Paper detail

Typing Errors in Factual Knowledge Graphs: Severity and Possible Ways Out

Factual knowledge graphs (KGs) such as DBpedia and Wikidata have served as part of various downstream tasks and are also widely adopted by artificial intelligence research communities as benchmark datasets. However, we found these KGs to be surprisingly noisy. In this study, we question the quality of these KGs, where the typing error rate is estimated to be 27% for coarse-grained types on average, and even 73% for certain fine-grained types. In pursuit of solutions, we propose an active typing error detection algorithm that maximizes the utilization of both gold and noisy labels. We also comprehensively discuss and compare unsupervised, semi-supervised, and supervised paradigms to deal with typing errors in factual KGs. The outcomes of this study provide guidelines for researchers to use noisy factual KGs. To help practitioners deploy the techniques and conduct further research, we published our code and data.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.