MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929951914 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/845

EL Embeddings: Geometric Construction of Models for the Description Logic EL++

2019· preprint· en· W2929951914 on OpenAlexaff
Maxat Kulmanov, Wang Liu-Wei, Yuan Yan, Robert Hoehndorf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbeddingVector spaceInterpretation (philosophy)Similarity (geometry)Theoretical computer scienceStatistical relational learningSemantics (computer science)Computer scienceSpace (punctuation)Algebraic numberMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsArtificial intelligenceRelational databasePure mathematicsData miningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An embedding is a function that maps entities from one algebraic structure into another while preserving certain characteristics. Embeddings are being used successfully for mapping relational data or text into vector spaces where they can be used for machine learning, similarity search, or similar tasks. We address the problem of finding vector space embeddings for theories in the Description Logic ??⁺⁺ that are also models of the TBox. To find such embeddings, we define an optimization problem that characterizes the model-theoretic semantics of the operators in ??⁺⁺ within ℝⁿ, thereby solving the problem of finding an interpretation function for an ??⁺⁺ theory given a particular domain Δ. Our approach is mainly relevant to large ??⁺⁺ theories and knowledge bases such as the ontologies and knowledge graphs used in the life sciences. We demonstrate that our method can be used for improved prediction of protein--protein interactions when compared to semantic similarity measures or knowledge graph embeddings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207