in big Data 2, 38 (2019). 33693361 PMC7931919 · DOI
  37. [44]D’Souza, J. & Auer, S. Pattern-based acquisition of scientific entities from scholarly article titles. In International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, 401–410 (Springer, 2021).
  38. [45]Priem, J., Piwowar, H. & Orr, R. Openalex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833 (2022). · arXiv
  39. [46]Effendy, S. & Yap, R. H. Analysing trends in computer science research: A preliminary study using the microsoft academic graph. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion, 1245–1250 (2017).
  40. [47]Dessì, D., Osborne, F., Recupero, D. R., Buscaldi, D. & Motta, E. Generating knowledge graphs by employing natural language processing and machine learning techniques within the scholarly domain. Future Generation Computer Systems 116, 253–264 (2021). · DOI
  41. [48]Panagopoulos, G. et al. Scientometrics for success and influence in the microsoft academic graph. In Complex Networks and Their Applications VIII: Volume 2 Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications COMPLEX NETWORKS 2019 8, 1007–1017 (Springer, 2020).
  42. [49]Huang, Y., Lu, W., Liu, J., Cheng, Q. & Bu, Y. Towards transdisciplinary impact of scientific publications: A longitudinal, comprehensive, and large-scale analysis on microsoft academic graph. Information Processing & Management 59, 102859 (2022). · DOI
  43. [51]Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J. & Yakhnenko, O. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems26 (2013).
  44. [52]Dessì, D., Osborne, F., Recupero, D. R., Buscaldi, D. & Motta, E. SCICERO: A deep learning and NLP approach for generating scientific knowledge graphs in the computer science domain. Knowl. Based Syst. 258, 109945 (2022). · DOI
  45. [53]Wadden, D., Wennberg, U., Luan, Y. & Hajishirzi, H. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Inui, K., Jiang, J., Ng, V. & Wan, X. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, 5783–5788, 10.18653/V1/D19-1585 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019). · DOI
  46. [54]Luan, Y., He, L., Ostendorf, M. & Hajishirzi, H. Multi-Task Identification of Entities, Relations, and Coreference for Scientific Knowledge Graph Construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 3219–3232 (2018).
  47. [55]Salatino, A. A., Thanapalasingam, T., Mannocci, A., Osborne, F. & Motta, E. The computer science ontology: a large-scale taxonomy of research areas. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2018: 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8–12, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 17, 187–205 (Springer, 2018).
  48. [56]Manning, C. D. et al. The stanford corenlp natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: system demonstrations, 55–60 (2014).
  49. [57]Angeli, G., Premkumar, M. J. J. & Manning, C. D. Leveraging linguistic structure for open domain information extraction. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), 344–354 (2015).
  50. [58]Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. & Dean, J. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013). · arXiv
  51. [60]Orlandi, F., Graux, D. & O’Sullivan, D. Benchmarking rdf metadata representations: Reification, singleton property and rdf. In 2021 IEEE 15th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), 233–240 (IEEE, 2021).
  52. [62]Fleiss, J. L., Nee, J. C. & Landis, J. R. Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychological bulletin 86, 974 (1979). · DOI
  53. [63]Nickel, M., Murphy, K., Tresp, V. & Gabrilovich, E. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE 104, 11–33 (2015). · DOI
  54. [65]Lin, Y., Liu, Z., Sun, M., Liu, Y. & Zhu, X. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In Bonet, B. & Koenig, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA, 2181–2187, 10.1609/AAAI.V29I1.9491 (AAAI Press, 2015). · DOI · Paper page
  55. [66]Trouillon, T., Welbl, J., Riedel, S., Gaussier, É. & Bouchard, G. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In Balcan, M. & Weinberger, K. Q. (eds.) Proceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2016, New York City, NY, USA, June 19-24, 2016, vol. 48 of JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2071–2080 (JMLR.org, 2016).
  56. [67]Yang, B., Yih, W., He, X., Gao, J. & Deng, L. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In Bengio, Y. & LeCun, Y. (eds.) 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings (2015).
  57. [68]Nickel, M., Tresp, V. & Kriegel, H. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In Getoor, L. & Scheffer, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2011, Bellevue, Washington, USA, June 28 - July 2, 2011, 809–816 (Omnipress, 2011).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dessí, D., Osborne, F., Buscaldi, D., Reforgiato Recupero, D., & Motta, E.
Affiliations
  • The Open University (GB)
  • Université Sorbonne Paris Nord (FR)
Corresponding author
Osborne, Francesco
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Data
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-06-09
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
964-964
ISSN
2052-4463 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41597-025-05200-8
PMC
PMC12149285
OpenAlex
W4411136962
Cited by
17
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 5
Type
data paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Data (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Online (The Open University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Italian Ministry of University and Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
knowledge base, research papers, entity linking, hypothesis generation, literature searching, scientific question answering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review