Knowledge Representation Issues in Semantic Graphs for Relationship Detection

Biodefense Knowledge Center, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.An important task for Homeland Security is the prediction of threat vulnerabilities, such as through the de-tection of relationships between seemingly disjoint entities. A structure used for this task is a semantic graph,also known as a relational data graph or an attributed relational graph. These graphs encode relationships astyped links between a pair of typed nodes. Indeed, semantic graphs are very similar to semantic networks usedin AI. The node and link types are related through an ontology graph (also known as a schema). Furthermore,each node has a set of attributes associated with it (e.g., “age” may be an attribute of a node of type “person”).Unfortunately, the selection of types and attributes for both nodes and links depends on human expertise and issomewhat subjective and even arbitrary. This subjectiveness introduces biases into any algorithm that operateson semantic graphs. Here, we raise some knowledge representation issues for semantic graphs and providesome possible solutions using recently developed ideas in the field of complex networks. In particular, we usethe concept of transitivity to evaluate the relevance of individual links in the semantic graph for detecting rela-tionships. We also propose new statistical measures for semantic graphs and illustrate these semantic measureson graphs constructed from movies and terrorism data.I. INTRODUCTION

[1]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine , 1983 .

[2]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[3]  M. Newman,et al.  Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  Adam Pease,et al.  Towards a standard upper ontology , 2001, FOIS.

[5]  Edmond Chow,et al.  A Graph Search Heuristic for Shortest Distance Paths , 2005, AAAI 2005.

[6]  David Jensen,et al.  Data Mining in Social Networks , 2002 .

[7]  Marc Barthelemy,et al.  Spatial structure of the internet traffic , 2003 .

[8]  Ted E. Senator,et al.  Countering terrorism through information technology , 2004, CACM.

[9]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[10]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  Tina Eliassi-Rad,et al.  Data Sciences Technology for Homeland Security Information Management and Knowledge Discovery , 2005 .

[12]  Sherry Marcus,et al.  Graph-based technologies for intelligence analysis , 2004, CACM.

[13]  Bernard Derrida,et al.  Statistical properties of randomly broken objects and of multivalley structures in disordered systems , 1987 .

[14]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Fast discovery of connection subgraphs , 2004, KDD.

[15]  David D. Jensen,et al.  Information awareness: a prospective technical assessment , 2003, KDD '03.

[16]  H E Stanley,et al.  Classes of small-world networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[18]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.