skip to main content
10.1145/3289600.3290996acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

ExFaKT: A Framework for Explaining Facts over Knowledge Graphs and Text

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 January 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Fact-checking is a crucial task for accurately populating, updating and curating knowledge graphs. Manually validating candidate facts is time-consuming. Prior work on automating this task focuses on estimating truthfulness using numerical scores which are not human-interpretable. Others extract explicit mentions of the candidate fact in the text as an evidence for the candidate fact, which can be hard to directly spot. In our work, we introduce ExFaKT, a framework focused on generating human-comprehensible explanations for candidate facts. ExFaKT uses background knowledge encoded in the form of Horn clauses to rewrite the fact in question into a set of other easier-to-spot facts. The final output of our framework is a set of semantic traces for the candidate fact from both text and knowledge graphs. The experiments demonstrate that our rewritings significantly increase the recall of fact-spotting while preserving high precision. Moreover, we show that the explanations effectively help humans to perform fact-checking and can also be exploited for automating this task.

References

  1. Serge Abiteboul, Richard Hull, and Victor Vianu. 1994. Foundations of Databases .Addison Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Nitish Aggarwal, Sumit Bhatia, and Vinith Misra. 2016. Connecting the Dots: Explaining Relationships Between Unconnected Entities in a Knowledge Graph. In The Semantic Web - ESWC 2016 Satellite Events . 35--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Marcelo Arenas, Gonzalo I. Diaz, and Egor V. Kostylev. 2016. Reverse Engineering SPARQL Queries. In Proceedings of WWW 2016 . 239--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Oscar Corcho Asuncion Gomez-Perez, Mariano Fernández-López. 2005. Ontological Engineering: with examples from the areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web .Springer Science and Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sö ren Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary G. Ives. 2007. DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. In Proceedings of ISWC. 722--735. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 6, 1 (2011), 3--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Stefano Ceri, Georg Gottlob, and Letizia Tanca. 1989. What you Always Wanted to Know About Datalog (And Never Dared to Ask). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 1, 1 (1989), 146--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yang Chen, Sean Goldberg, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Soumitra Siddharth Johri. 2016. Ontological Pathfinding: Mining First-Order Knowledge from Large Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of SIGMOD/PODS 2016. ACM, 835--846. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Prashant Shiralkar, Luis Mateus Rocha, Johan Bollen, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2015. Computational fact checking from knowledge networks. CoRR, Vol. abs/1501.03471 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rajarshi Das, Manzil Zaheer, Siva Reddy, and Andrew McCallum. 2017. Question Answering on Knowledge Bases and Text using Universal Schema and Memory Networks. In Proceedings of ACL 2017 . 358--365.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Xin Luna Dong, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Kevin Murphy, Van Dang, Wilko Horn, Camillo Lugaresi, Shaohua Sun, and Wei Zhang. 2015. Knowledge-Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sources. PVLDB, Vol. 8, 9 (2015), 938--949. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Xin Luna Dong and Divesh Srivastava. 2013. Compact Explanation of Data Fusion Decisions. In Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '13). ACM, 379--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Thomas Eiter, Tobias Kaminski, Christoph Redl, Peter Schü ller, and Antonius Weinzierl. 2017. Answer Set Programming with External Source Access. In Reasoning Web. Semantic Interoperability on the Web. 204--275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenny Rose Finkel, Trond Grenager, and Christopher Manning. 2005. Incorporating Non-local Information into Information Extraction Systems by Gibbs Sampling. In Proceedings of ACL. 363--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Valeria Fionda and Giuseppe Pirrò. 2017. Explaining and Querying Knowledge Graphs by Relatedness. PVLDB, Vol. 10, 12 (2017), 1913--1916. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Luis Galarraga, Christina Teflioudi, Katja Hose, and Fabian M. Suchanek. 2015. Fast rule mining in ontological knowledge bases with AMIEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. . VLDB J., Vol. 24, 6 (2015), 707--730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Luis Antonio Galárraga, Christina Teflioudi, Katja Hose, and Fabian Suchanek. 2013. AMIE: Association Rule Mining Under Incomplete Evidence in Ontological Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of WWW. 413--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Daniel Gerber, Diego Esteves, Jens Lehmann, Lorenz Bühmann, Ricardo Usbeck, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, and René Speck. 