Rebuilding a Field's Open-Problem Catalog from the Literature: A Two-Layer Knowledge Graph, and Why Status Must Stay Proposed
- Published
- Source
- arXiv
- Paper number
- 1412
- Field
- Research
- arXiv ID
- 2610.39641
Key points
- The authors built graphs with an evidence layer on top of two catalogs: 1,053 database research problems and 1,000 AI research problems.
- The rebuilt graph kept every answer of the catalog-only graph, with 47 of 47 identical on databases and 34 of 35 on AI.
- The evidence layer connects outside literature the catalog curators never cited, linking 770 works to 336 problems on databases.
- In the audit of status verdicts, only 9 of 41 verdicts were correct, 30 partly correct and 2 wrong, and no refutes verdict (0 of 34) disproves an open problem.
- The authors conclude in the design that a status change must be proposed with its evidence and never applied, making the human reviewer part of the architecture.
- They report a label-collision defect where a paper count query returned 8,769 instead of 2,679, and made a shared label a build-time error.
Paper links
External research summaries. These are not HDATF publications or measured product results.