PreprintCited by 3Advanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

NGQA: A Nutritional Graph Question Answering Benchmark for Personalized Health-aware Nutritional Reasoning

Open access

Abstract

Diet plays a critical role in human health, yet tailoring dietary reasoning to individual health conditions remains a major challenge. Nutrition Question Answering (QA) has emerged as a popular method for addressing this problem. However, current research faces two critical limitations. On one hand, the absence of datasets involving user-specific medical information severely limits \textit{personalization}. This challenge is further compounded by the wide variability in individual health needs. On the other hand, while large language models (LLMs), a popular solution for this task, demonstrate strong reasoning abilities, they struggle with the domain-specific complexities of personalized healthy dietary reasoning, and existing benchmarks fail to capture these challenges. To address these gaps, we introduce the Nutritional Graph Question Answering (NGQA) benchmark, the first graph question answering dataset designed for personalized nutritional health reasoning. NGQA leverages data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) to evaluate whether a food is healthy for a specific user, supported by explanations of the key contributing nutrients. The benchmark incorporates three question complexity settings and evaluates reasoning across three downstream tasks. Extensive experiments with LLM backbones and baseline models demonstrate that the NGQA benchmark effectively challenges existing models. In sum, NGQA addresses a critical real-world problem while advancing GraphQA research with a novel domain-specific benchmark.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.15547

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Web search enables agents to ground answers in retrieved evidence and thereby mitigate hallucinations.

    “A representative and widely adopted form of tool use is web search [17, 19, 27], which enables agents to ground answers in retrieved evidence and thereby mitigate hallucinations [31, 33].”

