Evaluation of Pipelines for Data Integration into Knowledge Graphs

Data integration combines heterogeneous data sets into a single, coherent representation. Data integration involves a sequence of interdependent tasks including schema matching, value normalization, entity blocking, entity matching, and data fusion. Existing benchmarks either evaluate these steps in isolation or cover only incomplete versions of the data integration pipeline, omitting specific steps. The lack of public end-to-end data integration benchmarks hinders research on data integration methods that address the integration process as a whole. This paper fills this gap by introducing the Mannheim Data Integration Benchmark (MaDI-Bench), the first benchmark for the end-to-end integration of relational tables covering all steps of the integration process. MaDI-Bench contributes (i) a set of base end-to-end data integration tasks spanning several application domains, each requiring the full schema matching, value normalization, entity matching, and conflict resolution pipeline; and (ii) a generic method for deriving task variants that mitigates rapid benchmark saturation as data integration systems advance. We validate the benchmark using human-engineered pipelines, a best-of-breed pipeline, and an LLM-based pipeline. The validation demonstrates the utility of the benchmark for measuring the step-wise as well as the end-to-end performance of data integration pipelines. All benchmark artifacts are available for public download.

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.

Generating Knowledge Graphs (KGs) remains one of the most time-consuming and labor-intensive tasks for knowledge engineers, as they need to identify semantic equivalences between input data sources and ontology terms. While declarative solutions (e.g., RML, SPARQL-Anything) have helped to generalize this process, aligning input schema elements with ontology terms still involves intricate transformations and requires considerable manual effort. With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is growing interest in leveraging their capabilities to assist KG engineers. Although some studies have explored using LLMs to automate KG construction, there is still no standardized framework for assessing how effectively they establish correspondences between data schemes and ontology concepts. Therefore, in this paper, we propose BLINKG, a benchmark designed to evaluate the mapping capabilities of LLMs in constructing KGs from heterogeneous data sources. The benchmark includes a set of scenarios with increasing complexity, based on real-world use cases. We conduct an extensive experimental evaluation of several stateof-the-art LLMs using BLINK and observe that they already offer promising solutions. However, their performance remains limited in complex scenarios. Thanks to this benchmark, we can already assess the current capabilities of LLMs for KG construction. Additionally, we define a set of requirements for achieving (semi)automated (LLM-driven) KG construction, opening new research lines in this area.