PreprintCited by 30Topic ModelingSemantic Web and OntologiesAdvanced Graph Neural Networks

DBLP-QuAD: A Question Answering Dataset over the DBLP Scholarly Knowledge Graph

Open access
Banerjee, Debayan, Awale, Sushil, Usbeck, Ricardo, Biemann, Chris·2023·arXiv

Abstract

In this work we create a question answering dataset over the DBLP scholarly knowledge graph (KG). DBLP is an on-line reference for bibliographic information on major computer science publications that indexes over 4.4 million publications published by more than 2.2 million authors. Our dataset consists of 10,000 question answer pairs with the corresponding SPARQL queries which can be executed over the DBLP KG to fetch the correct answer. DBLP-QuAD is the largest scholarly question answering dataset.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2303.13351

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • DBLP-QuAD contains 10,000 QA pairs generated via SPARQL queries over the DBLP scholarly knowledge graph.

    “One notable dataset is DBLP-QuAD (Banerjee et al., 2023), which contains 10,000 QA pairs generated via SPARQL queries over the DBLP scholarly knowledge graph (KG).”

    From YESciEval: Robust LLM-as-a-Judge for Scientific Question Answering (2025) · cites this paper as Banerjee et al., 2023

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. K. Bollacker, C. Evans, P. Paritosh, T. Sturge, J. Taylor, Freebase: A Collaboratively Created Graph Database for Structuring Human Knowledge, in: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, AcM, 2008, pp. 1247-1250.
  2. Vrandečić, Denny and Krötzsch, Markus, Wikidata: A Free Collaborative Knowledge Base, Communications of the ACM (2014).
  3. M. Dubey, S. Dasgupta, A. Sharma, K. Höffner, J. Lehmann, AskNow: A Framework for Natural Language Query Formalization in SPARQL, in: H. Sack, E. Blomqvist, M. d'Aquin, C. Ghidini, S. P. Ponzetto, C. Lange (Eds.), The Semantic Web. Latest Advances and New Domains, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 300-316.
  4. N. Chakraborty, D. Lukovnikov, G. Maheshwari, P. Trivedi, J. Lehmann, A. Fischer, Intro- duction to Neural Network based Approaches for Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs, 2019. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09361. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1907.09361. · DOI
  5. A. Perevalov, X. Yan, L. Kovriguina, L. Jiang, A. Both, R. Usbeck, Knowledge Graph Question Answering Leaderboard: A Community Resource to Prevent a Replication Crisis, in: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France, 2022, pp. 2998-3007. URL: https: //aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.321.
  6. M. Y. Jaradeh, M. Stocker, S. Auer, Question answering on scholarly knowledge graphs, in: International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, Springer, 2020, pp. 19-32.
  7. P. Rajpurkar, R. Jia, P. Liang, Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD, arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03822 (2018). · arXiv
  8. T. Kwiatkowski, J. Palomaki, O. Redfield, M. Collins, A. Parikh, C. Alberti, D. Epstein, I. Polosukhin, J. Devlin, K. Lee, et al., Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 7 (2019) 453-466.
  9. P. Trivedi, G. Maheshwari, M. Dubey, J. Lehmann, LC-QuAD: A Corpus for Complex Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs, in: C. d'Amato, M. Fernandez, V. Tamma, F. Lecue, P. Cudré-Mauroux, J. Sequeda, C. Lange, J. Heflin (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2017, volume 10588, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 210-218. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68204-4_22. · DOI · Paper page
  10. P. Sen, A. F. Aji, A. Saffari, Mintaka: A Complex, Natural, and Multilingual Dataset for End-to-End Question Answering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01613 (2022). · arXiv
  11. Q. Cai, A. Yates, Large-scale semantic parsing via schema matching and lexicon exten- sion, in: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2013, pp. 423-433.
