MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413350112 · doi:10.1109/icde65448.2025.00169

Enhancing Large-Scale Entity Alignment with Critical Structure and High-Quality Context

2025· article· en· W4413350112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qian Zhou, Wei Chen, Pengpeng Zhao, Jiajie Xu, Lei Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Science Research of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)Quality (philosophy)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entity Alignment (EA) aims to identify equivalent entities across multiple Knowledge Graphs (KGs). However, when applied to larger-scale KGs, most existing EA approaches suffer from the scalability issue due to excessive GPU memory and time consumption. To mitigate this, recent advances have introduced the Large-scale EA (LsEA) task, which divides large-scale KG pairs into smaller sub-graph pairs. Despite their promising results, several notable challenges remain, preventing these advances from achieving optimal performance: 1) How to effectively utilize critical structures when generating sub-tasks? 2) How to supplement high-quality context to enhance LsEA performance? 3) How to address scenarios without alignment seeds? To tackle these challenges, we propose a novel method called ELsEA. It comprises three main components: (1) Source and Target Graph Partition, using a Metis-based weighted partitioner and a counter-part candidate generator to partition source and target graphs respectively, aiming to utilize critical structures effectively; (2) Supplement High-quality Context, which utilizes a value-based informativeness-evaluation module and a neighbor enrichment module to assess each entity's informativeness effectively, then supplement high-quality context based on this informativeness; and (3) Seed-free Setup, introducing a mixed-info pseudo-seed generation strategy to mitigate name bias, generating accurate pseudo-seeds when alignment seeds are unavailable. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ELsEA outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. The code of ELsEA is available online11https://githuh.com/wx-qzhou/ELsEA.git.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207