MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381489754 · doi:10.1145/3594778.3594877

EAGER: Explainable Question Answering Using Knowledge Graphs

2023· article· en· W4381489754 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Chai, Alireza Vezvaei, Lukasz Golab, Mehdi Kargar, Divesh Srivastava, Jaroslaw Szlichta, Morteza Zihayat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of WaterlooOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuestion answeringComputer scienceKnowledge graphModular designPipeline (software)GraphNatural languageArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingInformation retrievalTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present EAGER: a tool for answering questions expressed in natural language. Core to EAGER is a modular pipeline for generating a knowledge graph from raw text without human intervention. Notably, EAGER uses the knowledge graph to answer questions and to explain the reasoning behind the derivation of answers. Our demonstration will showcase both the automated knowledge graph generation pipeline and the explainable question answering functionality. Lastly, we outline open problems and directions for future work.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207