Soft Reasoning Paths for Knowledge Graph Completion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reasoning paths are reliable information in knowledge graph completion (KGC) in which algorithms can find strong clues of the actual relation between entities. However, in real-world applications, it is difficult to guarantee that computationally affordable paths exist toward all candidate entities. According to our observation, the prediction accuracy drops significantly when paths are absent. To make the proposed algorithm more stable against the missing path circumstances, we introduce soft reasoning paths. Concretely, a specific learnable latent path embedding is concatenated to each relation to help better model the characteristics of the corresponding paths. The combination of the relation and the corresponding learnable embedding is termed a soft path in our paper. By aligning the soft paths with the reasoning paths, a learnable embedding is guided to learn a generalized path representation of the corresponding relation. In addition, we introduce a hierarchical ranking strategy to make full use of information about the entity, relation, path, and soft path to help improve both the efficiency and accuracy of the model. Extensive experimental results illustrate that our algorithm outperforms the compared state-of-the-art algorithms by a notable margin. Our code will be released at https://github.com/7HHHHH/SRP-KGC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".