Unsupervised Embedding Enhancements of Knowledge Graphs using Textual Associations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge graph embeddings are instrumental for representing and learning from multi-relational data, with recent embedding models showing high effectiveness for inferring new facts from existing databases. However, such precisely structured data is usually limited in quantity and in scope. Therefore, to fully optimize the embeddings it is important to also consider more widely available sources of information such as text. This paper describes an unsupervised approach to incorporate textual information by augmenting entity embeddings with embeddings of associated words. The approach does not modify the optimization objective for the knowledge graph embedding, which allows it to be integrated with existing embedding models. Two distinct forms of textual data are considered, with different embedding enhancements proposed for each case. In the first case, each entity has an associated text document that describes it. In the second case, a text document is not available, and instead entities occur as words or phrases in an unstructured corpus of text fragments. Experiments show that both methods can offer improvement on the link prediction task when applied to many different knowledge graph embedding models.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it