Knowledge Graphs (KGs) store structured factual knowledge by linking entities through relationships, crucial for many applications. These applications depend on the KG's factual accuracy, so verifying facts is essential, yet challenging. Expert manual verification is ideal but impractical on a large scale. Automated methods show promise but are not ready for real-world KGs. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer potential with their semantic understanding and knowledge access, yet their suitability and effectiveness for KG fact validation remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we introduce FactCheck, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs for KG fact validation across three key dimensions: (1) LLMs internal knowledge; (2) external evidence via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG); and (3) aggregated knowledge employing a multi-model consensus strategy. We evaluated open-source and commercial LLMs on three diverse real-world KGs. FactCheck also includes a RAG dataset with 2+ million documents tailored for KG fact validation. Additionally, we offer an interactive exploration platform for analyzing verification decisions. The experimental analyses demonstrate that while LLMs yield promising results, they are still not sufficiently stable and reliable to be used in real-world KG validation scenarios. Integrating external evidence through RAG methods yields fluctuating performance, providing inconsistent improvements over more streamlined approaches -- at higher computational costs. Similarly, strategies based on multi-model consensus do not consistently outperform individual models, underscoring the lack of a one-fits-all solution. These findings further emphasize the need for a benchmark like FactCheck to systematically evaluate and drive progress on this difficult yet crucial task.

Veracity is a critical dimension of data quality that directly impacts a wide range of tasks. In entity search scenarios, Knowledge Graphs (KGs) such as DBpedia and Wikidata serve as core resources for accessing factual content. The veracity of these KGs is therefore essential for ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of retrieved entities -- factors that directly influence user confidence in the search system. However, ensuring the truthfulness of entities remains a major challenge due to the complexities associated with the scale, development, and maintenance of KGs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) hugely impacted many research fields, including Information Retrieval (IR), where they are used for many sub-tasks, such as query rewriting and retrieval augmented generation. At the same time, the research community is investigating whether and how to use LLMs to support, or even replace, humans to generate relevance judgments. Indeed, generating relevance judgements automatically - or integrating an LLM in the annotation process - would allow us to improve the number of evaluation collections, also for scenarios where the annotation process is particularly challenging. To validate relevance judgements produced by an LLM they are compared with human-made relevance judgements, measuring the inter-assessor agreement between the human and the LLM.

In Information Retrieval (IR), ground truth creation is a crucial yet resource-intensive task that relies on human experts to build test collections - essential for training and evaluating retrieval models. Large-scale evaluation campaigns, such as TREC and CLEF, demand significant human effort to produce reliable, high-quality annotations. To ease this process, tailored annotation tools are pivotal to supporting assessors and streamlining their workload. To this end, we introduce Doctron, a web-based, dockerized annotation tool designed to streamline ground truth creation for IR tasks. Doctron enables the annotation of both textual documents and images. It supports annotating textual passages, identifying relationships, tagging and linking entities, evaluating document relevance to a topic with graded labels, and performing object detection. It offers a collaborative environment where teams can work with defined user roles and permissions. The integration of Inter Annotator Agreement (IAA) measures helps to identify inconsistencies between annotators, thereby ensuring the reliability and high quality of the annotated ground truth data.

Automated fact-checking systems often struggle with trustworthiness, as they lack transparency in their reasoning processes and fail to handle relationships in data. This work presents FactCheck, a fact verification system topped by a web platform that shows how Large Language Models (LLMs) can be collectively used to verify facts within Knowledge Graphs (KGs). While the underlying verification engine implements a system that combines Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) with an ensemble of LLMs to validate KG facts, the platform focuses on making the results of this complex process as transparent and accessible as possible. Users can explore how different models interpret the same evidence, compare their reasoning patterns, and understand the factors that lead to the final verification result. The platform supports technical users who want to analyze the model behavior and general users who need to verify whether the facts in the dataset are correct.

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are widely used in data-driven applications and downstream tasks, such as virtual assistants, recommendation systems, and semantic search. The accuracy of KGs directly impacts the reliability of the inferred knowledge and outcomes. Therefore, assessing the accuracy of a KG is essential for ensuring the quality of facts used in these tasks. However, the large size of real-world KGs makes manual triple-by-triple annotation impractical, thereby requiring sampling strategies to provide accuracy estimates with statistical guarantees. The current state-of-the-art approaches rely on Confidence Intervals (CIs), derived from frequentist statistics. While efficient, CIs have notable limitations and can lead to interpretation fallacies. In this paper, we propose to overcome the limitations of CIs by using Credible Intervals (CrIs), which are grounded in Bayesian statistics. These intervals are more suitable for reliable post-data inference, particularly in KG accuracy evaluation. We prove that CrIs offer greater reliability and stronger guarantees than frequentist approaches in this context. Additionally, we introduce aHPD, an adaptive algorithm that is more efficient for real-world KGs and statistically robust, addressing the interpretive challenges of CIs.

