User Scored Evaluation of Non-Unique Explanations for Relational Graph Convolutional Network Link Prediction on Knowledge Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relational Graph Convolutional Networks (RGCNs) are commonly used on Knowledge Graphs (KGs) to perform black box link prediction. Several algorithms, or explanation methods, have been proposed to explain their predictions. Evaluating performance of explanation methods for link prediction is difficult without ground truth explanations. Furthermore, there can be multiple explanations for a given prediction in a KG. No dataset exists where observations have multiple ground truth explanations to compare against. Additionally, no standard scoring metrics exist to compare predicted explanations against multiple ground truth explanations. In this paper, we introduce a method, including a dataset (FrenchRoyalty-200k), to benchmark explanation methods on the task of link prediction on KGs, when there are multiple explanations to consider. We conduct a user experiment, where users score each possible ground truth explanation based on their understanding of the explanation. We propose the use of several scoring metrics, using relevance weights derived from user scores for each predicted explanation. Lastly, we benchmark this dataset on state-of-the-art explanation methods for link prediction using the proposed scoring metrics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".