Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction
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 Graphs (KGs) have found many applications in industrial and in academic settings, which in turn, have motivated considerable research efforts towards large-scale information extraction from a variety of sources. Despite such efforts, it is well known that even the largest KGs suffer from incompleteness; Link Prediction (LP) techniques address this issue by identifying missing facts among entities already in the KG. Among the recent LP techniques, those based on KG embeddings have achieved very promising performance in some benchmarks. Despite the fast-growing literature on the subject, insufficient attention has been paid to the effect of the design choices in those methods. Moreover, the standard practice in this area is to report accuracy by aggregating over a large number of test facts in which some entities are vastly more represented than others; this allows LP methods to exhibit good results by just attending to structural properties that include such entities, while ignoring the remaining majority of the KG. This analysis provides a comprehensive comparison of embedding-based LP methods, extending the dimensions of analysis beyond what is commonly available in the literature. We experimentally compare the effectiveness and efficiency of 18 state-of-the-art methods, consider a rule-based baseline, and report detailed analysis over the most popular benchmarks in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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