Binhua He

Dr. Binhua He


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

1Year (2026-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
9 March 2026 in Computers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
YYYuzhao Yang
Yuzhao Yang
GCgenlang chen
genlang chen
BHBinhua He
Binhua He
YZYan ZHAO
Yan ZHAO
Knowledge graphs represent real-world facts as structured triplets and underpin a wide range of applications, including question answering, recommendation, and retrieval-augmented generation. Automatically extracting such triplets from unstructured text is essential for scalable knowledge base construction. Traditional extraction methods require task-specific training data and struggle to generalize across domains. Large language models (LLMs) offer an alternative through in-context learning, enabling flexible extraction without fine-tuning. However, LLMs frequently hallucinate—generating plausible triplets unsupported by the source text. The root cause is the lack of provenance: existing methods produce triplets without explicit links to their textual origins, making faithfulness unverifiable. This paper presents Anchor-Extraction-Verification-Supplement (AEVS), a framework that grounds every triplet element to the source text. AEVS operates in three stages: (1) anchor discovery identifies entities, relation phrases, and attribute values with precise positions, forming a constrained extraction vocabulary; (2) grounded extraction generates triplets linked to discovered anchors; and (3) restoration-based verification validates triplets through hierarchical matching, with a coverage-aware supplement ensuring comprehensive extraction. Experiments on WebNLG, REBEL, and Wiki-NRE demonstrate consistent improvements over both trained models and LLM-based baselines. Ablation studies confirm that anchor-based constraints are the primary mechanism for hallucination reduction. Dedicated analyses of anchor discovery quality, computational cost (2.83–4.28 LLM calls per sample), and hallucination rates (0.23–20.23% across model–dataset configurations) provide insights into the framework’s practical applicability and limitations.