skip to main content
10.1145/3460210.3493584acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesk-capConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Differential Causal Rules Mining in Knowledge Graphs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 December 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

In recent years, keen interest towards Knowledge Graphs has increased in both academia and the industry which has led to the creation of various datasets and the development of different research topics. In this paper, we present an approach that discovers differential causal rules in Knowledge Graphs. Such rules express that for two different class instances, a different treatment leads to different outcomes. Discovering causal rules is often the key of experiments, independently of their domain. The proposed approach is based on semantic matching relying on community detection and strata that can be defined as complex sub-classes. An experimental evaluation on two datasets shows that such mined rules can help gain insights into various domains.

References

  1. José J. Ramasco Andrea Lancichinetti, Filippo Radicchi and Santo Fortunato. 2011. Finding statistically significant communities in networks. PLoS One (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , Vol. 2008, 10 (Oct 2008), P10008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Luis Galárraga, Christina Teflioudi, Katja Hose, and Fabian Suchanek. 2013. AMIE: Association rule mining under incomplete evidence in ontological knowledge bases. WWW 2013 - Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, 413--422.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Stefano M. Iacus, Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2012. Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching . Political Analysis , Vol. 20, 1 (2012), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Georgi Kobilarov, Christian Bizer, Sören Auer, and Jens Lehmann. 2009. DBpedia - A Linked Data Hub and Data Source for Web Applications and Enterprises.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jiuyong Li, Thuc Duy Le, Lin Liu, Jixue Liu, Zhou Jin, and Bingyu Sun. 2013. Mining causal association rules . Proceedings - IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, ICDMW 2013 (2013), 114--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Melanie Munch, Juliette Dibie, Pierre-Henri Wuillemin, and Cristina E. Manfredotti. 2019. Towards Interactive Causal Relation Discovery Driven by an Ontology. In International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Petra Kralj Novak, Nada Lavravc, and Geoffrey I. Webb. 2009. Supervised Descriptive Rule Discovery: A Unifying Survey of Contrast Set, Emerging Pattern and Subgroup Mining. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , Vol. 10 (June 2009), 377--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Stefano Ortona, Venkata Vamsikrishna Meduri, and Paolo Papotti. 2018. RuDiK: Rule discovery in knowledge bases . Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , Vol. 11 (2018), 1946--1949.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality .Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alina Petrova, Evgeny Sherkhonov, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, and Ian Horrocks. 2017. Entity comparison in RDF graphs . , Vol. 10587 LNCS (2017), 526--541.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Joe Raad, Nathalie Pernelle, and Fatiha Saïs. 2017. Detection of contextual identity links in a knowledge base. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Capture Conference, K-CAP 2017 .Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Rubin D. B. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatment in randomized and nonrandomized studies . Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 66, 5 (1974), 688--701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Nicolas Salliou, Patrick Taillandier, and Rallou Thomopoulos. 2019. VITAMIN project (VegetarIan Transition Argument ModellINg) .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Elizabeth A. Stuart. 2010. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics , Vol. 25, 1 (2010), 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Magdalena Szumilas. 2010. Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry l'adolescent , Vol. 19 (2010), 227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rallou Thomopoulos, Nicolas Salliou, Patrick Taillandier, and Alberto Tonda. 2020. Consumers' Motivations towards Environment-Friendly Dietary Changes: An Assessment of Trends Related to the Consumption of Animal Products . In Handbook of Climate Change Across the Food Supply Chain.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Clifford H. Wagner. 1982. Simpson's Paradox in Real Life. The American Statistician , Vol. 36, 1 (1982), 46--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Po-Wei Wang, Daria Stepanova, Csaba Domokos, and J. Zico Kolter. 2020. Differentiable learning of numerical rules in knowledge graphs. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26--30, 2020 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Differential Causal Rules Mining in Knowledge Graphs

      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
        K-CAP '21: Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Capture Conference
        December 2021
        300 pages
        ISBN:9781450384575
        DOI:10.1145/3460210

        Copyright © 2021 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: 2 December 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate55of198submissions,28%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader