  In recent years, countless research papers have addressed the topics of
knowledge graph creation, extension, or completion in order to create knowledge
graphs that are larger, more correct, or more diverse. This research is
typically motivated by the argumentation that using such enhanced knowledge
graphs to solve downstream tasks will improve performance. Nonetheless, this is
hardly ever evaluated. Instead, the predominant evaluation metrics - aiming at
correctness and completeness - are undoubtedly valuable but fail to capture the
complete picture, i.e., how useful the created or enhanced knowledge graph
actually is. Further, the accessibility of such a knowledge graph is rarely
considered (e.g., whether it contains expressive labels, descriptions, and
sufficient context information to link textual mentions to the entities of the
knowledge graph). To better judge how well knowledge graphs perform on actual
tasks, we present KGrEaT - a framework to estimate the quality of knowledge
graphs via actual downstream tasks like classification, clustering, or
recommendation. Instead of comparing different methods of processing knowledge
graphs with respect to a single task, the purpose of KGrEaT is to compare
various knowledge graphs as such by evaluating them on a fixed task setup. The
framework takes a knowledge graph as input, automatically maps it to the
datasets to be evaluated on, and computes performance metrics for the defined
tasks. It is built in a modular way to be easily extendable with additional
tasks and datasets.