    From CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    Section 5.5 (page unavailable) says external domain knowledge helps mitigate hallucinations and that direct inference without it commonly produces factual errors. It discusses retrieved knowledge graphs in nutritional reasoning, not web search, so it does not establish the claim for web-search agents specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Jinheon Baek, Alham Fikri Aji, and Amir Saffari. 2023. Knowledge-augmented language model prompting for zero-shot knowledge graph question answering. In ACL.
  2. Felix Bölz, Diana Nurbakova, Sylvie Calabretto, Armin Gerl, Lionel Brunie, and Harald Kosch. 2023. Hum- mus: A linked, healthiness-aware, user-centered and argument-enabling recipe data set for recommenda- tion. In RecSys.
  3. Yu Chen, Ananya Subburathinam, Ching-Hua Chen, and Mohammed J Zaki. 2021. Personalized food recommendation as constrained question answering over a large-scale food knowledge graph. In WSDM. European Commission. 2006. Eu nutrition & health claims regulation legislation (ec) 1924/2006. Ac- cessed: 2024-07-12.
  4. Bahare Fatemi, Quentin Duval, Rohit Girdhar, Michal Drozdzal, and Adriana Romero-Soriano. 2023a. Learning to substitute ingredients in recipes. arXiv.
  5. Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow, and Bryan Perozzi. 2023b. Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large language models. arXiv.
  6. Yifu Gao, Linbo Qiao, Zhigang Kan, Zhihua Wen, Yongquan He, and Dongsheng Li. 2024. Two-stage generative question answering on temporal knowl- edge graph using large language models. arXiv.
  7. Mouzhi Ge, Francesco Ricci, and David Massimo. 2015. Health-aware food recommender system. In RecSys.
  8. Ja K Gu, Penelope Allison, Alexis Grimes Trotter, Lu- enda E Charles, Claudia C Ma, Matthew Groenewold, Michael E Andrew, and Sara E Luckhaupt. 2022. Prevalence of self-reported prescription opioid use and illicit drug use among us adults: Nhanes 2005- 2016. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine.
  9. Steven Haussmann, Oshani Seneviratne, Yu Chen, Yarden Ne'eman, James Codella, Ching-Hua Chen, Deborah L McGuinness, and Mohammed J Zaki. 2019. Foodkg: a semantics-driven knowledge graph for food recommendation. In The Semantic Web- ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Confer- ence, Auckland, New Zealand, October 26-30, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 18.
  10. Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh V Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. 2024. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and ques- tion answering. arXiv.
  11. Xiaobao Huang, Mihir Surve, Yuhan Liu, Tengfei Luo, Olaf Wiest, Xiangliang Zhang, and Nitesh V Chawla. 2024. Application of large language models in chem- istry reaction data extraction and cleaning. In CIKM.
  12. Jinhao Jiang, Kun Zhou, Zican Dong, Keming Ye, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Structgpt: A general framework for large language model to reason over structured data. In EMNLP.
  13. Jiho Kim, Yeonsu Kwon, Yohan Jo, and Edward Choi. 2023. Kg-gpt: A general framework for reasoning on knowledge graphs using large language models. In EMNLP.
  14. Angeliki Lazaridou, Elena Gribovskaya, Wojciech Stokowiec, and Nikolai Grigorev. 2022. Internet- augmented language models through few-shot prompting for open-domain question answering. arXiv.
  15. Diya Li, Mohammed J Zaki, and Ching-hua Chen. 2023. Health-guided recipe recommendation over knowl- edge graphs. Journal of Web Semantics.
  16. Peiyu Li, Xiaobao Huang, Yijun Tian, and Nitesh V Chawla. 2024. Cheffusion: Multimodal foundation model integrating recipe and food image generation. In CIKM.
  17. Zheyuan Liu, Guangyao Dou, Zhaoxuan Tan, Yijun Tian, and Meng Jiang. 2024a. Towards safer large language models through machine unlearning. arXiv.
  18. Nadine Mahboub, Rana Rizk, Mirey Karavetian, and Nanne de Vries. 2021. Nutritional status and eating habits of people who use drugs and/or are undergoing treatment for recovery: a narrative review. Nutrition reviews.
  19. Costas Mavromatis and George Karypis. 2024. Gnn- rag: Graph neural retrieval for large language model reasoning. arXiv.
  20. Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessì, Maria Lomeli, Christo- foros Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. 2023. Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv.
  21. Khary K Rigg and Gladys E Ibañez. 2010. Motiva- tions for non-medical prescription drug use: A mixed methods analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treat- ment.
  22. Chris Sanchez and Zheyuan Zhang. 2022. The effects of in-domain corpus size on pre-training bert. arXiv.
  23. Oshani Seneviratne, Jonathan Harris, Ching-Hua Chen, and Deborah L McGuinness. 2021. Personal health knowledge graph for clinically relevant diet recom- mendations. arXiv.
  24. Andrew Smyth, Martin J O'Donnell, Salim Yusuf, Catherine M Clase, Koon K Teo, Michelle Cana- van, Donal N Reddan, and Johannes FE Mann. 2014. Sodium intake and renal outcomes: a systematic re- view. American journal of hypertension.
  25. Haitian Sun, Tania Bedrax-Weiss, and William Cohen. 2019. Pullnet: Open domain question answering with iterative retrieval on knowledge bases and text. In EMNLP-IJCNLP.
  26. Jiashuo Sun, Chengjin Xu, Lumingyuan Tang, Saizhuo Wang, Chen Lin, Yeyun Gong, Lionel Ni, Heung- Yeung Shum, and Jian Guo. 2024. Think-on-graph: Deep and responsible reasoning of large language model on knowledge graph. In ICLR.
  27. Zhaoxuan Tan, Qingkai Zeng, Yijun Tian, Zheyuan Liu, Bing Yin, and Meng Jiang. 2024. Democratizing large language models via personalized parameter- efficient fine-tuning. arXiv.
  28. Xintao Wang, Qianwen Yang, Yongting Qiu, Jiaqing Liang, Qianyu He, Zhouhong Gu, Yanghua Xiao, and Wei Wang. 2023. Knowledgpt: Enhancing large language models with retrieval and storage access on knowledge bases. arXiv.
  29. Zehong Wang, Sidney Liu, Zheyuan Zhang, Tianyi Ma, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2024b. Can llms convert graphs to text-attributed graphs? arXiv.
  30. Zehong Wang, Zheyuan Zhang, Nitesh V Chawla, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2024c. Gft: Graph foundation model with transferable tree vocabulary. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06070. · arXiv
  31. Zehong Wang, Zheyuan Zhang, Chuxu Zhang, and Yan- fang Ye. 2024d. Subgraph pooling: Tackling nega- tive transfer on graphs. In IJCAI.
  32. Yilin Wen, Zifeng Wang, and Jimeng Sun. 2023. Mindmap: Knowledge graph prompting sparks graph of thoughts in large language models. arXiv. WHO. 2021. Healthy diet. WHO. 2023. Obesity info page of the world health organization.
  33. Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. Qa-gnn: Rea- soning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In NAACL.
  34. Wenbin Yue, Zidong Wang, Jieyu Zhang, and Xi- aohui Liu. 2021. An overview of recommenda- tion techniques and their applications in healthcare. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica.
  35. Jing Zhang, Xiaokang Zhang, Jifan Yu, Jian Tang, Jie Tang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2022. Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering. In ACL.
  36. Zheyuan Zhang, Zehong Wang, Shifu Hou, Evan Hall, Landon Bachman, Jasmine White, Vincent Galassi, Nitesh V Chawla, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2024b. Diet-odin: A novel framework for opioid misuse detection with interpretable dietary patterns. In KDD.
  37. Zheyuan Zhang, Zehong Wang, Tianyi Ma, Varun Sameer Taneja, Sofia Nelson, Nhi Ha Lan Le, Keerthiram Murugesan, Mingxuan Ju, Nitesh V Chawla, Chuxu Zhang, et al. 2024c. Mopi-hfrs: A multi-objective personalized health-aware food recommendation system with llm-enhanced interpretation. arXiv.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Z., Li, Y., Le, N. H. L., Wang, Z., Ma, T., Galassi, V., Murugesan, K., Moniz, N., Geyer, W., Chawla, N. V., Zhang, C., & Ye, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4405714818
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
benchmark dataset, large language models, NHANES

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