Possible Knowledge graph, [Incorrect abstraction
Knowledge graphs, a technique for representing entities and their relationships from text in graph form, play an important role in many natural language processing applications. However, the abstractions that arise in the process of constructing a knowledge graph can certainly involve misunderstandings and errors. To understand this issue, it is important to consider the limitations and challenges of abstraction in knowledge graphs.
Problems with Abstraction
- Oversimplification of information:.
- To use simple labels to describe relationships between entities may not adequately reflect the diversity and complexity of those relationships. For example, the relationship “composed” may have a cultural or emotional context that goes beyond simply meaning that a piece of music was created.
- lack of context:.
- Knowledge graphs abstract information without a specific context, which can cause the original context to be lost. When the same word has different meanings in different contexts, nuances may be lost.
- Introduction of inaccurate data:.
- If there are problems with the reliability or accuracy of the data source, incorrect information may be incorporated into the graph. This can adversely affect the overall usefulness of the graph.
Proposed Solution
- Integration of diverse data sources:.
- Combining information from multiple reliable data sources improves the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the information.
- Incorporation of contextual information:.
- Adding context to entities and relations more accurately expresses their depth of meaning and condition. This might include adding the time, place, or context of the utterance to the label.
- Increased transparency and flexibility:.
- Make the process of constructing the knowledge graph transparent so that users can easily verify the content and modify it as needed.
While the construction and use of knowledge graphs can be very useful, carefully addressing the issues raised by their abstraction is essential to ensure their reliability and effectiveness.
Is knowledge really a graph in the mathematical sense? It doesn’t seem likely that the human brain has a mechanism for processing graphs, that some more appropriate form is being approximated in a messy way? For example, is it a hypergraph rather than a graph, or is the vertex set a fuzzy set rather than a crisp set?
The term “graph” in knowledge graphs refers to a graph structure in the mathematical sense, but this is only one model for organizing and visualizing knowledge. The way the human brain actually processes knowledge is likely to be a more complex, nonlinear network, unlike the graph format. In addition, brain structures and cognitive processes are far more dynamic than the graph model, with more flexible information linkages, which can vary greatly depending on context.
Using Hypergraphs
- The approach of modeling a knowledge graph as a hypergraph is useful for more accurately representing complex relationships between multiple entities. Hypergraphs can represent more complex relationships and interactions because an edge can connect two or more vertices simultaneously.
Use of fuzzy sets
- On the other hand, fuzzy sets can be used to flexibly represent the certainty of an entity’s attributes and relationships. Fuzzy sets indicate the probability that an entity belongs to a particular set, ranging from 0 to 1, and can naturally incorporate ambiguity and uncertainty. This allows knowledge graphs to better reflect real-world uncertainty and ambiguity.
Mimicking the brain’s cognitive processes
- How the human brain processes information is not fully understood, but information processing in the brain is highly dynamic and involves much more complex interactions than static data structures. For this reason, knowledge graphs and other information models are mere approximations of real-world cognitive processes, and it is currently impossible to fully reproduce them.
generalize Knowledge graphs and other information representation models attempt to mimic the cognitive processes of the human brain, but these models do not necessarily accurately reflect brain function and structure. While these models are useful tools, it is important to understand their limitations and approximate nature and to use them appropriately.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/知識グラフは正しくない抽象化か using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.