Classifying Candidate Axioms via Dimensionality Reduction Techniques

We assess the role of similarity measures and learning methods in classifying candidate axioms for automated schema induction through kernel-based learning algorithms. The evaluation is based on (i) three different similarity measures between axioms, and (ii) two alternative dimensionality reduction techniques to check the extent to which the considered similarities allow to separate true axioms from false axioms. The result of the dimensionality reduction process is subsequently fed to several learning algorithms, comparing the accuracy of all combinations of similarity, dimensionality reduction technique, and classification method. As a result, it is observed that it is not necessary to use sophisticated semantics-based similarity measures to obtain accurate predictions , and furthermore that classification performance only marginally depends on the choice of the learning method. Our results open the way to implementing efficient surrogate models for axiom scoring to speed up ontology learning and schema induction methods.

[1]  Catherine Faron-Zucker,et al.  Dynamically Time-Capped Possibilistic Testing of SubClassOf Axioms Against RDF Data to Enrich Schemas , 2015, K-CAP.

[2]  T. W. Anderson On the Distribution of the Two-Sample Cramer-von Mises Criterion , 1962 .

[3]  Catherine Faron-Zucker,et al.  Possibilistic testing of OWL axioms against RDF data , 2017, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[4]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Datil: Learning Fuzzy Ontology Datatypes , 2018, IPMU.

[5]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Possibility Theory - An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty , 1988 .

[6]  Hujun Yin,et al.  Nonlinear dimensionality reduction and data visualization: A review , 2007, Int. J. Autom. Comput..

[7]  Luis Gustavo Nonato,et al.  Multidimensional Projection for Visual Analytics: Linking Techniques with Distortions, Tasks, and Layout Enrichment , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[8]  Boris Motik,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: structural specification and functional-style syntax , 2008 .

[9]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  Visual Interaction with Dimensionality Reduction: A Structured Literature Analysis , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[10]  Johanna Völker,et al.  Mining RDF Data for Property Axioms , 2012, OTM Conferences.

[11]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt Partial Matchmaking using Approximate Subsumption , 2007, AAAI.

[12]  Karl Pearson F.R.S. LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space , 1901 .

[13]  Catherine Faron-Zucker,et al.  Testing OWL Axioms against RDF Facts: A Possibilistic Approach , 2014, EKAW.

[14]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Kernel Principal Component Analysis , 1997, ICANN.

[15]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Measuring Conceptual Similarity in Ontologies: How Bad is a Cheap Measure? , 2014, Description Logics.

[16]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web , 2002, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[17]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Visualizing Data using t-SNE , 2008 .

[18]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  pFOIL-DL: learning (fuzzy) EL concept descriptions from crisp OWL data using a probabilistic ensemble estimation , 2015, SAC.

[19]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[20]  Harald Sack,et al.  DBpedia ontology enrichment for inconsistency detection , 2012, I-SEMANTICS '12.

[21]  Dario Malchiodi,et al.  Predicting the possibilistic score of OWL axioms through modified support vector clustering , 2018, SAC.

[22]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Universal OWL Axiom Enrichment for Large Knowledge Bases , 2012, EKAW.

[23]  Andrea Tettamanzi,et al.  Learning Class Disjointness Axioms Using Grammatical Evolution , 2019, EuroGP.

[24]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..