Knowledge graphs describe reality in crisp assertions, while the systems now consuming them, foundation models and autonomous agents, reason natively in probabilities. We argue that this mismatch is why the integration of language models and knowledge graphs remains a data-feeding pipeline rather than a unified reasoning architecture. We envision Semantic Bayesian World Models (SBWMs): a Web that describes the world not as a database of facts but as a shared, evolving fabric of beliefs over knowledge graphs, where ontological axioms constrain priors, observations update beliefs by Bayesian conditioning, and actions intervene upon the world. We work through what an agent gains from such a model: a home-security agent deciding whether the figure at the gate is a courier or a burglar, an actuarial estimate aggregated by entailment rather than by string frequency, a planning task that language models reliably fail, and the estimation of quantities that no document has ever stated. We then set out what the community must build to make them possible: belief annotation over RDF~1.2, probabilistic entailment regimes, semantic calibration layers, and protocols by which agents that have never met can exchange, and disagree over, calibrated beliefs.
Agents now write knowledge graphs, but knowledge-graph stores still carry defaults set when humans curated them: accept writes now and clean later, keep one time axis or none, treat every writer's facts as equally trustworthy, and leave governance to dashboards and middleware. These four defaults are individually convenient and jointly untenable under agent workloads. We present Quipu, an embeddable store that inverts all four: no fact enters except through a gate whose predicates evaluate the pending post-state; data, trust labels, verdicts, and the rules themselves are bitemporal; named graphs are the unit of authority and trust, composed under a lattice whose one invariant is that composition never widens; and the governance specification $Σ$, the trace, and signed verdicts are facts in the store they govern, making the audit $T \models Σ$ a query. We evaluate with Census, a deterministic multi-writer lifecycle whose single seeded run scores every research question against planted ground truth: the gated store ends with 0 of 6 planted defects versus 6 of 6 ungated; all 7 composition probes uphold the lattice contract; 50 of 50 satisfied verdicts re-derive faithfully as of their instant while all 50 would be misreported under a latest-only rule set; and the SARC reference checker agrees with the in-store audit verdict-for-verdict, differing only on coverage semantics. A recorded trace from a governed writer surfaces a live enforcement gap the audit names with its remediation. On DEMM-Bench, an external decision-evidence sufficiency benchmark, a content-only reading of the exported records answers all 512 property-level governance questions correctly with zero overclaim under all eight degradation conditions, while container-presence baselines overclaim on up to 87.5% of them -- and the run surfaced, and led us to close, a gap in what a denial's verdict attests.
Hans-Martin Will, Allen L. Brown, Matthew Fuchscs.DB cs.AI cs.LO
As "AI Scientists" emerge to drive research via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), systems relying on ephemeral scripts will fail. The sheer scale of stateful, interconnected evidence requires a machine-walkable warranty grounded in a purpose-built database architecture. Eigenius is an open-source, typed knowledge-graph DBMS built on a single premise: answering the audit question ("what do you know, and what is your warranty?") requires a unified kernel. By tightly coupling the type system, storage engine, and integration protocol, Eigenius turns data provenance into a structural invariant rather than a property reconstructed across subsystem boundaries. The kernel rests on three pillars: a dependent type theory woven through the core, institutions acting as strongly typed integration boundaries, and a content-addressed immutable storage layer. On this foundation, epistemic status (declared/observed/derived/verified) is enforced as a strict commit-time invariant. Cross-system translations (comorphisms) are checked at commit and materialized directly into the graph as durable, first-class resources. To eliminate O(N^2) polystore bottlenecks, shared on-chain intermediate representations (IRs) collapse multi-system translations to identity. Crucially, this architecture unifies both domains of scientific epistemology: it relies on justification logic for empirical science, while embedding a fast, in-process term checker to safely evaluate formal mathematical proofs (via Lean 4) without IPC overhead. In an end-to-end recomputation of a published Nature study from fragile scripts to a materialized evidence graph, all 52 derived conclusions hold from pinned data, surfacing four machine-checked discrepancies in the original study.