User Scored Evaluation of Non-Unique Explanations for Relational Graph Convolutional Network Link Prediction on Knowledge Graphs
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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