On referring expressions in query answering over first order knowledge bases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A referring expression in linguistics is any noun phrase identifying an object in a way that will be useful to interlocutors. In the context of a query over a first order knowledge base K, constant symbols occurring in K are the artifacts usually used as referring expressions in certain answers to the query. In this paper, we begin to explore how this can be usefully extended by allowing a class of more general formulas, called singular referring expressions, to replace constants in this role. In particular, we lay a foundation for admitting singular referring expressions in certain answer computation for queries overK. An integral part of this foundation are characterization theorems for identification properties of singular referring expressions for queries annotated with a domain specific language for referring concept types. Finally, we apply this framework in the context of tractable description logic dialects, showing how identification properties can be determined at compile-time for conjunctive queries, and how off-the-shelf conjunctive query evaluation for these dialects can be used in query evaluations, preserving, in all cases, underlying tractability.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".