From Unstructured to Structured: LLM-Guided Attribute Graphs for Entity Search and Ranking
Yilun Zhu, Nikhita Vedula, Shervin Malmasi
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Entity search, i.e., finding the most similar entities to a query entity, faces unique challenges in e-commerce, where product similarity varies across categories and contexts. Traditional embedding-based approaches often struggle to capture nuanced context-specific attribute relevance. In this paper, we present a two-stage approach combining Large Language Model (LLM)-driven attribute graph construction with graph-a ...
ware LLM ranking. In the offline stage, we extract structured product attributes from unstructured text, and construct a reusable attribute graph with category-aware schemas. In the online stage, we rank retrieved candidates by reasoning over this structured representation rather than raw text, reducing per-product token usage by 57% while improving ranking precision. Experiments show that our approach outperforms multiple baselines under zero-shot scenarios, achieving a over 5% improvement in average precision without requiring training data, generalizes robustly across diverse product categories, and shows immense potential for real-world deployment.
Results & Benchmarks
Benchmark evidence drill-down
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval | Sparse Retrieval ( sr ) | nDCG Metrics | 58.58 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Retrieval | Dense Retrieval ( dr ) | MRR | 56.42 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Retrieval | dr + raw-ranker | MRR | 60.00 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Entity search, i.e., finding the most similar entities to a query entity, faces unique challenges in e-commerce, where product similarity varies across categories and contexts.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 3 refs, 2 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 78/100, status high.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hugging Face artifacts
No direct paper-linked artifacts were found. Showing strongest curated related artifacts for faster exploration.
Models
- MasterControlAIML/DeepSeek-R1-Qwen2.5-3b-LLM-Judge-Reward-JSON-Unstructured-To-Structured-Lora-gguf Curated RelatedDownloads: 260Likes: 0
Broaden model search
Datasets
No trustworthy dataset matches right now.
Search datasets on Hugging FaceSpaces
No trustworthy demo spaces right now.
Search spaces on Hugging FaceResearch context
Tasks
Retrieval
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.