Hierarchical Blockmodeling for Knowledge Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we investigate the use of probabilistic graphical models, specifically stochastic blockmodels, for the purpose of hierarchical entity clustering on knowledge graphs. These models, seldom used in the Semantic Web community, decompose a graph into a set of probability distributions. The parameters of these distributions are then inferred allowing for their subsequent sampling to generate a random graph. In a non-parametric setting, this allows for the induction of hierarchical clusterings without prior constraints on the hierarchy’s structure. Specifically, this is achieved by the integration of the nested Chinese restaurant process and the stick breaking process into the generative model. In this regard, we propose a model leveraging such integration and derive a collapsed Gibbs sampling scheme for its inference. To aid in understanding, we describe the steps in this derivation and provide an implementation for the sampler. We evaluate our model on synthetic and real-world datasets and quantitatively compare against benchmark models. We further evaluate our results qualitatively and find that our model is capable of inducing coherent cluster hierarchies in small scale settings. The work presented in this article provides the first step for the further application of stochastic blockmodels for knowledge graphs on a larger scale. We conclude the article with potential avenues for future work on more scalable inference schemes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".