Cited by 8

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

T e C o R e: temporal conflict resolution in knowledge graphs

Chekol, Melisachew W., Pirrò, Giuseppe, Schoenfisch, Joerg, Stuckenschmidt, Heiner·2017·Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

Abstract

The management of uncertainty is crucial when harvesting structured content from unstructured and noisy sources. Knowledge Graphs ( kg s), maintaining both numerical and non-numerical facts supported by an underlying schema, are a prominent example. Knowledge Graph management is challenging because: (i) most of existing kg s focus on static data, thus impeding the availability of timewise knowledge; (ii) facts in kg s are usually accompanied by a confidence score, which witnesses how likely it is for them to hold. We demonstrate T e C o R e , a system for temporal inference and conflict resolution in uncertain temporal knowledge graphs ( utkg s). At the heart of T e C o R e are two state-of-the-art probabilistic reasoners that are able to deal with temporal constraints efficiently. While one is scalable, the other can cope with more expressive constraints. The demonstration will focus on enabling users and applications to find inconsistencies in utkg s. T e C o R e provides an interface allowing to select utkg s and editing constraints; shows the maximal consistent subset of the utkg , and displays statistics (e.g., number of noisy facts removed) about the debugging process.

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 · 10.14778/3137765.3137811

Cites

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 8

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. S. H. Bach , M. Broecheler , B. Huang , and L. Getoor . Hinge-loss markov random fields and probabilistic soft logic. CoRR, abs/1505.04406 , 2015 . S. H. Bach, M. Broecheler, B. Huang, and L. Getoor. Hinge-loss markov random fields and probabilistic soft logic. CoRR, abs/1505.04406, 2015. · arXiv
  2. 10.1145/1897816.1897839 · DOI
  3. M. W. Chekol , J. Huber , C. Meilicke , and H. Stuckenschmidt . Markov logic networks with numerical constraints . In Proc. of ECAI 2016 , pages 1017 -- 1025 , 2016 . M. W. Chekol, J. Huber, C. Meilicke, and H. Stuckenschmidt. Markov logic networks with numerical constraints. In Proc. of ECAI 2016, pages 1017--1025, 2016.
  4. M. W. Chekol , G. Pirrò , J. Schoenfisch , and H. Stuckenschmidt . Marrying Uncertainty and Time in Knowledge Graphs . In Proc. of AAAI 2017 , 2017 . M. W. Chekol, G. Pirrò, J. Schoenfisch, and H. Stuckenschmidt. Marrying Uncertainty and Time in Knowledge Graphs. In Proc. of AAAI 2017, 2017.
  5. 10.14778/2556549.2556564 · DOI
  6. X. Ling and D. S. Weld . Temporal Information Extraction . In AAAI , pages 1385 -- 1390 , 2010 . X. Ling and D. S. Weld. Temporal Information Extraction. In AAAI, pages 1385--1390, 2010.
  7. 10.1109/ICDE.2016.7498350 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s10994-006-5833-1 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1007/s10817-007-9076-z · DOI
  10. 10.14778/3007263.3007284 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Chekol, M. W., Pirrò, G., Schoenfisch, J., & Stuckenschmidt, H.
Venue
Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
Published
2017-08
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
1929-1932
ISSN
2150-8097
Cited by
8
Language
en

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