  12. R. Usbeck, A.-C. N. Ngomo, B. Haarmann, A. Krithara, M. Röder, G. Napolitano, 7th Open Challenge on Question Answering over Linked Data (QALD-7), in: M. Dragoni, M. Solanki, E. Blomqvist (Eds.), Semantic Web Challenges, volume 769, Springer International Publish- ing, Cham, 2017, pp. 59-69. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69146-6_6. · DOI
  13. W.-t. Yih, M. Richardson, C. Meek, M.-W. Chang, J. Suh, The Value of Semantic Parse Labeling for Knowledge Base Question Answering, in: Proceedings of the 54th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Pa- pers), Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 201-206. doi:10.18653/v1/P16-2033. · DOI
  14. A. Talmor, J. Berant, The Web as a Knowledge-base for Answering Complex Questions, 2018. arXiv:1803.06643. · arXiv
  15. J. Berant, A. Chou, R. Frostig, P. Liang, Semantic Parsing on Freebase from Question- Answer Pairs, in: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2013, pp. 1533-1544.
  16. Y. Wang, J. Berant, P. Liang, Building a semantic parser overnight, in: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2015, pp. 1332-1342.
  17. Y. Su, H. Sun, B. Sadler, M. Srivatsa, I. Gur, Z. Yan, X. Yan, On Generating Characteristic- rich Question Sets for QA Evaluation, in: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, Austin, Texas, 2016, pp. 562-572. doi:10.18653/v1/D16-1054. · DOI
  18. M. Dubey, D. Banerjee, A. Abdelkawi, J. Lehmann, LC-QuAD 2.0: A Large Dataset for Complex Question Answering over Wikidata and DBpedia, in: C. Ghidini, O. Hartig, M. Maleshkova, V. Svátek, I. Cruz, A. Hogan, J. Song, M. Lefrançois, F. Gandon (Eds.), The Semantic Web -ISWC 2019, volume 11779, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 69-78. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_5. · DOI
  19. Y. Gu, S. Kase, M. Vanni, B. Sadler, P. Liang, X. Yan, Y. Su, Beyond I.I.D.: Three Levels of Generalization for Question Answering on Knowledge Bases, in: Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, ACM, Ljubljana Slovenia, 2021, pp. 3477-3488. doi:10.1145/3442381. 3449992. · DOI
  20. S. Cao, J. Shi, L. Pan, L. Nie, Y. Xiang, L. Hou, J. Li, B. He, H. Zhang, KQA pro: A dataset with explicit compositional programs for complex question answering over knowledge base, in: Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 2022, pp. 6101-6119. doi:10. 18653/v1/2022.AssociationforComputationalLinguistics-long.422. · DOI
  21. D. Keysers, N. Schärli, N. Scales, H. Buisman, D. Furrer, S. Kashubin, N. Momchev, D. Sinopalnikov, L. Stafiniak, T. Tihon, D. Tsarkov, X. Wang, M. van Zee, O. Bousquet, Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Data, 2020. arXiv:1912.09713. · arXiv
  22. M. Ley, The DBLP Computer Science Bibliography: Evolution, Research Issues, Perspec- tives, in: G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, J. van Leeuwen, A. H. F. Laender, A. L. Oliveira (Eds.), String Processing and Information Retrieval, volume 2476, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002, pp. 1-10. doi:10.1007/3-540-45735-6_1. · DOI
  23. D. Banerjee, P. A. Nair, J. N. Kaur, R. Usbeck, C. Biemann, Modern Baselines for SPARQL Semantic Parsing, in: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2022, pp. 2260-2265. doi:10.1145/ 1-15 3477495.3531841. arXiv:2204.12793. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Banerjee, D., Awale, S., Usbeck, R., & Biemann, C.
Affiliations
Universität Hamburg (DE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4360891214
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Nvidia (RTX A5000)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (460234259)
  • Universität Hamburg
  • Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (01MK21007)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
Keywords
question answering, DBLP, scholarly knowledge graphs, SPARQL queries, bibliographic information, computer science literature, question-answer pairs, knowledge graph question answering

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