EMERGE: A Benchmark for Updating Knowledge Graphs with Emerging Textual Knowledge

Klim Zaporojets, Daniel Daza, Edoardo Barba, Ira Assent, Roberto Navigli, Paul Groth · Jul 4, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are structured knowledge repositories containing entities and relations between them. In this paper, we study the problem of automatically updating KGs over time in response to evolving knowledge in unstructured textual sources. Addressing this problem requires identifying a wide range of update operations based on the state of an existing KG at a given time and the information extracted from text. This contrasts with traditional information extraction pipelines, which extract knowledge from text independently of the current state of a KG. To address this challenge, we propose a method for construction of a dataset consisting of Wikidata KG snapshots over time and Wikipedia passages paired with the corresponding edit operations that they induce in a particular KG snapshot. The resulting dataset comprises 233K Wikipedia passages aligned with a total of 1.45 million KG edits over 7 different yearly snapshots of Wikidata from 2019 to 2025. Our experimental results highlight key challenges in updating KG snapshots based on emerging textual knowledge, particularly in integrating knowledge expressed in text with the existing KG structure. These findings position the dataset as a valuable benchmark for future research. Our dataset and model implementations are publicly available.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.