REVIEW 2 cited by
Evaluating Class Membership Relations in Knowledge Graphs using Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
A backbone of knowledge graphs are their class membership relations, which assign entities to a given class. As part of the knowledge engineering process, we propose a new method for evaluating the quality of these relations by processing descriptions of a given entity and class using a zero-shot chain-of-thought classifier that uses a natural language intensional definition of a class. We evaluate the method using two publicly available knowledge graphs, Wikidata and CaLiGraph, and 7 large language models. Using the gpt-4-0125-preview large language model, the method's classification performance achieves a macro-averaged F1-score of 0.830 on data from Wikidata and 0.893 on data from CaLiGraph. Moreover, a manual analysis of the classification errors shows that 40.9% of errors were due to the knowledge graphs, with 16.0% due to missing relations and 24.9% due to incorrectly asserted relations. These results show how large language models can assist knowledge engineers in the process of knowledge graph refinement. The code and data are available on Github.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
A Benchmark for the Detection of Metalinguistic Disagreements between LLMs and Knowledge Graphs
Metalinguistic disagreements, where the dispute is over word meaning rather than facts, appear in LLM fact-checking against knowledge graphs, based on a 250-triple pilot study.
-
MultiCNKG: Integrating Cognitive Neuroscience, Gene, and Disease Knowledge Graphs Using Large Language Models
An LLM merges three biomedical ontologies into a small knowledge graph, but its validation metrics are self-contradictory and the resource is not released.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.