mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Select, Don't Train: The Benefits of Modular Entity Disambiguation with LLM-Based Selection

arXiv 2608.27470 ↗First posted 17 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.DBcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Entity Disambiguation (ED) is a key task for constructing and using knowledge graphs. State-of-the-art neural approaches commonly model ED as a single task, although it consists of two distinct subproblems: retrieving candidate entities and selecting the correct one given context. Dual-encoder models optimize for both within a shared embedding space, forcing representations to balance high-recall retrieval with fine-grained selection, and they require trained retrievers, which are costly to maintain as knowledge graphs change. While recent work has begun to combine retrievers with LLM-based selectors, the interplay between the two stages has not been studied systematically. In this paper, we present a systematic comparison of retrieval strategies for candidate generation under a shared LLM-based selection stage, combining sparse retrieval (BM25), Web KB search, and a state-of-the-art trained dense retriever with several open- and closed-source LLMs. We show that, once selection is delegated to a capable LLM, training the retriever provides only modest additional value: a fully training-free BM25 retriever paired with an LLM selector reaches a new state of the art on the ZELDA benchmark, raising inKB micro-F1 from 82.3 to 86.3 (+4); pairing the same LLM with a trained dense retriever reaches 88.5. Decoupling retrieval from selection also exposes a limitation of current ED systems: when the correct entity is missing from retrieved candidates, they are forced to predict an incorrect entity. In contrast, our framework allows for abstention when retrieval failure is detected. In an evaluation setting that rewards correct abstentions, the training-free BM25 + LLM pipeline reaches 90.7 F1.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2026.

Builds on

21 of 40 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  4. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  5. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
  6. 2020Autoregressive Entity Retrievalcited by 334
  7. 2019Learning Dense Representations for Entity Retrievalcited by 122
  8. 2022ReFinED: An Efficient Zero-shot-capable Approach to End-to-End Entity Linkingcited by 74
  9. 2020Neural Entity Linking: A Survey of Models Based on Deep Learningcited by 46
  10. 2024LLMAEL: Large Language Models are Good Context Augmenters for Entity Linkingcited by 19
  11. 2023Instructed Language Models with Retrievers Are Powerful Entity Linkerscited by 18
  12. 2024OneGen: Efficient One-Pass Unified Generation and Retrieval for LLMscited by 14
9 more
  1. 2021Robustness Evaluation of Entity Disambiguation Using Prior Probes:the Case of Entity Overshadowingcited by 11
  2. 2024OneNet: A Fine-Tuning Free Framework for Few-Shot Entity Linking via Large Language Model Promptingcited by 9
  3. 2024ChatEL: Entity Linking with Chatbotscited by 8
  4. 2021Reddit Entity Linking Datasetcited by 7
  5. 2023Learn to Not Link: Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linkingcited by 7
  6. 2024EntGPT: Entity Linking with Generative Large Language Modelscited by 7
  7. 2026LELA: an LLM-based Entity Linking Approach with Zero-Shot Domain Adaptationcited by 6
  8. 2025Evaluating Design Decisions for Dual Encoder-based Entity Disambiguationcited by 5
  9. 2025Contextual Augmentation for Entity Linking using Large Language Modelscited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.