A Multiverse Graph to Help Scientific Reasoning from Web Usage: Interpretable Patterns of Assessor Shifts in GRAPHYP

The digital support for scientific reasoning presents contrasting results. Bibliometric services are improving, but not academic assessment; no service for scholars relies on logs of web usage to base query strategies for relevance judgments (or assessor shifts). Our Scientific Knowledge Graph GRAPHYP innovates with interpretable patterns of web usage, providing scientific reasoning with conceptual fingerprints and helping identify eligible hypotheses. In a previous article, we showed how usage log data, in the form of ‘documentary tracks’, help determine distinct cognitive communities (called adversarial cliques) within sub-graphs. A typology of these documentary tracks through a triplet of measurements from logs (intensity, variety and attention) describes the potential approaches to a (research) question. GRAPHYP assists interpretation as a classifier, with possibilistic graphical modeling. This paper (Paper 2) shows what this approach can bring to scientific reasoning; it involves visualizing complete interpretable pathways, in a multi-hop assessor shift, which users can then explore toward the ‘best possible solution’—the one that is most consistent with their hypotheses. Applying the Leibnizian paradigm of scientific reasoning, GRAPHYP highlights infinitesimal learning pathways, as a ‘multiverse’ geometric graph in modeling possible search strategies answering research questions.

[1]  M. Y. Jaradeh,et al.  Information extraction pipelines for knowledge graphs , 2023, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[2]  Ninghao Liu,et al.  Tutorial on Deep Learning Interpretation: A Data Perspective , 2022, CIKM.

[3]  P. Bellot,et al.  Retrieving Adversarial Cliques in Cognitive Communities: A New Conceptual Framework for Scientific Knowledge Graphs , 2022, Future Internet.

[4]  Peter J Hellyer,et al.  A guided multiverse study of neuroimaging analyses , 2022, Nature Communications.

[5]  Jinhao Zhang,et al.  Knowledge graph and knowledge reasoning: A systematic review , 2022, Journal of Electronic Science and Technology.

[6]  B. M. M. Hossain,et al.  Exploring Generative Adversarial Networks and Adversarial Training , 2022, International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering.

[7]  Xusen Cheng,et al.  The dark sides of AI , 2022, Electronic Markets.

[8]  N. Venkatasubramanian,et al.  Process scenario discovery from event logs based on activity and timing information , 2022, J. Syst. Archit..

[9]  James A. Evans,et al.  New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord , 2021, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Maunil R. Vyas,et al.  Generating Fair Universal Representations Using Adversarial Models , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[11]  E. Knyazeva The idea of the multiverse: An interdisciplinary perspective , 2022, Philosophy of Science and Technology.

[12]  Faculdade de Engenharia,et al.  Cyber Intelligence and Information Retrieval , 2022, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems.

[13]  Jialiang Yang,et al.  Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research , 2021, Innovation.

[14]  Chuanming Yu,et al.  Research on knowledge graph alignment model based on deep learning , 2021, Expert Syst. Appl..

[15]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature , 2021, eLife.

[16]  Laura Winther Balling,et al.  Same data, different conclusions: Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis , 2021, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

[17]  Inga A. Ivanova New Frontiers in the Theory of Meaning in Inter-Human Communications , 2021, Technological forecasting & social change.

[18]  Charles Blundell,et al.  Neural algorithmic reasoning , 2021, Patterns.

[19]  M. Nalls,et al.  Uncovering the complexities of biological structures with network-based learning: An application in SARS-CoV-2 , 2021, Patterns.

[20]  Shuiwang Ji,et al.  On Explainability of Graph Neural Networks via Subgraph Explorations , 2021, ICML.

[21]  Inga A. Ivanova,et al.  The measurement of “interdisciplinarity” and “synergy” in scientific and extra‐scientific collaborations , 2020, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Enrico Motta,et al.  A decade of Semantic Web research through the lenses of a mixed methods approach , 2020, Semantic Web.

[23]  Ian Goodfellow,et al.  Generative adversarial networks , 2020, Commun. ACM.

[24]  M. Y. Jaradeh,et al.  Improving Access to Scientific Literature with Knowledge Graphs , 2020, Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis.

[25]  Kathleen Gregory,et al.  A dataset describing data discovery and reuse practices in research , 2020, Scientific Data.

[26]  M. Baghramian,et al.  Disagreement in science: introduction to the special issue , 2020, Synthese.

[27]  W. Bruce Croft The Importance of Interaction for Information Retrieval , 2019, SIGIR.

[28]  Sören Auer,et al.  Open Research Knowledge Graph: Next Generation Infrastructure for Semantic Scholarly Knowledge , 2019, K-CAP.

[29]  Chirag Shah,et al.  Searching as Learning: Exploring Search Behavior and Learning Outcomes in Learning-related Tasks , 2018, CHIIR.

[30]  Hector Zenil,et al.  An Algorithmic Information Calculus for Causal Discovery and Reprogramming Systems , 2017, bioRxiv.

[31]  O. Franco,et al.  Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[32]  Raghul Gunasekaran,et al.  Scientific User Behavior and Data-Sharing Trends in a Petascale File System , 2017, SC17: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis.

[33]  Denis Helic,et al.  How Users Explore Ontologies on the Web: A Study of NCBO's BioPortal Usage Logs , 2016, WWW.

[34]  M. Lefebvre,et al.  The Circulation of Scientific Articles in the Sphere of Web-Based Media: Citation Practices, Communities of Interests and Local Ties , 2016, PloS one.

[35]  Karl R. Weiss,et al.  A survey of transfer learning , 2016, Journal of Big Data.

[36]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication , 2016 .

[37]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Learning Entity Types from Query Logs via Graph-Based Modeling , 2015, CIKM.

[38]  S. Nuti,et al.  The Use of Google Trends in Health Care Research: A Systematic Review , 2014, PloS one.

[39]  Blair Nonnecke,et al.  UX-Log: Understanding Website Usability through Recreating Users' Experiences in Logfiles , 2014 .

[40]  Tim Wilkinson FINE-TUNING THE MULTIVERSE , 2013, On Thinking.

[41]  Mathieu Serrurier,et al.  Possibilistic classifiers for numerical data , 2013, Soft Comput..

[42]  V. Maheswari,et al.  Web Log Data Analysis and Mining , 2011 .

[43]  Brian D. Davison,et al.  Adversarial Web Search , 2011, Found. Trends Inf. Retr..

[44]  Fabrizio Silvestri,et al.  Mining Query Logs: Turning Search Usage Data into Knowledge , 2010, Found. Trends Inf. Retr..

[45]  G. Szabó,et al.  Evolutionary games on graphs , 2006, cond-mat/0607344.

[46]  Pavel Slavík,et al.  Towards Visual Analysis of Usability Test Logs Using Task Models , 2006, TAMODIA.

[47]  Michael D. Cooper,et al.  Usage patterns of a web-based library catalog , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[48]  Christian Borgelt,et al.  Possibilistic Graphical Models , 2000, Computational Intelligence in Data Mining.

[49]  Francis Eagan Reilly,et al.  Charles Peirce's Theory of Scientific Method , 1970 .