Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) provide a widely used format for representing entities and their relationships and have found use in diverse applications including question answering and recommendation. A majority of current research on KG inference has focused on reasoning with atomic facts (triples) and has disregarded the possibility of making complex evidential observations involving logical operators (negation, conjunction, disjunction) and quantifiers (existential, universal). Further, while the application of complex evidence has been explored in KG-based query answering (KGQA) research, in many practical online settings, observations are made sequentially. For example, in KGQA, additional context may be incrementally suggested to narrow down the answer. Or in interactive recommendation, user critiques may be expressed sequentially in order to narrow down a set of preferred items. Both settings are indicative of information filtering or tracking tasks that are reminiscent of belief tracking in Bayesian inference. In fact, in this paper, we precisely cast the problem of belief tracking over unknown KG entities given incremental complex KG evidence as a Bayesian filtering problem. Specifically, we leverage Knowledge-based Model Construction (KBMC) over the logical KG evidence to instantiate a Markov Random Field (MRF) likelihood representation to perform closed-form Bayesian inference with complex KG evidence (BIKG). We experimentally evaluate BIKG in incremental KGQA and interactive recommendation tasks demonstrating that it outperforms non-incremental methodologies and leads to better incorporation of conjunctive evidence vs. existing complex KGQA methods like CQD that leverage fuzzy T-norm operators. Overall, this work demonstrates a novel, efficient, and unified perspective of logic, KGs, and online inference through the lens of closed-form BIKG.
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 | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".