Detecting Knowledge Inconsistencies Across Text, Tables, and Knowledge Graphs

arXiv:2607.25959v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Wikipedia and Wikidata are widely used for information access, LLM pre-training, and retrieval-augmented generation. Their knowledge is deeply connected but scattered across text, tables, and knowledge graphs. This raises a practical question: when these modalities disagree, how can we detect and explain the conflict? We study this problem as \emph{modality-level inconsistency detection}. We first introduce a taxonomy of cross-modal knowledge inconsistencies, covering information granularity differences, direct conflicts, temporal changes, and KG incompleteness. We then present \textsc{Kontrast}, an automatic framework that uses Text-to-SPARQL and LLM reasoning to compare table-based answers with KG evidence and categorize the resulting inconsistencies. Experiments on various Table-QA datasets show that cross-modal inconsistencies are common and informative. They reveal not only true knowledge conflicts, but also missing KG structure and temporal mismatches while being limited by Text-to-SPARQL errors and noise. Our analysis shows that text, tables, and KGs can complement and correct one another through systematic comparison. \textsc{Kontrast} provides a practical tool for large-scale knowledge auditing and establishes a benchmark for future work on cross-modal knowledge consistency. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ECLADATTA/KONTRAST.

Abstract:Wikipedia and Wikidata are widely used for information access, LLM pre-training, and retrieval-augmented generation. Their knowledge is deeply connected but scattered across text, tables, and knowledge graphs. This raises a practical question: when these modalities disagree, how can we detect and explain the conflict? We study this problem as \emph{modality-level inconsistency detection}. We first introduce a taxonomy of cross-modal knowledge inconsistencies, covering information granularity differences, direct conflicts, temporal changes, and KG incompleteness. We then present \textsc{Kontrast}, an automatic framework that uses Text-to-SPARQL and LLM reasoning to compare table-based answers with KG evidence and categorize the resulting inconsistencies. Experiments on various Table-QA datasets show that cross-modal inconsistencies are common and informative. They reveal not only true knowledge conflicts, but also missing KG structure and temporal mismatches while being limited by Text-to-SPARQL errors and noise. Our analysis shows that text, tables, and KGs can complement and correct one another through systematic comparison. \textsc{Kontrast} provides a practical tool for large-scale knowledge auditing and establishes a benchmark for future work on cross-modal knowledge consistency. Code and data are available at this https URL.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2607.25959 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2607.25959v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.25959 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Detecting Knowledge Inconsistencies Across Text, Tables, and Knowledge Graphs

Subiecte conexe