Estimating Node Importance in Knowledge Graphs Using Graph Neural Networks

How can we estimate the importance of nodes in a knowledge graph (KG)? A KG is a multi-relational graph that has proven valuable for many tasks including question answering and semantic search. In this paper, we present GENI, a method for tackling the problem of estimating node importance in KGs, which enables several downstream applications such as item recommendation and resource allocation. While a number of approaches have been developed to address this problem for general graphs, they do not fully utilize information available in KGs, or lack flexibility needed to model complex relationship between entities and their importance. To address these limitations, we explore supervised machine learning algorithms. In particular, building upon recent advancement of graph neural networks (GNNs), we develop GENI, a GNN-based method designed to deal with distinctive challenges involved with predicting node importance in KGs. Our method performs an aggregation of importance scores instead of aggregating node embeddings via predicate-aware attention mechanism and flexible centrality adjustment. In our evaluation of GENI and existing methods on predicting node importance in real-world KGs with different characteristics, GENI achieves 5-17% higher NDCG@100 than the state of the art.Comment: KDD 2019 Research Track. 11 pages. Changelog: Type 3 font removed, and minor updates made in the Appendix (v2

Robust Group Linkage

We study the problem of group linkage: linking records that refer to entities in the same group. Applications for group linkage include finding businesses in the same chain, finding conference attendees from the same affiliation, finding players from the same team, etc. Group linkage faces challenges not present for traditional record linkage. First, although different members in the same group can share some similar global values of an attribute, they represent different entities so can also have distinct local values for the same or different attributes, requiring a high tolerance for value diversity. Second, groups can be huge (with tens of thousands of records), requiring high scalability even after using good blocking strategies. We present a two-stage algorithm: the first stage identifies cores containing records that are very likely to belong to the same group, while being robust to possible erroneous values; the second stage collects strong evidence from the cores and leverages it for merging more records into the same group, while being tolerant to differences in local values of an attribute. Experimental results show the high effectiveness and efficiency of our algorithm on various real-world data sets

From Data Fusion to Knowledge Fusion

The task of {\em data fusion} is to identify the true values of data items (eg, the true date of birth for {\em Tom Cruise}) among multiple observed values drawn from different sources (eg, Web sites) of varying (and unknown) reliability. A recent survey\cite{LDL+12} has provided a detailed comparison of various fusion methods on Deep Web data. In this paper, we study the applicability and limitations of different fusion techniques on a more challenging problem: {\em knowledge fusion}. Knowledge fusion identifies true subject-predicate-object triples extracted by multiple information extractors from multiple information sources. These extractors perform the tasks of entity linkage and schema alignment, thus introducing an additional source of noise that is quite different from that traditionally considered in the data fusion literature, which only focuses on factual errors in the original sources. We adapt state-of-the-art data fusion techniques and apply them to a knowledge base with 1.6B unique knowledge triples extracted by 12 extractors from over 1B Web pages, which is three orders of magnitude larger than the data sets used in previous data fusion papers. We show great promise of the data fusion approaches in solving the knowledge fusion problem, and suggest interesting research directions through a detailed error analysis of the methods.Comment: VLDB'201