Automated data quality assessment is crucial for managing big data, but existing solutions face challenges in achieving accurate context-aware assessment. This paper presents a novel knowledge-based approach to enhance automated data quality assessment. Our approach utilizes knowledge graph embeddings to predict missing edges between the input dataset's context representation and the relevant quality rules and dimensions within a knowledge graph representing contextual data characteristics and the required quality assessment operations. We surpass conventional practices by integrating diverse representations within the knowledge graph, drawing insights from contextual information from a thorough literature investigation. This integration allows us to develop a comprehensive and context-specific data quality assessment plan tailored to each context. Leveraging the knowledge graph improves our understanding of the input dataset's context, overcoming the limitations of traditional methods that rely solely on strict matching and overlook contextual characteristics. By injecting numerical edge attributes, we assign corresponding weights to each predicted quality measurement, providing a comprehensive data quality assessment plan for the input dataset. To evaluate our approach, we leverage AmpliGraph, a framework developed and benchmarked by AccentureLabs. The evaluation involves employing a real-world radiation sensors dataset provided by the Lebanese Atomic Energy Commission (LAEC-CNRS). The results obtained from this evaluation demonstrate the capability of our solution to generate a comprehensive data quality assessment plan for the given input dataset.
Data quality assessment is a critical prerequisite for effective data analytics and data-driven decision-making, yet it remains a challenging task due to the inherently context-dependent nature of data quality. Existing approaches often rely on static rules or manual assessment strategies, limiting their adaptability to diverse usage scenarios and constraining automation at scale. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, particularly large language models, offer new opportunities for automating data quality assessment, but raise concerns related to reliability, grounding, and execution safety. In this paper, we propose a unified agentic-retrieval framework for autonomous context-aware data quality assessment. The framework interprets natural-language descriptions of intended data usage, derives context-aware assessment strategies, and generates executable validation logic through a multi-agent workflow. To ensure operational reliability, the framework introduces a feasibility validation stage that evaluates the realism and executability of generated assessment specifications before execution, enabling iterative refinement when necessary. Accepted validation logic is executed deterministically to guarantee reproducible and auditable results. We implement the proposed framework as an end-to-end prototype and evaluate it across multiple usage scenarios applied to the same dataset. The results demonstrate that assessment outcomes adapt meaningfully to different intended uses, while feasibility-gated execution reduces unrealistic or non-executable rule generation. The proposed approach provides a practical foundation for deploying autonomous yet controlled data quality assessment in modern data-driven environments.
Assessing the quality of time series (TS) data is fundamental yet inherently challenging due to the multifaceted nature of quality dimensions. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm for TS quality assessment via pairwise comparison and per-dimension evaluation. However, existing approaches rely on manually predefined quality dimensions and purely text-based reasoning, leaving it unknown whether LLMs can identify truly relevant quality dimensions or perform grounded and quantitative quality comparisons. To investigate this, we construct TSQBench, a dedicated benchmark for evaluating LLMs on two progressive capabilities: (i) understanding and identifying relevant quality dimensions, and (ii) performing quality comparison under specific dimensions. Our analysis reveals that current LLMs consistently struggle with both dimension identification and evidence-grounded quality comparison. To address these limitations, we propose TSQAgent, a novel agentic reasoning framework for TS quality rating consisting of three collaborative roles: Perceiver for focused dimension selection, Inspector for dimension-wise quantitative analysis, and Adjudicator that aggregates and refines the final judgment. In particular, we introduce an agentic reasoning strategy that instills the ability to identify and prioritize the most relevant quality dimensions, and further propose an agent workflow equipped with external analytical tools to enable precise quantitative comparisons over selected dimensions. Experiments on both the proposed benchmark and eleven real-world datasets demonstrate that our framework not only substantially improves LLMs' capabilities in quality understanding and quantitative comparison but also effectively translates these improvements into better quality-aware data selection, leading to enhanced downstream performance and data efficiency.
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are increasingly constructed through automated extraction pipelines; however, such systems often introduce spurious or incomplete triples, which degrade downstream performance. Existing evaluation practices rely heavily on task-specific metrics or small-scale manual verification, offering limited insight into the structural and semantic fidelity of extracted graphs. We propose a novel, interpretable metric for intrinsic KG quality assessment that measures how closely an automatically extracted graph approximates an "ideal" graph capturing the key noun phrases, predicate relations, and basic linguistic phenomena such as negation expressed in the source text. Our framework integrates two complementary components: (1) an entity-level assessment that evaluates completeness, resolution quality, and connectivity, and (2) a relation-level assessment that judges predicate preservation and multiplicity using lexical similarity, dependency-parse alignment, and light-weight negation handling to ensure semantic faithfulness. We evaluate our metric across multiple state-of-the-art triple extraction systems and datasets, including WebNLG, TinyButMighty, and BenchIE, demonstrating that it reliably identifies omissions, redundancy, and structural deviations that existing metrics overlook. Our work offers a scalable, model-agnostic, and interpretable framework for comparing automated KG construction methods and provides a foundation for standardised evaluation. We further validate the metric through an ablation study isolating noun and verb components, and a downstream evaluation showing that KGCQual scores correlate significantly with link prediction performance on the same extracted KGs. The code repository is available at https://github.com/kracr/kg-quality-metric.