LENA: Locality-Expanded Neural Embedding for Knowledge Base Completion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embedding based models for knowledge base completion have demonstrated great successes and attracted significant research interest. In this work, we observe that existing embedding models all have their loss functions decomposed into atomic loss functions, each on a triple or an postulated edge in the knowledge graph. Such an approach essentially implies that conditioned on the embeddings of the triple, whether the triple is factual is independent of the structure of the knowledge graph. Although arguably the embeddings of the entities and relation in the triple contain certain structural information of the knowledge base, we believe that the global information contained in the embeddings of the triple can be insufficient and such an assumption is overly optimistic in heterogeneous knowledge bases. Motivated by this understanding, in this work we propose a new embedding model in which we discard the assumption that the embeddings of the entities and relation in a triple is a sufficient statistic for the triple’s factual existence. More specifically, the proposed model assumes that whether a triple is factual depends not only on the embedding of the triple but also on the embeddings of the entities and relations in a larger graph neighbourhood. In this model, attention mechanisms are constructed to select the relevant information in the graph neighbourhood so that irrelevant signals in the neighbourhood are suppressed. Termed locality-expanded neural embedding with attention (LENA), this model is tested on four standard datasets and compared with several stateof-the-art models for knowledge base completion. Extensive experiments suggest that LENA outperforms the existing models in virtually every metric.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".