Ranking relations using analogies in biological and information networks

Analogical reasoning depends fundamentally on the ability to learn and generalize about relations between objects. We develop an approach to relational learning which, given a set of pairs of objects $\mathbf{S}=\{A^{(1)}:B^{(1)},A^{(2)}:B^{(2)},\ldots,A^{(N)}:B ^{(N)}\}$, measures how well other pairs A:B fit in with the set $\mathbf{S}$. Our work addresses the following question: is the relation between objects A and B analogous to those relations found in $\mathbf{S}$? Such questions are particularly relevant in information retrieval, where an investigator might want to search for analogous pairs of objects that match the query set of interest. There are many ways in which objects can be related, making the task of measuring analogies very challenging. Our approach combines a similarity measure on function spaces with Bayesian analysis to produce a ranking. It requires data containing features of the objects of interest and a link matrix specifying which relationships exist; no further attributes of such relationships are necessary. We illustrate the potential of our method on text analysis and information networks. An application on discovering functional interactions between pairs of proteins is discussed in detail, where we show that our approach can work in practice even if a small set of protein pairs is provided.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-AOAS321 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Mapping Big Data into Knowledge Space with Cognitive Cyber-Infrastructure

Big data research has attracted great attention in science, technology, industry and society. It is developing with the evolving scientific paradigm, the fourth industrial revolution, and the transformational innovation of technologies. However, its nature and fundamental challenge have not been recognized, and its own methodology has not been formed. This paper explores and answers the following questions: What is big data? What are the basic methods for representing, managing and analyzing big data? What is the relationship between big data and knowledge? Can we find a mapping from big data into knowledge space? What kind of infrastructure is required to support not only big data management and analysis but also knowledge discovery, sharing and management? What is the relationship between big data and science paradigm? What is the nature and fundamental challenge of big data computing? A multi-dimensional perspective is presented toward a methodology of big data computing.Comment: 59 page

Automated Retrieval of Non-Engineering Domain Solutions to Engineering Problems

Organised by: Cranfield UniversityBiological inspiration for engineering design has occurred through a variety of techniques such as creation and use of databases, keyword searches of biological information in natural-language format, prior knowledge of biology, and chance observations of nature. This research focuses on utilizing the reconciled Functional Basis function and flow terms to identify suitable biological inspiration for function based design. The organized search provides two levels of results: (1) associated with verb function only and (2) narrowed results associated with verb-noun (function-flow). A set of heuristics has been complied to promote efficient searching using this technique. An example for creating smart flooring is also presented and discussed.Mori Seiki – The Machine Tool Compan

Understanding the Internet: Model, Metaphor, and Analogy

published or submitted for publicatio

Models on the Move: Migration and Imperialism

We introduce `model migration' as a species of cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer whereby the representational function of a model is radically changed to allow application to a new disciplinary context. Controversies and confusions that often derive from this phenomenon will be illustrated in the context of econophysics and phylogeographic linguistics. Migration can be usefully contrasted with concept of `imperialism', that has been influentially discussed in the context of geographical economics. In particular, imperialism, unlike migration, relies upon extension of the original model via an expansion of the domain of phenomena it is taken to adequately described. The success of imperialism thus requires expansion of the justificatory sanctioning of the original idealising assumptions to a new disciplinary context. Contrastingly, successful migration involves the radical representational re-interpretation of the original model, rather than its extension. Migration thus requires `re-sanctioning' of new `counterpart idealisations' to allow application to an entirely different class of phenomena. Whereas legitimate scientific imperialism should be based on the pursuit of some form of ontological unification, no such requirement is need to legitimate the practice of model migration. The distinction between migration and imperialism will thus be shown to have significant normative as well as descriptive value

Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks.

BackgroundUsing knowledge representation for biomedical projects is now commonplace. In previous work, we represented the knowledge found in a college-level biology textbook in a fashion useful for answering questions. We showed that embedding the knowledge representation and question-answering abilities in an electronic textbook helped to engage student interest and improve learning. A natural question that arises from this success, and this paper's primary focus, is whether a similar approach is applicable across a range of life science textbooks. To answer that question, we considered four different textbooks, ranging from a below-introductory college biology text to an advanced, graduate-level neuroscience textbook. For these textbooks, we investigated the following questions: (1) To what extent is knowledge shared between the different textbooks? (2) To what extent can the same upper ontology be used to represent the knowledge found in different textbooks? (3) To what extent can the questions of interest for a range of textbooks be answered by using the same reasoning mechanisms?ResultsOur existing modeling and reasoning methods apply especially well both to a textbook that is comparable in level to the text studied in our previous work (i.e., an introductory-level text) and to a textbook at a lower level, suggesting potential for a high degree of portability. Even for the overlapping knowledge found across the textbooks, the level of detail covered in each textbook was different, which requires that the representations must be customized for each textbook. We also found that for advanced textbooks, representing models and scientific reasoning processes was particularly important.ConclusionsWith some additional work, our representation methodology would be applicable to a range of textbooks. The requirements for knowledge representation are common across textbooks, suggesting that a shared semantic infrastructure for the life sciences is feasible. Because our representation overlaps heavily with those already being used for biomedical ontologies, this work suggests a natural pathway to include such representations as part of the life sciences curriculum at different grade levels

