• Home
  • Blog
  • People
  • Projects
  • Publications
  • Seminars
  • DSR Expo
  • Courses
logo1

Data Science Research

Menu
  • Home
  • Blog
  • People
  • Projects
  • Publications
  • Seminars
  • DSR Expo
  • Courses
Home › publications › research directions › Mining Rules Incrementally over Large Knowledge Bases

Mining Rules Incrementally over Large Knowledge Bases

February 12, 2018     Comment Closed     publications, research directions

Xiaofeng Zhou

Multiple web-scale knowledge bases (e.g., Freebase, YAGO, NELL) have been constructed using semi-supervised or unsupervised information extraction techniques and many of them, despite their large sizes, are continuously growing. Much research effort has been put into mining inference rules from these knowledge bases. To address the task of rule mining over evolving web-scale knowledge bases, we propose a parallel incremental rule mining framework. Our approach is able to efficiently mine rules based on the relational model and applies updates to large knowledge bases; we propose an alternative metric that reduces computation complexity without compromising quality; we apply multiple optimization techniques that reduce runtime by more than 2 orders of magnitude. Experiments show that our approach can scale to web-scale knowledge bases efficiently and save over 90\% time compared to the state-of-the-art batch rule mining system. We apply optimization techniques to the batch rule mining algorithm, reducing runtime by more than half compared to the state-of-the-art. To the best of our knowledge, our incremental rule mining system is the first that handles updates to web-scale knowledge bases.

Our Approach

We aim to efficiently mine first-order inference rules incrementally over large growing KBs. We propose a novel incremental rule mining framework to mine rules from large evolving KBs by storing the inference rules and facts in relational tables, and using joins to parallelize the searches to propagate the updates on KBs. The algorithm framework is shown below:
default_alt_text
Algorithm 1 outlines the major steps of our incremental framework: first, we generate the syntactically valid rules from the schema (Line 1) using the ontological path-finding algorithm [5], then we process each update τi in Γ iteratively. In each iteration, we run incremental inference to get inferred facts with rule IDs (Line 5), to get the changes to the scoring metrics for case 1 where the update facts τi act as body parts of rules (Line 6). Finally, we get the changes to metrics for case 2 where update facts appear as head of rules (Line 8).
Based on Algorithm 1, we propose two incremental mining implementations that can handle incoming updates efficiently. However, those two algorithms are not optimal in runtime or storage overhead. This is largely due to the calculation of  holistic standard confidence :
default_alt_text
Thus we propose a new confidence metric (xconf) that  can speed up the incremental mining algorithm significantly.
 default_alt_text
In other terms, x-confidence does not force a uniqueness constraint as in standard confidence.

Experiments

We conduct experiments on two real-world KBs: YAGO and Freebase. First, we compare the 3 variants of our incremental algorithm with the state-of-the-art batch rule mining system OP. We show that for different update sizes, our incremental algorithms can easily save more than 90% of the time, compared to re-running OP again. Second, we compare our new metric with the standard confidence in terms of rule quality and confirm that our new metric is close to standard confidence scores on real KBs. Third, we show how our optimization techniques speed up our incremental algorithm.

Comparison with batch algorithm OP

The table below shows the runtime of the state-of-the-art batch rule mining system OP. The two figures below show the 3 variants of our incremental rule mining algorithms on the two datasets. We can see that our ‘xconf’ variant performs consistently better than the other 2 variants. Also our incremental algorithms can save up to 90% of running time comparing to the batch counterpart on Freebase dataset.


default_alt_text
default_alt_textdefault_alt_text

 

Comparison of standard confidence vs x-confidence

We compare xconf to stdconf via the rules mined from YAGO2s and Freebase.  it is clear that a rule will have a non-zero stdconf if and only if it has a non-zero xconf , thus both algorithms will produce the same set of rules but possibly with different confidence values. The histogram of difference between the two metrics for each rule on both datasets is shown in the figure below. Almost all rules mined have a very small difference in confidence score when measured with the two metrics. When different, xconf is usually higher than stdconf in both KBs. Only a few rules have a significant difference in confidence scores, and some are shown in the table below.
default_alt_text
default_alt_text
For more details, please check out our paper in SIAM SDM 2019.
publications research directions

 Previous Post

Multimodal Learning for Web Information Extraction

― November 8, 2017

Next Post 

Taming The Data Monster To Make Better Decisions

― August 17, 2018

Related Articles

DBSim: Extensible Database Simulator for Fast Prototyping In-Database Algorithms
DrugEHRQA: A Question Answering Dataset on Structured and Unstructured Electronic Health Records For Medicine Related Queries
A Brief Overview of Weak Supervision
DRUM: End-To-End Differentiable Rule Mining On Knowledge Graphs
IDTrees Data Science Challenge: 2017

Recent Posts

  • DBSim: Extensible Database Simulator for Fast Prototyping In-Database Algorithms
  • DrugEHRQA: A Question Answering Dataset on Structured and Unstructured Electronic Health Records For Medicine Related Queries
  • A Brief Overview of Weak Supervision
  • DRUM: End-To-End Differentiable Rule Mining On Knowledge Graphs
  • IDTrees Data Science Challenge: 2017

Categories

  • courses
  • ecology
  • NIST and open eval
  • publications
  • research
  • research directions
  • survey
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • February 2023
  • October 2020
  • December 2019
  • April 2019
  • December 2018
  • August 2018
  • February 2018
  • November 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • October 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • May 2015
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013

Recent Posts

  • DBSim: Extensible Database Simulator for Fast Prototyping In-Database Algorithms
  • DrugEHRQA: A Question Answering Dataset on Structured and Unstructured Electronic Health Records For Medicine Related Queries
  • A Brief Overview of Weak Supervision
  • DRUM: End-To-End Differentiable Rule Mining On Knowledge Graphs
  • IDTrees Data Science Challenge: 2017