Dealing with Inconsistency for Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs: A Survey
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:HBLEVGQVrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original 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.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Retrieval Is Not Enough: Why Organizational AI Needs Epistemic Infrastructure
OIDA adds typed knowledge objects, decay-based importance scores, contradiction edges, and an inverse-decay QUESTION primitive for ignorance to raise epistemic fidelity beyond retrieval.
-
Retrieval Is Not Enough: Why Organizational AI Needs Epistemic Infrastructure
OIDA is a proposed framework that represents organizational knowledge as epistemic Knowledge Objects with class-specific importance decay and signed contradictions, plus a QUESTION mechanism that surfaces modeled igno...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.