Fuzzy Ontology Embeddings and Visual Query Building for Ontology Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontologies play a central role in structuring knowledge across domains, supporting tasks such as reasoning, data integration, and semantic search. However, their large size and complexity—particularly in fields such as biomedicine, computational biology, law, and engineering—make them difficult for non-experts to navigate. Formal query languages such as SPARQL offer expressive access but require users to understand the ontology’s structure and syntax. In contrast, visual exploration tools and basic keyword-based search interfaces are easier to use but often lack flexibility and expressiveness. We introduce FuzzyVis, a proof-of-concept system that enables intuitive and expressive exploration of complex ontologies. FuzzyVis integrates two key components: a fuzzy logic-based querying model built on fuzzy ontology embeddings, and an interactive visual interface for building and interpreting queries. Users can construct new composite concepts by selecting and combining existing ontology concepts using logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, and negation. These composite concepts are matched against the ontology using fuzzy membership-based embeddings, which capture degrees of membership and support approximate, concept-level similarity search. The visual interface supports browsing, query composition, and partial search without requiring formal syntax. By combining fuzzy semantics with embedding-based reasoning, FuzzyVis enables flexible interpretation, efficient computation, and exploratory learning. A usage scenario demonstrates how FuzzyVis supports subtle information needs and helps users uncover relevant concepts in large, complex ontologies.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".