TKGQA Dataset: Using Question Answering to Guide and Validate the Evolution of Temporal Knowledge Graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal knowledge graphs can be used to represent the current state of the world and, as daily events happen, the need to update the temporal knowledge graph, in order to stay consistent with the state of the world, becomes very important. However, there is currently no reliable method to accurately validate the update and evolution of knowledge graphs. There has been a recent development in text summarisation, whereby question answering is used to both guide and fact-check summarisation quality. The exact process can be applied to the temporal knowledge graph update process. To the best of our knowledge, there is currently no dataset that connects temporal knowledge graphs with documents with question–answer pairs. In this paper, we proposed the TKGQA dataset, consisting of over 5000 financial news documents related to M&A. Each document has extracted facts, question–answer pairs, and before and after temporal knowledge graphs, to highlight the state of temporal knowledge and any changes caused by the facts extracted from the document. As we parse through each document, we use question–answering to check and guide the update process of the temporal knowledge graph.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".