Dual Gated Graph Attention Networks with Dynamic Iterative Training for Cross-Lingual Entity Alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-lingual entity alignment has attracted considerable attention in recent years. Past studies using conventional approaches to match entities share the common problem of missing important structural information beyond entities in the modeling process. This allows graph neural network models to step in. Most existing graph neural network approaches model individual knowledge graphs (KGs) separately with a small amount of pre-aligned entities served as anchors to connect different KG embedding spaces. However, this characteristic can cause several major problems, including performance restraint due to the insufficiency of available seed alignments and ignorance of pre-aligned links that are useful in contextual information in-between nodes. In this article, we propose DuGa-DIT, a dual gated graph attention network with dynamic iterative training, to address these problems in a unified model. The DuGa-DIT model captures neighborhood and cross-KG alignment features by using intra-KG attention and cross-KG attention layers. With the dynamic iterative process, we can dynamically update the cross-KG attention score matrices, which enables our model to capture more cross-KG information. We conduct extensive experiments on two benchmark datasets and a case study in cross-lingual personalized search. Our experimental results demonstrate that DuGa-DIT outperforms state-of-the-art methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".