Proposed intelligent Q&A system enhances land use approval efficiency and quality using knowledge graphs and intelligent agents.
The rapid retrieval and precise acquisition of land use approval information are crucial for enhancing the efficiency and quality of land use approval, as well as for promoting the intelligent transformation of land use approval processes. As an advanced retrieval method, question-answering (Q&A) technology has become a core technical support for addressing current issues such as low approval efficiency and difficulty in obtaining information. However, existing Q&A technologies suffer from significant hallucination problems and limitations in considering spatiotemporal factors in the land use approval domain. To effectively address these issues, this study proposes a spatiotemporal–semantic coupling intelligent Q&A method for land use approval based on knowledge graphs (KGs) and intelligent agent technology, aiming to enhance the efficiency and quality of land use approval. Firstly, a land use approval knowledge graph (LUAKG) is constructed, systematically integrating domain knowledge such as policy clauses, legal regulations, and approval procedures. Then, by combining large language models (LLMs) and intelligent agent technology, a spatiotemporal–semantic coupling Q&A framework is designed. Through the use of spatiotemporal analysis tools, this framework can comprehensively consider spatial, temporal, and semantic factors when handling land approval tasks, enabling dynamic decision-making and precise reasoning. The research results show that, compared to traditional Q&A based on LLMs and Q&A based on retrieval-enhanced generation (RAG), the proposed method improves accuracy by 16% and 9% in general knowledge Q&A tasks. In the project review Q&A task, F1 scores and accuracy increase by 2% and 9%, respectively, compared to RAG-QA. Particularly, under the spatiotemporal–semantic multidimensional analysis, the improvement in F1 score and accuracy ranges from 2 to 6% and 7 to 10%, respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: