Identify Event Causality with Knowledge and Analogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Event causality identification (ECI) aims to identify the causal relationship between events, which plays a crucial role in deep text understanding. Due to the diversity of real-world causality events and difficulty in obtaining sufficient training data, existing ECI approaches have poor generalizability and struggle to identify the relation between seldom seen events. In this paper, we propose to utilize both external knowledge and internal analogy to improve ECI. On the one hand, we utilize a commonsense knowledge graph called ConceptNet to enrich the description of an event sample and reveal the commonalities or associations between different events. On the other hand, we retrieve similar events as analogy exam- ples and glean useful experiences from such analogous neigh- bors to better identify the relationship between a new event pair. By better understanding different events through exter- nal knowledge and making an analogy with similar events, we can alleviate the data sparsity issue and improve model gener- alizability. Extensive evaluations on two benchmark datasets show that our model outperforms other baseline methods by around 18% on the F1-value on average
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".