Probabilistic Coarsening for Knowledge Graph Embeddings
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 have risen in popularity in recent years, demonstrating their utility in applications across the spectrum of computer science. Finding their embedded representations is thus highly desirable as it makes them easily operated on and reasoned with by machines. With this in mind, we propose a simple meta-strategy for embedding knowledge graphs using probabilistic coarsening. In this approach, a knowledge graph is first coarsened before being embedded by an arbitrary embedding method. The resulting coarse embeddings are then extended down as those of the initial knowledge graph. Although straightforward, this allows for faster training by reducing knowledge graph complexity while revealing its higher-order structures. We demonstrate this empirically on four real-world datasets, which show that coarse embeddings are learned faster and are often of higher quality. We conclude that coarsening is a recommended prepossessing step regardless of the underlying embedding method used.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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