Probabilistic filtering for a biological knowledge discovery system with text mining and automatic inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
본 논문에서는 텍스트 마이닝을 통해 생물학 문헌에서 분자 수준의 사건(event) 정보를 자동으로 추출하고, 이들 사건 정보를 기반으로 새로운 생물학 지식을 자동 추론하는 텍스트 마이닝 - 추론 통합 구조의 시스템을 다룬다. 이러한 통합 구조의 지식 발견 시스템은 미리 추출되어 데이터베이스에 등록된 정보만을 입력으로 사용하는 시스템들에 비하여 최신 정보를 보다 빨리 사용할 수 있고, 미리 정의된 형식 이외의 다양한 정보를 사용할 수 있다는 장점이 있다. 반면, 텍스트 마이닝 정보 추출 결과를 그대로 사용하기 때문에 텍스트 마이닝 모듈(module)의 성능에 따라 전체 시스템의 효용성이 크게 저하될 수도 있다는 문제가 있다. 본 논문에서는 확률 기반 필터링(filtering) 방법을 제안하여, 텍스트 마이닝 결과 중 양성 오류(false positive)를 효과적으로 제거함으로써 전체 지식 발견 시스템의 정확도 및 효용성을 높이고자 한다. 본 논문에서 제안한 확률 기반 필터링 방법은 기준(baseline) 방법으로 사용된 횟수 기반 필터링 방법보다 높은 성능을 보였다. In this paper, we discuss the structure of biological knowledge discovery system based on text mining and automatic inference. Given a set of biology documents, the system produces a new hypothesis in an integrated manner. The text mining module of the system first extracts the 'event' information of predefined types from the documents. The inference module then produces a new hypothesis based on the extracted results. Such an integrated system can use information more up-to-date and diverse than other automatic knowledge discovery systems use. However, for the success of such an integrated system, the precision of the text mining module becomes crucial, as any hypothesis based on a single piece of false positive information would highly likely be erroneous. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic filtering method that filters out false positives from the extraction results. Our proposed method shows higher performance over an occurrence-based baseline method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".