Construction of Topic Hierarchy with Subtree Representation for Knowledge Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hierarchy analysis of the knowledge graphs aims to discover the latent structure inherent in knowledge base data. Drawing inspiration from topic modeling, which identifies latent themes and content patterns in text corpora, our research seeks to adapt these analytical frameworks to the hierarchical exploration of knowledge graphs. Specifically, we adopt a non-parametric probabilistic model, the nested hierarchical Dirichlet process, to the field of knowledge graphs. This model discovers latent subject-specific distributions along paths within the tree. Consequently, the global tree can be viewed as a collection of local subtrees for each subject, allowing us to represent subtrees for each subject and reveal cross-thematic topics. We assess the efficacy of this model in analyzing the topics and word distributions that form the hierarchical structure of complex knowledge graphs. We quantitatively evaluate our model using four common datasets: Freebase, Wikidata, DBpedia, and WebRED, demonstrating that it outperforms the latest neural hierarchical clustering techniques such as TraCo, SawETM, and HyperMiner. Additionally, we provide a qualitative assessment of the induced subtree for a single subject.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".