Papers › Scholarly Knowledge Graph Construction from Published Software Packages

Scholarly Knowledge Graph Construction from Published Software Packages

2 Dec 2023arXiv:2312.01065links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Muhammad Haris, Sören Auer, Markus Stocker

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

The value of structured scholarly knowledge for research and society at large is well understood, but producing scholarly knowledge (i.e., knowledge traditionally published in articles) in structured form remains a challenge. We propose an approach for automatically extracting scholarly knowledge from published software packages by static analysis of their metadata and contents (scripts and data) and populating a scholarly knowledge graph with the extracted knowledge. Our approach is based on mining scientific software packages linked to article publications by extracting metadata and analyzing the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) of the source code to obtain information about the used and produced data as well as operations performed on data. The resulting knowledge graph includes articles, software packages metadata, and computational techniques applied to input data utilized as materials in research work. The knowledge graph also includes the results reported as scholarly knowledge in articles.

PaperPDFCode

Code

mharis111/parse-software-scripts officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections