Open Research Knowledge Graph: A Large-Scale Neuro-Symbolic Knowledge Organization System
Open accessAbstract
This article presents the implementation of a neuro-symbolic system within the Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG), a platform designed to collect and organize scientific knowledge in a structured, machine-readable format. Our approach leverages the strengths of symbolic knowledge representation to encode complex relationships and domain-specific rules, combined with the pattern recognition capabilities of neural networks to process large volumes of unstructured data, in particular scientific articles in the form of narrative text documents. With the ORKG, we developed a hybrid system that integrates a knowledge graph (symbolic system) with neural networks (subsymbolic system), enabling the machine-assisted extraction of scientific knowledge from research papers and symbolic knowledge representation, curation, organisation, and reuse. The implementation involves constructing a symbolic knowledge representation of the ORKG, training neural models on annotated datasets, and designing algorithms to synergize the two systems. Our findings suggest that neuro-symbolic integration enhances the ORKG’s ability to support complex queries, infer new relationships, and provide more robust and explainable AI-driven insights. This research contributes to the broader field of AI by showcasing the practical benefits of combining neural and symbolic methodologies in knowledge management systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Scholarly knowledge platforms increasingly rely on explicit entities and relations to support comparison, retrieval, and reuse.
“Scholarly knowledge platforms increasingly rely on explicit entities and relations to support comparison, retrieval, and reuse [3][4][5].”
From Diagnosing the limits of large language models for structured scientific evidence extraction (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnosing the limits of large language models for structured scientific evidence extraction
Tan, Z., D’Souza, J., & Auer, S. (2026) · International Journal on Digital Libraries · doi:10.1007/s00799-026-00449-9
Self-citation
- Authors
- Auer, S., D’Souza, J., Farfar, K. E., Jaradeh, M. Y., Jiomekong, A., Karras, O., Oelen, A., Snyder, L., Stocker, M., & Vogt, L.
- Affiliations
- Leibniz University Hannover (DE)
- Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) (DE)
- Université de Yaoundé I (CM)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
- Publisher
- IOS Press
- Published
- 2025-03-17
- ISSN
- 0922-6389 (ISSN-L)
- 1879-8314
- OpenAlex
- W4408633804
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 16.96
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- repo.uni-hannover.de
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Repository of Leibniz Universität Hannover (Leibniz Universität Hannover) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Leibniz Universität Hannover
- 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
- neuro-symbolic AI, knowledge graphs, Open Research Knowledge Graph, knowledge representation, knowledge curation, knowledge management systems, relationship inference, explainable AI, scientific knowledge organization
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