Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Arpandeep Khatua

dblp:341/1395 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-9406-2322ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 57% Graph learning · 43%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge consistency
0.912025
Detecting Corpus-Level Knowledge Inconsistencies in Wikipedia with Large Language Models · EMNLP 2025
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network
0.712023
IGB: Addressing The Gaps In Labeling, Features, Heterogeneity, and Size of Public Graph Datasets for Deep Learning Research · KDD 2023
Information retrieval
retrieval-augmented generation
0.312025
Detecting Corpus-Level Knowledge Inconsistencies in Wikipedia with Large Language Models · EMNLP 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

retrieval · 1.7large language model · 1.7agentic reasoning · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Detecting Corpus-Level Knowledge Inconsistencies in Wikipedia with Large Language Models
abstract
Wikipedia is the largest open knowledge corpus, widely used worldwide and serving as a key resource for training large language models (LLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems.Ensuring its accuracy is therefore critical.But how accurate is Wikipedia, and how can we improve it?We focus on inconsistencies, a specific type of factual inaccuracy, and introduce the task of corpus-level inconsistency detection.We present CLAIRE, an agentic system that combines LLM reasoning with retrieval to surface potentially inconsistent claims along with contextual evidence for human review.In a user study with experienced Wikipedia editors, 87.5% reported higher confidence when using CLAIRE, and participants identified 64.7% more inconsistencies in the same amount of time.Combining CLAIRE with human annotation, we contribute WIKICOLLIDE, the first benchmark of real Wikipedia inconsistencies.Using random sampling with CLAIRE-assisted analysis, we find that at least 3.3% of English Wikipedia facts contradict another fact, with inconsistencies propagating into 7.3% of FEVEROUS and 4.0% of AmbigQA examples.Benchmarking strong baselines on this dataset reveals substantial headroom: the best fully automated system achieves an AUROC of only 75.1%.Our results show that contradictions are a measurable component of Wikipedia and that LLM-based systems like CLAIRE can provide a practical tool to help editors improve knowledge consistency at scale. 1
Sina J. Semnani, Jirayu Burapacheep, Arpandeep Khatua, Thanawan Atchariyachanvanit, Monica S. Lam
EMNLP3
2023 IGB: Addressing The Gaps In Labeling, Features, Heterogeneity, and Size of Public Graph Datasets for Deep Learning Research
abstract
Graph neural networks (GNNs) have shown high potential for a variety of real-world, challenging applications, but one of the major obstacles in GNN research is the lack of large-scale flexible datasets. Most existing public datasets for GNNs are relatively small, which limits the ability of GNNs to generalize to unseen data. The few existing large-scale graph datasets provide very limited labeled data. This makes it difficult to determine if the GNN model's low accuracy for unseen data is inherently due to insufficient training data or if the model failed to generalize. Additionally, datasets used to train GNNs need to offer flexibility to enable a thorough study of the impact of various factors while training GNN models.
Arpandeep Khatua, Vikram S. Mailthody, Bhagyashree Taleka, Tengfei Ma 0001, Xiang Song 0003, Wen-Mei W. Hwu
KDD1