MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400904993 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3432767

One Subgraph for All: Efficient Reasoning on Opening Subgraphs for Inductive Knowledge Graph Completion

2024· article· en· W4400904993 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhiwen Xie, Yi Zhang, Guangyou Zhou, Jin Liu, Xinhui Tu, Jimmy Xiangji Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceKnowledge graphSubgraph isomorphism problemInduced subgraph isomorphism problemGraphInductive reasoningTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceLine graphVoltage graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) has garnered massive research interest recently, and most existing methods are designed following a transductive setting where all entities are observed during training. Despite the great progress on the transductive KGC, these methods struggle to conduct reasoning on emerging KGs involving unseen entities. Thus, inductive KGC, which aims to deduce missing links among unseen entities, has become a new trend. Many existing studies transform inductive KGC as a graph classification problem by extracting enclosing subgraphs surrounding each candidate triple. Unfortunately, they still face certain challenges, such as the expensive time consumption caused by the repeat extraction of enclosing subgraphs, and the deficiency of entity-independent feature learning. To address these issues, we propose a global-local anchor representation (GLAR) learning method for inductive KGC. Unlike previous methods that utilize enclosing subgraphs, we extract a shared opening subgraph for all candidates and perform reasoning on it, enabling the model to perform reasoning more efficiently. Moreover, we design some transferable global and local anchors to learn rich entity-independent features for emerging entities. Finally, a global-local graph reasoning model is applied on the opening subgraph to rank all candidates. Extensive experiments show that our GLAR outperforms most existing 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data EngineeringSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207