Uncertain knowledge graph embedding (UnKGE) methods learn vector representations that capture both structural and uncertainty information to predict scores of unseen triples. However, existing methods produce only point estimates, without quantifying predictive uncertainty—limiting their reliability in high-stakes applications where understanding confidence in predictions is crucial. To address this limitation, we propose UnKGCP, a framework that generates prediction intervals guaranteed to contain the true score with a user-specified level of confidence. The length of the intervals reflects the model’s predictive uncertainty. UnKGCP builds on the conformal prediction framework but introduces a novel nonconformity measure tailored to UnKGE methods and an efficient procedure for interval construction. We provide theoretical guarantees for the intervals and empirically verify these guarantees. Extensive experiments on standard UKG benchmarks across diverse UnKGE methods further demonstrate that the intervals are sharp and effectively capture predictive uncertainty.

Structured fact verification benchmarks like AVeriTeC decompose claims into QA pairs to support fine-grained reasoning. However, current systems generate QA pairs independently for each evidence sentence, leading to redundancy, drift, and noise. We introduce a modular LLM-based QA consolidation module that jointly filters, clusters, and rewrites QA pairs at the claim level. Experiments show that this method improves evidence quality and veracity prediction accuracy. Our analysis also highlights the impact of model scale and alignment on downstream performance.

Uncertainty quantification in Knowledge Graph Embedding (KGE) methods is crucial for ensuring the reliability of downstream applications. A recent work applies conformal prediction to KGE methods, providing uncertainty estimates by generating a set of answers that is guaranteed to include the true answer with a predefined confidence level. However, existing methods provide probabilistic guarantees averaged over a reference set of queries and answers (marginal coverage guarantee). In high-stakes applications such as medical diagnosis, a stronger guarantee is often required: the predicted sets must provide consistent coverage per query (conditional coverage guarantee). We propose CondKGCP, a novel method that approximates predicate-conditional coverage guarantees while maintaining compact prediction sets. CondKGCP merges predicates with similar vector representations and augments calibration with rank information. We prove the theoretical guarantees and demonstrate empirical effectiveness of CondKGCP by comprehensive evaluations.

Knowledge graph embeddings (KGE) apply machine learning methods on knowledge graphs (KGs) to provide non-classical reasoning capabilities based on similarities and analogies. The learned KG embeddings are typically used to answer queries by ranking all potential answers, but rankings often lack a meaningful probabilistic interpretation - lower-ranked answers do not necessarily have a lower probability of being true. This limitation makes it difficult to quantify uncertainty of model’s predictions, posing challenges for the application of KGE methods in high-stakes domains like medicine. We address this issue by applying the theory of conformal prediction that allows generating answer sets, which contain the correct answer with probabilistic guarantees. We explain how conformal prediction can be used to generate such answer sets for link prediction tasks. Our empirical evaluation on four benchmark datasets using six representative KGE methods validates that the generated answer sets satisfy the probabilistic guarantees given by the theory of conformal prediction. We also demonstrate that the generated answer sets often have a sensible size and that the size adapts well with respect to the difficulty of the query.

Knowledge Graph Embedding (KGE) methods are widely used to map entities and relations from knowledge graphs (KGs) into continuous vector spaces, enabling non-classical reasoning over knowledge structures. Despite their effectiveness, the uncertainty of KGE methods has not been extensively studied in the literature. This gap poses significant challenges, particularly when deploying KGE models in high-stakes domains like medicine, where reliability and risk assessment are critical. This dissertation seeks to investigate various types of uncertainty in KGE methods and explore strategies to quantify, mitigate, and reason under uncertainty effectively. The outcomes of this research will contribute to enhancing the reliability of KGE methods, providing greater confidence in their use beyond benchmark datasets, and supporting their application in real-world, high-stakes domains.

Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models are often used to predict missing links for knowledge graphs (KGs). However, multiple KG embeddings can perform almost equally well for link prediction yet give conflicting predictions for unseen queries. This phenomenon is termed predictive multiplicity in the literature. It poses substantial risks for KGE-based applications in high-stake domains but has been overlooked in KGE research. We define predictive multiplicity in link prediction, introduce evaluation metrics and measure predictive multiplicity for representative KGE methods on commonly used benchmark datasets. Our empirical study reveals significant predictive multiplicity in link prediction, with 8% to 39% testing queries exhibiting conflicting predictions. We address this issue by leveraging voting methods from social choice theory, significantly mitigating conflicts by 66% to 78% in our experiments.