In this paper, we discuss the potential costs that emerge from using a Knowledge Graph (KG) in entity-oriented search without considering its data veracity. We argue for the need for KG veracity analysis to gain insights and propose a scalable assessment framework. Previous assessments focused on relevance, assuming correct KGs, and overlooking the potential risks of misinformation. Our approach strategically allocates annotation resources, optimizing utility and revealing the significant impact of veracity on entity search and card generation. Contributions include a fresh perspective on entity-oriented search extending beyond the conventional focus on relevance, a scalable assessment framework, exploratory experiments highlighting the impact of veracity on ranking and user experience, as well as outlining associated challenges and opportunities.

Data accuracy is a central dimension of data quality, especially when dealing with Knowledge Graphs (KGs). Auditing the accuracy of KGs is essential to make informed decisions in entity-oriented services or applications. However, manually evaluating the accuracy of large-scale KGs is prohibitively expensive, and research is focused on developing efficient sampling techniques for estimating KG accuracy. This work addresses the limitations of current KG accuracy estimation methods, which rely on the Wald method to build confidence intervals, addressing reliability issues such as zero-width and overshooting intervals. Our solution, rooted in the Wilson method and tailored for complex sampling designs, overcomes these limitations and ensures applicability across various evaluation scenarios. We show that the presented methods increase the reliability of accuracy estimates by up to two times when compared to the state-of-the-art while preserving or enhancing efficiency. Additionally, this consistency holds regardless of the KG size or topology.

This work presents CoreKB, a Web platform for searching reliable facts over gene expression-cancer associations Knowledge Base (KB). It provides search capabilities over an RDF graph using natural language queries, structured facets, and autocomplete. CoreKB is designed to be intuitive and easy to use for healthcare professionals, medical researchers, and clinicians. The system offers the user a comprehensive overview of the scientific evidence supporting a medical fact. It provides a quantitative comparison between the possible gene-cancer associations a particular fact can reflect.

This paper analyzes two state-of-the-art Neural Information Retrieval (NeuIR) models: the Deep Relevance Matching Model (DRMM) and the Neural Vector Space Model (NVSM). Our contributions include: (i) a reproducibility study of two state-of-the-art supervised and unsupervised NeuIR models, where we present the issues we encountered during their reproducibility; (ii) a performance comparison with other lexical, semantic and state-of-the-art models, showing that traditional lexical models are still highly competitive with DRMM and NVSM; (iii) an application of DRMM and NVSM on collections from heterogeneous search domains and in different languages, which helped us to analyze the cases where DRMM and NVSM can be recommended; (iv) an evaluation of the impact of varying word embedding models on DRMM, showing how relevance-based representations generally outperform semantic-based ones; (v) a topic-by-topic evaluation of the selected NeuIR approaches, comparing their performance to the well-known BM25 lexical model, where we perform an in-depth analysis of the different cases where DRMM and NVSM outperform the BM25 model or fail to do so. We run an extensive experimental evaluation to check if the improvements of NeuIR models, if any, over the selected baselines are statistically significant.

The semantic mismatch between query and document terms—i.e., the semantic gap—is a long-standing problem in Information Retrieval (IR). Two main linguistic features related to the semantic gap that can be exploited to improve retrieval are synonymy and polysemy. Recent works integrate knowledge from curated external resources into the learning process of neural language models to reduce the effect of the semantic gap. However, these knowledge-enhanced language models have been used in IR mostly for re-ranking and not directly for document retrieval. We propose the Semantic-Aware Neural Framework for IR (SAFIR), an unsupervised knowledge-enhanced neural framework explicitly tailored for IR. SAFIR jointly learns word, concept, and document representations from scratch. The learned representations encode both polysemy and synonymy to address the semantic gap. SAFIR can be employed in any domain where external knowledge resources are available. We investigate its application in the medical domain where the semantic gap is prominent and there are many specialized and manually curated knowledge resources. The evaluation on shared test collections for medical literature retrieval shows the effectiveness of SAFIR in terms of retrieving and ranking relevant documents most affected by the semantic gap.

The Precision Medicine (PM) track at the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) focuses on providing useful precision medicine-related information to clinicians treating cancer patients. The PM track gives the unique opportunity to evaluate medical IR systems using the same set of topics on two different collections: scientific literature and clinical trials. In the paper, we take advantage of this opportunity and we propose and evaluate state-of-the-art query expansion and reduction techniques to identify whether a particular approach can be helpful in both scientific literature and clinical trial retrieval. We present those approaches that are consistently effective in both TREC editions and we compare the results obtained with the best performing runs submitted to TREC PM 2017 and 2018.

We propose a research that aims at improving the effectiveness of case-based retrieval systems through the use of automatically created document-level semantic networks. The proposed research leverages the recent advancements in information extraction and relational learning to revisit and advance the core ideas of concept-centered hypertext models. The automatic extraction of semantic relations from documents --- and their centrality in the creation and exploitation of the documents' semantic networks --- represents our attempt to go one step further than previous approaches.