# Language-Specific versus Cross-Lingual Knowledge Graphs for Implicit Aspect Identification in Arabic: A Comparative Study of Reasoning and Adaptation Strategies

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20056 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.20056/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Audio-language model reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 3 of its 5 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Audio-language model reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/audio-language-model-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Making Monolingual Sentence Embeddings Multilingual using Knowledge Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09813/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) in Arabic must recover both explicitly stated aspects and implicit aspects that are never named in the text. Implicit identification typically relies on an auxiliary knowledge source (e.g., a knowledge graph (KG)) linking opinion cues to aspect categories, but for a lower-resource language the practitioner faces a design choice: reuse a mature English KG through multilingual embeddings, or build a smaller native Arabic KG. This paper reports a controlled comparison of the two strategies within a single hybrid pipeline, evaluated on three Arabic benchmarks (M-ABSA, SemEval-2016 Arabic, and HAAD). We further compare two adaptation strategies for the generative extractor that feeds the KG -- zero-shot prompting versus task-specific fine-tuning of an 8B-parameter large language model (LLM). The native Arabic KG (Strategy 2) outperforms the cross-lingual English KG (Strategy 1) by +0.199 micro-F1 on M-ABSA and +0.251 on SemEval-2016, gaining on both precision and recall. Task-specific fine-tuning raises explicit-extraction micro-F1 from <= 0.13 (zero-shot) to 0.66-0.76 on M-ABSA and SemEval-2016 (0.45 on the smaller HAAD), confirming that task adaptation, rather than model scale, is decisive in a morphologically rich language.