Causal concepts in biology: How pathways differ from mechanisms and why it matters

In the last two decades few topics in philosophy of science have received as much attention as mechanistic explanation. A significant motivation for these accounts is that scientists frequently use the term “mechanism” in their explanations of biological phenomena. While scientists appeal to a variety of causal concepts in their explanations, many philosophers argue or assume that all of these concepts are well understood with the single notion of mechanism (Robins and Craver 2009; Craver 2007). This reveals a significant problem with mainstream mechanistic accounts– although philosophers use the term “mechanism” interchangeably with other causal concepts, this is not something that scientists always do. This paper analyses two causal concepts in biology–the notions of “mechanism” and “pathway”–and how they figure in biological explanation. I argue that these concepts have unique features, that they are associated with distinct strategies of causal investigation, and that they figure in importantly different types of explanation

Are animal models predictive for humans?

It is one of the central aims of the philosophy of science to elucidate the meanings of scientific terms and also to think critically about their application. The focus of this essay is the scientific term predict and whether there is credible evidence that animal models, especially in toxicology and pathophysiology, can be used to predict human outcomes. Whether animals can be used to predict human response to drugs and other chemicals is apparently a contentious issue. However, when one empirically analyzes animal models using scientific tools they fall far short of being able to predict human responses. This is not surprising considering what we have learned from fields such evolutionary and developmental biology, gene regulation and expression, epigenetics, complexity theory, and comparative genomics

Comparing Attributional and Relational Similarity as a Means to Identify Clinically Relevant Drug-gene Relationships

In emerging domains, such as precision oncology, knowledge extracted from explicit assertions may be insufficient to identify relationships of interest. One solution to this problem involves drawing inference on the basis of similarity. Computational methods have been developed to estimate the semantic similarity and relatedness between terms and relationships that are distributed across corpora of literature such as Medline abstracts and other forms of human readable text. Most research on distributional similarity has focused on the notion of attributional similarity, which estimates the similarity between entities based on the contexts in which they occur across a large corpus. A relatively under-researched area concerns relational similarity, in which the similarity between pairs of entities is estimated from the contexts in which these entity pairs occur together. While it seems intuitive that models capturing the structure of the relationships between entities might mediate the identification of biologically important relationships, there is to date no comparison of the relative utility of attributional and relational models for this purpose. In this research, I compare the performance of a range of relational and attributional similarity methods, on the task of identifying drugs that may be therapeutically useful in the context of particular aberrant genes, as identified by a team of human experts. My hypothesis is that relational similarity will be of greater utility than attributional similarity as a means to identify biological relationships that may provide answers to clinical questions, (such as “which drugs INHIBIT gene x”?) in the context of rapidly evolving domains. My results show that models based on relational similarity outperformed models based on attributional similarity on this task. As the methods explained in this research can be applied to identify any sort of relationship for which cue pairs exist, my results suggest that relational similarity may be a suitable approach to apply to other biomedical problems. Furthermore, I found models based on neural word embeddings (NWE) to be particularly useful for this task, given their higher performance than Random Indexing-based models, and significantly less computational effort needed to create them. NWE methods (such as those produced by the popular word2vec tool) are a relatively recent development in the domain of distributional semantics, and are considered by many as the state-of-the-art when it comes to semantic language modeling. However, their application in identifying biologically important relationships from Medline in general, and specifically, in the domain of precision oncology has not been well studied. The results of this research can guide the design and implementation of biomedical question answering and other relationship extraction applications for precision medicine, precision oncology and other similar domains, where there is rapid emergence of novel knowledge. The methods developed and evaluated in this project can help NLP applications provide more accurate results by leveraging corpus based methods that are by design scalable and robust

Models on the Move: Migration and Imperialism

We introduce `model migration' as a species of cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer whereby the representational function of a model is radically changed to allow application to a new disciplinary context. Controversies and confusions that often derive from this phenomenon will be illustrated in the context of econophysics and phylogeographic linguistics. Migration can be usefully contrasted with concept of `imperialism', that has been influentially discussed in the context of geographical economics. In particular, imperialism, unlike migration, relies upon extension of the original model via an expansion of the domain of phenomena it is taken to adequately described. The success of imperialism thus requires expansion of the justificatory sanctioning of the original idealising assumptions to a new disciplinary context. Contrastingly, successful migration involves the radical representational re-interpretation of the original model, rather than its extension. Migration thus requires `re-sanctioning' of new `counterpart idealisations' to allow application to an entirely different class of phenomena. Whereas legitimate scientific imperialism should be based on the pursuit of some form of ontological unification, no such requirement is need to legitimate the practice of model migration. The distinction between migration and imperialism will thus be shown to have significant normative as well as descriptive value