Advertisement

Ranking Diagnoses for Inconsistent Knowledge Graphs by Representation Learning

  • Jianfeng DuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11341)

Abstract

When a knowledge graph (KG) is growing e.g. by knowledge graph completion, it might become inconsistent with the logical theory which formalizing the schema of the KG. A common approach to restoring consistency is removing a minimal set of triples from the KG, called a diagnosis of the KB. However, there can be a large number of diagnoses. It is hard to manually select the best one among these diagnoses to restore consistency. To alleviate the selection burden, this paper studies automatic methods for ranking diagnoses so that people can merely focus on top diagnoses when seeking the best one. An approach to ranking diagnoses through representation learning aka knowledge graph embedding is proposed. Given a set of diagnoses, the approach first learns the embedding of the complement set of the union of all diagnoses, then for every diagnosis, incrementally learns an embedding of the complement set of the diagnosis and employs the embedding to estimate the removal cost of the diagnosis, and finally ranks diagnoses by removal costs. To evaluate the approach, four knowledge graphs with logical theories are constructed from the four great classical masterpieces of Chinese literature. Experimental results on these datasets show that the proposed approach is significantly more effective than classical random methods in ranking the best diagnoses at top places.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (61375056 and 61876204), Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou (201804010496), and Scientific Research Innovation Team in Department of Education of Guangdong Province (2017KCXTD013).

References

  1. 1.
    Besnard, P.: Revisiting postulates for inconsistency measures. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8761, pp. 383–396. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordes, A., Glorot, X., Weston, J., Bengio, Y.: A semantic matching energy function for learning with multi-relational data - application to word-sense disambiguation. Mach. Learn. 94(2), 233–259 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordes, A., Usunier, N., García-Durán, A., Weston, J., Yakhnenko, O.: Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pp. 2787–2795 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demeester, T., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S.: Lifted rule injection for relation embeddings. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 1389–1399 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Du, J., Qi, G., Pan, J.Z.: Finding data tractable description logics for computing a minimum cost diagnosis based on ABox decomposition. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 15(6), 623–632 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Du, J., Qi, G., Pan, J.Z., Shen, Y.: A decomposition-based approach to OWL DL ontology diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 659–664 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Du, J., Qi, K., Wan, H., Peng, B., Lu, S., Shen, Y.: Enhancing knowledge graph embedding from a logical perspective. In: Wang, Z., Turhan, A.-Y., Wang, K., Zhang, X. (eds.) JIST 2017. LNCS, vol. 10675, pp. 232–247. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70682-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: the next step for OWL. J. Web Semant. 6(4), 309–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guo, S., Wang, Q., Wang, L., Wang, B., Guo, L.: Jointly embedding knowledge graphs and logical rules. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 192–202 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo, S., Wang, Q., Wang, L., Wang, B., Guo, L.: Knowledge graph embedding with iterative guidance from soft rules. In: Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 4816–4823 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    He, S., Liu, K., Ji, G., Zhao, J.: Learning to represent knowledge graphs with Gaussian embedding. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pp. 623–632 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: shapley inconsistency values. Artif. Intell. 174(14), 1007–1026 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenatton, R., Roux, N.L., Bordes, A., Obozinski, G.: A latent factor model for highly multi-relational data. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pp. 3176–3184 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ji, G., He, S., Xu, L., Liu, K., Zhao, J.: Knowledge graph embedding via dynamic mapping matrix. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 687–696 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B.: Repairing unsatisfiable concepts in OWL ontologies. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11762256_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lam, J.S.C., Sleeman, D.H., Pan, J.Z., Vasconcelos, W.W.: A fine-grained approach to resolving unsatisfiable ontologies. J. Data Semant. 10, 62–95 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin, Y., Liu, Z., Sun, M., Liu, Y., Zhu, X.: Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In: Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 2181–2187 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu, H., Wu, Y., Yang, Y.: Analogical inference for multi-relational embeddings. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 2168–2178 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McAreavey, K., Liu, W., Miller, P.C.: Computational approaches to finding and measuring inconsistency in arbitrary knowledge bases. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 55(8), 1659–1693 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rocktäschel, T., Singh, S., Riedel, S.: Injecting logical background knowledge into embeddings for relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), pp. 1119–1129 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Satoh, K., Uno, T.: Enumerating minimally revised specifications using dualization. In: Washio, T., Sakurai, A., Nakajima, K., Takeda, H., Tojo, S., Yokoo, M. (eds.) JSAI 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4012, pp. 182–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11780496_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Socher, R., Chen, D., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y.: Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In: Proceedings of 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pp. 926–934 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thimm, M.: On the expressivity of inconsistency measures. Artif. Intell. 234, 120–151 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trouillon, T., Welbl, J., Riedel, S., Gaussier, É., Bouchard, G.: Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In: Proceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 2071–2080 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, Q., Mao, Z., Wang, B., Guo, L.: Knowledge graph embedding: a survey of approaches and applications. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 29(12), 2724–2743 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, Q., Wang, B., Guo, L.: Knowledge base completion using embeddings and rules. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1859–1866 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Feng, J., Chen, Z.: Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In: Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 1112–1119 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wei, Z., Zhao, J., Liu, K., Qi, Z., Sun, Z., Tian, G.: Large-scale knowledge base completion: inferring via grounding network sampling over selected instances. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pp. 1331–1340 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xiao, H., Huang, M., Zhu, X.: TransG: a generative model for knowledge graph embedding. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 992–998 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangdong University of Foreign StudiesGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations