Weakly-supervised Contextualization of Knowledge Graph Facts

Knowledge graphs (KGs) model facts about the world; they consist of nodes (entities such as companies and people) that are connected by edges (relations such as founderOf ). Facts encoded in KGs are frequently used by search applications to augment result pages. When presenting a KG fact to the user, providing other facts that are pertinent to that main fact can enrich the user experience and support exploratory information needs. \em KG fact contextualization is the task of augmenting a given KG fact with additional and useful KG facts. The task is challenging because of the large size of KGs; discovering other relevant facts even in a small neighborhood of the given fact results in an enormous amount of candidates. We introduce a neural fact contextualization method (\em NFCM ) to address the KG fact contextualization task. NFCM first generates a set of candidate facts in the neighborhood of a given fact and then ranks the candidate facts using a supervised learning to rank model. The ranking model combines features that we automatically learn from data and that represent the query-candidate facts with a set of hand-crafted features we devised or adjusted for this task. In order to obtain the annotations required to train the learning to rank model at scale, we generate training data automatically using distant supervision on a large entity-tagged text corpus. We show that ranking functions learned on this data are effective at contextualizing KG facts. Evaluation using human assessors shows that it significantly outperforms several competitive baselines.

[1]  Ming-Wei Chang,et al.  Semantic Parsing via Staged Query Graph Generation: Question Answering with Knowledge Base , 2015, ACL.

[2]  Shashi Narayan,et al.  Creating Training Corpora for NLG Micro-Planners , 2017, ACL.

[3]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Using Metafeatures to Increase the Effectiveness of Latent Semantic Models in Web Search , 2016, WWW.

[4]  Krisztian Balog,et al.  Dynamic Factual Summaries for Entity Cards , 2017, SIGIR.

[5]  Iryna Gurevych,et al.  Context-Aware Representations for Knowledge Base Relation Extraction , 2017, EMNLP.

[6]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  Chains of Reasoning over Entities, Relations, and Text using Recurrent Neural Networks , 2016, EACL.

[7]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[8]  Giuseppe Ottaviano,et al.  Fast and Space-Efficient Entity Linking for Queries , 2015, WSDM.

[9]  Enrique Alfonseca,et al.  Pattern Learning for Relation Extraction with a Hierarchical Topic Model , 2012, ACL.

[10]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  Playing Your Cards Right: The Effect of Entity Cards on Search Behaviour and Workload , 2016, CHIIR.

[11]  John Miller,et al.  Traversing Knowledge Graphs in Vector Space , 2015, EMNLP.

[12]  Björn Buchhold,et al.  Semantic Search on Text and Knowledge Bases , 2016, Found. Trends Inf. Retr..

[13]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Generating Descriptions of Entity Relationships , 2017, ECIR.

[14]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data , 2009, ACL.

[15]  David Grangier,et al.  Neural Text Generation from Structured Data with Application to the Biography Domain , 2016, EMNLP.

[16]  Yuan Yu,et al.  TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning , 2016, OSDI.

[17]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Ranking complex relationships on the semantic Web , 2005, IEEE Internet Computing.

[18]  Jean Ponce,et al.  Learning Graphs to Match , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[19]  Roi Blanco,et al.  Entity Recommendations in Web Search , 2013, SEMWEB.

[20]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Modeling Relations and Their Mentions without Labeled Text , 2010, ECML/PKDD.

[21]  Evgeniy Gabrilovich,et al.  A Review of Relational Machine Learning for Knowledge Graphs , 2015, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[22]  Praveen Paritosh,et al.  Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge , 2008, SIGMOD Conference.

[23]  Clare R. Voss,et al.  ClusType: Effective Entity Recognition and Typing by Relation Phrase-Based Clustering , 2015, KDD.

[24]  Cong Yu,et al.  REX: Explaining Relationships between Entity Pairs , 2011, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[25]  Daniel S. Weld,et al.  Fine-Grained Entity Recognition , 2012, AAAI.

[26]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate , 2014, ICLR.

[27]  Roi Blanco,et al.  From "Selena Gomez" to "Marlon Brando": Understanding Explorative Entity Search , 2015, WWW.

[28]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Learning to Explain Entity Relationships in Knowledge Graphs , 2015, ACL.

[29]  Ramesh Nallapati,et al.  Multi-instance Multi-label Learning for Relation Extraction , 2012, EMNLP.

[30]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Neural Ranking Models with Weak Supervision , 2017, SIGIR.

[31]  Thomas Pellissier Tanon,et al.  From Freebase to Wikidata: The Great Migration , 2016, WWW.

[32]  Giuseppe Pirrò,et al.  Explaining and Suggesting Relatedness in Knowledge Graphs , 2015, SEMWEB.

[33]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  ESPRESSO: Explaining Relationships between Entity Sets , 2016, CIKM.

[34]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Learning to Explain Entity Relationships by Pairwise Ranking with Convolutional Neural Networks , 2017, IJCAI.