The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Conflict Detection for Temporal Knowledge Graphs:A Fast Constraint Mining Algorithm and New Benchmarks
Abstract
Temporal facts, which are used to describe events that occur during specific time periods, have become a topic of increased interest in the field of knowledge graph (KG) research. In terms of quality management, the introduction of time restrictions brings new challenges to maintaining the temporal consistency of KGs. Previous studies rely on manually enumerated temporal constraints to detect conflicts, which are labor-intensive and may have granularity issues. To address this problem, we start from the common pattern of temporal facts and propose a pattern-based temporal constraint mining method, PaTeCon. Unlike previous studies, PaTeCon uses graph patterns and statistical information relevant to the given KG to automatically generate temporal constraints, without the need for human experts. In this paper, we illustrate how this method can be optimized to achieve significant speed improvement. We also annotate Wikidata and Freebase to build two new benchmarks for conflict detection. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our pattern-based automatic constraint mining approach is highly effective in generating valuable temporal constraints.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, J., Ren, J., Ding, W., Ouyang, H., Hu, W., & Qu, Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2312.11053
- Type
- Preprint
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