Cited by 7

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Credible Intervals for Knowledge Graph Accuracy Estimation

Marchesin, Stefano, Silvello, Gianmaria·2025·Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data

Abstract

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are widely used in data-driven applications and downstream tasks, such as virtual assistants, recommendation systems, and semantic search. The accuracy of KGs directly impacts the reliability of the inferred knowledge and outcomes. Therefore, assessing the accuracy of a KG is essential for ensuring the quality of facts used in these tasks. However, the large size of real-world KGs makes manual triple-by-triple annotation impractical, thereby requiring sampling strategies to provide accuracy estimates with statistical guarantees. The current state-of-the-art approaches rely on Confidence Intervals (CIs), derived from frequentist statistics. While efficient, CIs have notable limitations and can lead to interpretation fallacies. In this paper, we propose to overcome the limitations of CIs by using Credible Intervals (CrIs), which are grounded in Bayesian statistics. These intervals are more suitable for reliable post-data inference, particularly in KG accuracy evaluation. We prove that CrIs offer greater reliability and stronger guarantees than frequentist approaches in this context. Additionally, we introduce aHPD, an adaptive algorithm that is more efficient for real-world KGs and statistically robust, addressing the interpretive challenges of CIs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3725279

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. 10.1007/978--3--540--76298-0_52 · DOI
  2. 10.1098/rstl.1763.0053 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/978--1--4757--4286--2 · DOI
  4. 10.5555/1619797.1619981 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/1376616.1376746 · DOI · Paper page
  6. A. Bonifati G. H. L. Fletcher H. Voigt and N. Yakovets. 2018. Querying Graphs. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. doi:10.2200/S00873ED1V01Y201808DTM051 · DOI
  7. G. E. P. Box and G. C. Tiao. 2011. Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
  8. 10.1214/ss/1009213286 · DOI
  9. 10.1017/S0013091500025724 · DOI
  10. 10.1145/2463676.2465297 · DOI
  11. 10.1037/h0044139 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1145/3177873 · DOI
  13. 10.14778/3342263.3342642 · DOI
  14. 10.1214/08-BA318REJ · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.websem.2015.08.001 · DOI
  16. 10.1145/3077136.3080810 · DOI
  17. 10.3758/s13423-013-0572--3 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.artint.2012.06.001 · DOI
  19. 10.1145/3555041.3589672 · DOI
  20. 10.1145/3514221.3526049 · DOI
  21. 10.1098/rspa.1946.0056 · DOI
  22. 10.1080/00031305.2016.1208630 · DOI
  23. 10.1214/11-EJS648 · DOI
  24. L. Kish. 1965. Survey Sampling. Wiley. 65019479 https://books.google.it/books?id=xiZmAAAAIAAJ
  25. L. Kish. 1995. Methods for Design Effects. J. Off. Stat., Vol. 11, 1 (1995), 55. https://www.scb.se/contentassets/ca21efb41fee47d293bbee5bf7be7fb3/methods-for-design-effects.pdf
  26. N. Lao, T. M. Mitchell, and W. W. Cohen. 2011. Random Walk Inference and Learning in A Large Scale Knowledge Base. In Proc. of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2011, 27--31 July 2011, John McIntyre Conference Centre, Edinburgh, UK. ACL, 529--539. https://aclanthology.org/D11--1049/
  27. E. Lesaffre and A. B. Lawson. 2012. Bayesian Biostatistics. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781119942412 · DOI
  28. 10.21105/joss.01541 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.14778/3665844.3665865 · DOI
  30. 10.1609/hcomp.v12i1.31605 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1145/3627673.3679561 · DOI
  32. 10.1145/3191513 · DOI
  33. 10.1145/3589777 · DOI
  34. 10.3758/s13423-015-0947--8 · DOI
  35. 10.1145/2488388.2488471 · DOI
  36. 10.1093/biomet/32.2.128 · DOI
  37. 10.18653/v1/d17--1183 · DOI
  38. H. Paulheim. 2018. How much is a Triple? Estimating the Cost of Knowledge Graph Creation. In Proc. of the ISWC 2018 Posters & Demonstrations, Industry and Blue Sky Ideas Tracks co-located with 17th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2018), Monterey, USA, October 8--12, 2018 (CEUR, Vol. 2180). CEUR-WS.org. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2180/ISWC_2018_Outrageous_Ideas_paper_10.pdf
  39. 10.4230/TGDK.1.1.11 · DOI
  40. 10.1002/9780470317105 · DOI
  41. 10.18653/v1/d17--1184 · DOI
  42. 10.1145/3534678.3539233 · DOI
  43. 10.1561/1500000063 · DOI
  44. M. Samadi, P. P. Talukdar, M. M. Veloso, and T. M. Mitchell. 2015. AskWorld: Budget-Sensitive Query Evaluation for Knowledge-on-Demand. In Proc. of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25--31, 2015. AAAI Press, 837--843. http://ijcai.org/Abstract/15/123
  45. 10.1145/2629489 · DOI
  46. 10.1080/09296174.2013.799918 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1214/08-BA318D · DOI
  48. 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1109/TKDE.2022.3150080 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Marchesin, S., & Silvello, G.
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data
Published
2025-06-17
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
1-26
ISSN
2836-6573
Cited by
7
References
2
Language
en
Funders
EU Horizon Europe (101137074)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review