arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 2301.12929cs.LGmath.AT
收藏

持久同源能否为知识图谱补全方法的评价提供一种有效的替代方法?

Can Persistent Homology provide an efficient alternative for Evaluation of Knowledge Graph Completion Methods?

IIT Hyderabad(印度理工学院海得拉巴分校);Zerotha Research(Zerotha研究院);Cerence GmbH(赛轮思有限公司);RWTH Aachen(亚琛工业大学);SAP(思爱普);The University of Tokyo(东京大学)

Anson Bastos, Kuldeep Singh, Abhishek Nadgeri, Johannes Hoffart, Toyotaro Suzumura, Manish Singh

摘要:

在本文中,我们提出了一种新的方法,$\textit{Knowledge Persistence}$($\mathcal{KP}$),快速评估知识图谱(KG)完成的方法。目前基于排名的评估是KG大小的二次,导致评估时间长,因此碳足迹高。$\mathcal{KP}$通过拓扑数据分析的镜头,具体地使用持久同源性来表示KG完成方法的拓扑,从而解决了这一问题。持久同源性的特征允许$\mathcal{KP}$仅查看一部分数据来评估KG完成的质量。标准数据集上的实验结果表明,该指标与排名指标(Hits@N、MR、MRR)高度相关。性能评估表明$\mathcal{KP}$在计算上是高效的:在某些情况下,KG完成方法的评估时间(验证+测试)已经从18小时(使用Hits@10)减少到27秒(使用$\mathcal{KP}$),并且平均(跨方法和数据)减少了$\approx$ $\textbf{99.96}\%$的评估时间(验证+测试)。

英文摘要:

In this paper we present a novel method, $\textit{Knowledge Persistence}$ ($\mathcal{KP}$), for faster evaluation of Knowledge Graph (KG) completion approaches. Current ranking-based evaluation is quadratic in the size of the KG, leading to long evaluation times and consequently a high carbon footprint. $\mathcal{KP}$ addresses this by representing the topology of the KG completion methods through the lens of topological data analysis, concretely using persistent homology. The characteristics of persistent homology allow $\mathcal{KP}$ to evaluate the quality of the KG completion looking only at a fraction of the data. Experimental results on standard datasets show that the proposed metric is highly correlated with ranking metrics (Hits@N, MR, MRR). Performance evaluation shows that $\mathcal{KP}$ is computationally efficient: In some cases, the evaluation time (validation+test) of a KG completion method has been reduced from 18 hours (using Hits@10) to 27 seconds (using $\mathcal{KP}$), and on average (across methods & data) reduces the evaluation time (validation+test) by $\approx$ $\textbf{99.96}\%$.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