skip to main content
10.1145/3331184.3331249acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

One-Class Order Embedding for Dependency Relation Prediction

Published:18 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning the dependency relations among entities and the hierarchy formed by these relations by mapping entities into some order embedding space can effectively enable several important applications, including knowledge base completion and prerequisite relations prediction. Nevertheless, it is very challenging to learn a good order embedding due to the existence of partial ordering and missing relations in the observed data. Moreover, most application scenarios do not provide non-trivial negative dependency relation instances. We therefore propose a framework that performs dependency relation prediction by exploring both rich semantic and hierarchical structure information in the data. In particular, we propose several negative sampling strategies based on graph-specific centrality properties, which supplement the positive dependency relations with appropriate negative samples to effectively learn order embeddings. This research not only addresses the needs of automatically recovering missing dependency relations, but also unravels dependencies among entities using several real-world datasets, such as course dependency hierarchy involving course prerequisite relations, job hierarchy in organizations, and paper citation hierarchy. Extensive experiments are conducted on both synthetic and real-world datasets to demonstrate the prediction accuracy as well as to gain insights using the learned order embedding.

References

  1. Fareedah ALSaad, Assma Boughoula, Chase Geigle, Hari Sundaram, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2018. Mining MOOC Lecture Transcripts to Construct Concept Dependency Graphs. In EDM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben Athiwaratkun and Andrew Gordon Wilson. 2018. Hierarchical Density Order Embeddings. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Hongyun Cai, Vincent W. Zheng, and Kevin Chang. 2018. A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: problems, techniques and applications. TKDE (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Yetian Chen, José P González-Brenes, and Jin Tian. 2016. Joint Discovery of Skill Prerequisite Graphs and Student Models. In EDM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Xin Luna Dong, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Geremy Heitz, Wilko Horn, Kevin Murphy, Shaohua Sun, and Wei Zhang. 2014. From data fusion to knowledge fusion. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 7, 10 (2014), 881--892. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Alexander R. Fabbri, Irene Li, Prawat Trairatvorakul, Yijiao He, Wei Tai Ting, Robert Tung, Caitlin Westerfield, and Dragomir R. Radev. 2018. TutorialBank: A Manually-Collected Corpus for Prerequisite Chains, Survey Extraction and Resource Recommendation. In ACL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jonathan Gordon, Linhong Zhu, Aram Galstyan, Prem Natarajan, and Gully Burns. 2016. Modeling concept dependencies in a scientific corpus. In ACL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Liang, Jianbo Ye, Shuting Wang, Bart Pursel, and C. Lee Giles. 2018. Investigating active learning for concept prerequisite learning. EAAI (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen Liang, Jianbo Ye, ZhaohuiWu, Bart Pursel, and C. Lee Giles. 2017. Recovering Concept Prerequisite Relations from University Course Dependencies. In AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hanxiao Liu, Wanli Ma, Yiming Yang, and Jaime Carbonell. 2016. Learning concept graphs from online educational data. JAIR 55 (2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S. Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jack Minker. 1982. On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption. In International Conference on Automated Deduction. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, Volker Tresp, and Evgeniy Gabrilovich. 2016. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proc. IEEE 104, 1 (2016), 11--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, Tomaso A. Poggio, and others. 2016. Holographic Embeddings of Knowledge Graphs. In AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A Three-Way Model for Collective Learning on Multi-Relational Data. In ICML. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Richard Jayadi Oentaryo, Ee-Peng Lim, Xavier Jayaraj Siddarth Ashok, Philips Kokoh Prasetyo, Koon Han Ong, and Zi Quan Lau. 2018. Talent Flow Analytics in Online Professional Network. Data Science and Engineering 3 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Liangming Pan, Chengjiang Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Tang. 2017. Prerequisite relation learning for concepts in moocs. In ACL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Liangming Pan, Xiaochen Wang, Chengjiang Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Tang. 2017. Course Concept Extraction in MOOCs via Embedding-Based Graph Propagation. In IJCNLP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In EMNLP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. 2014. DeepWalk: Online Learning of Social Representations. In SIGKDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jian Tang, Meng Qu, Mingzhe Wang, Ming Zhang, Jun Yan, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2015. LINE: Large-scale Information Network Embedding. In WWW. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ivan Vendrov, Ryan Kiros, Sanja Fidler, and Raquel Urtasun. 2016. Orderembeddings of images and language. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Luke Vilnis, Xiang Li, Shikhar Murty, and Andrew McCallum. 2018. Probabilistic Embedding of Knowledge Graphs with Box Lattice Measures. In ACL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Luke Vilnis and Andrew McCallum. 2015. Word representations via gaussian embedding. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Quan Wang, Zhendong Mao, Bin Wang, and Li Guo. 2017. Knowledge Graph Embedding: A Survey of Approaches and Applications. TKDE 29, 12 (2017), 2724--2743.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Hsiang-Fu Yu, Mikhail Bilenko, and Chih-Jen Lin. 2017. Selection of negative samples for one-class matrix factorization. In SDM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. One-Class Order Embedding for Dependency Relation Prediction

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGIR'19: Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
      July 2019
      1512 pages
      ISBN:9781450361729
      DOI:10.1145/3331184

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 July 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGIR'19 Paper Acceptance Rate84of426submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader