MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403674644 · doi:10.1109/taslp.2024.3485500

Learning Dynamic and Static Representations for Extrapolation-Based Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning

2024· article· en· W4403674644 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science Foundation
KeywordsExtrapolationComputer scienceGraphOpportunistic reasoningModel-based reasoningQualitative reasoningKnowledge graphKnowledge representation and reasoningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporal knowledge graph reasoning aims to predict the missing links (facts) in the future timestamps. However, most existing methods have a common limitation: they focus on learning dynamic representations of temporal knowledge graphs and rarely consider static characteristics that remain unchanged over time. To address the above issues, we propose to learn the dynamic and static representations for temporal knowledge graph reasoning (DSTKG), which introduces two latent variables to capture the dynamic and static characteristics of entities in temporal knowledge graphs. First, we use a Bi-GRU-based inference network to learn the static latent representation of historical facts and a nonlinear discrete-time transition-based inference network to learn the dynamic latent representation. Then, we sample the latent variables multiple times using re-parameterization tricks to obtain high-quality embeddings and make predictions in the future timestamps. The empirical results on four benchmark datasets show that our model is more effective than state-of-the-art approaches. Compared with the strong baseline model DBKGE (RotatE), the proposed model achieves performance improvements of 2.69%, <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$1.59\%$</tex-math></inline-formula>, 1.18% and 1.22% on Yago11k, Wikidata12k, ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15 respectively, regarding the evaluation metric MRR.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.296 · 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