Learning Structured Embeddings of Knowledge Bases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Knowledge Bases (KBs) are now readily available and encompass colossal quantities of information thanks to either a long-term funding effort (e.g. WordNet, OpenCyc) or a collaborative process (e.g. Freebase, DBpedia). However, each of them is based on a different rigorous symbolic framework which makes it hard to use their data in other systems. It is unfortunate because such rich structured knowledge might lead to a huge leap forward in many other areas of AI like nat- ural language processing (word-sense disambiguation, natural language understanding, ...), vision (scene classification, image semantic annotation, ...) or collaborative filtering. In this paper, we present a learning process based on an innovative neural network architecture designed to embed any of these symbolic representations into a more flexible continuous vector space in which the original knowledge is kept and enhanced. These learnt embeddings would allow data from any KB to be easily used in recent machine learning meth- ods for prediction and information retrieval. We illustrate our method on WordNet and Freebase and also present a way to adapt it to knowledge extraction from raw text.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".