The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Dealing with Inconsistency for Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs: A Survey
Abstract
In Knowledge Graphs (KGs), where the schema of the data is usually defined by particular ontologies, reasoning is a necessity to perform a range of tasks, such as retrieval of information, question answering, and the derivation of new knowledge. However, information to populate KGs is often extracted (semi-) automatically from natural language resources, or by integrating datasets that follow different semantic schemas, resulting in KG inconsistency. This, however, hinders the process of reasoning. In this survey, we focus on how to perform reasoning on inconsistent KGs, by analyzing the state of the art towards three complementary directions: a) the detection of the parts of the KG that cause the inconsistency, b) the fixing of an inconsistent KG to render it consistent, and c) the inconsistency-tolerant reasoning. We discuss existing work from a range of relevant fields focusing on how, and in which cases they are related to the above directions. We also highlight persisting challenges and future directions.
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
- Nentidis, A., Akasiadis, C., Charalambidis, A., & Artikis, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2502.19023
- 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