2015. DeFacto-Temporal and Multilingual Deep Fact Validation. Web Semant., Vol. 35, P2 (Dec. 2015), 85--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Clinton Gormley and Zachary Tong. 2015. Elasticsearch: The Definitive Guide 1st ed.). O'Reilly Media, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Joseph L. Fleiss. 1971. Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement Among Many Raters., Vol. 76 (11 1971), 378--.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Julien Leblay. 2017. A Declarative Approach to Data-Driven Fact Checking. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 147--153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Qi Li, Yaliang Li, Jing Gao, Bo Zhao, Wei Fan, and Jiawei Han. 2014. Resolving Conflicts in Heterogeneous Data by Truth Discovery and Source Reliability Estimation. In Proceedings of SIGMOD . 1187--1198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Xian Li, Weiyi Meng, and Clement Yu. 2011. T-verifier: Verifying Truthfulness of Fact Statements. In Proceedings of ICDE. IEEE, 63--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Yaliang Li, Jing Gao, Chuishi Meng, Qi Li, Lu Su, Bo Zhao, Wei Fan, and Jiawei Han. 2015. A Survey on Truth Discovery. SIGKDD Explorations, Vol. 17, 2 (2015), 1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Subhabrata Mukherjee, Gerhard Weikum, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2014. People on drugs: credibility of user statements in health communities. In Proceedings of KDD . 65--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ndapandula Nakashole and Tom M. Mitchell. 2014. Language-Aware Truth Assessment of Fact Candidates. In Proceedings of ACL . 1009--1019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ndapandula Nakashole, Gerhard Weikum, and Fabian Suchanek. 2012. PATTY: A Taxonomy of Relational Patterns with Semantic Types. In Proceedings EMNLP . 1135--1145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Roberto Navigli and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2012. BabelNet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 193 (2012), 217--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, Volker Tresp, and Evgeniy Gabrilovich. 2016. A Review of Relational Machine Learning for Knowledge Graphs. Proc. IEEE, Vol. 104, 1 (2016), 11--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Jeff Pasternack and Dan Roth. 2013. Latent credibility analysis. In Proceedings of WWW. 1009--1020. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Heiko Paulheim. 2017. Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods. Semantic Web, Vol. 8, 3 (2017), 489--508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Kashyap Popat, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Jannik Strö tgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2017. Where the Truth Lies: Explaining the Credibility of Emerging Claims on the Web and Social Media. In Proceedings of WWW. 1003--1012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Baoxu Shi and Tim Weninger. 2016. Discriminative predicate path mining for fact checking in knowledge graphs. Knowl.-Based Syst., Vol. 104 (2016), 123--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Hui Shi, Kurt Maly, and Steven Zeil. 2014. Optimized Backward Chaining Reasoning System for a Semantic Web. In Proceedings of WIMS'14 . 34:1--34:6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Prashant Shiralkar, Alessandro Flammini, Filippo Menczer, and Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia. 2017. Finding Streams in Knowledge Graphs to Support Fact Checking. In Proceedings of ICDM 2017 . 859--864.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Fabian M. Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. 2007. Yago: A Core of Semantic Knowledge. In Proceedings of WWW. 697--706. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Hai Dang Tran, Daria Stepanova, Mohamed Gad-elrab, Francesca A Lisi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2016. Towards Nonmonotonic Relational Learning from Knowledge Graphs. ILP (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krö tzsch. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Communications of ACM, Vol. 57, 10 (2014), 78--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Zhichun Wang and Juan-Zi Li. 2015. RDF2Rules: Learning Rules from RDF Knowledge Bases by Mining Frequent Predicate Cycles. CoRR, Vol. abs/1512.07734 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhuoyu Wei, Jun Zhao, Kang Liu, Zhenyu Qi, Zhengya Sun, and Guanhua Tian. 2015. Large-scale Knowledge Base Completion: Inferring via Grounding Network Sampeeling over Selected Instances. In Proceedings of CIKM '15 . 1331--1340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. X. Yin, J. Han, and P. S. Yu. 2008. Truth Discovery with Multiple Conflicting Information Providers on the Web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 20, 6 (2008), 796--808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. ExFaKT: A Framework for Explaining Facts over Knowledge Graphs and Text

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          WSDM '19: Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
          January 2019
          874 pages
          ISBN:9781450359405
          DOI:10.1145/3289600

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 30 January 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          WSDM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate84of511submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate498of2,863submissions,17%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader