Search arXivSearch

arXiv subjects

David Wild

Publications and source records attributed to David Wild.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

edge2vec: Representation learning using edge semantics for biomedical knowledge discovery

Representation learning provides new and powerful graph analytical approaches and tools for the highly valued data science challenge of mining knowledge graphs. Since previous graph analytical methods have mostly focused on homogeneous graphs, an important current challenge is extending this methodology for richly heterogeneous graphs and knowledge domains. The biomedical sciences are such a domain, reflecting the complexity of biology, with entities such as genes, proteins, drugs, diseases, and phenotypes, and relationships such as gene co-expression, biochemical regulation, and biomolecular inhibition or activation. Therefore, the semantics of edges and nodes are critical for representation learning and knowledge discovery in real world biomedical problems. In this paper, we propose the edge2vec model, which represents graphs considering edge semantics. An edge-type transition matrix is trained by an Expectation-Maximization approach, and a stochastic gradient descent model is employed to learn node embedding on a heterogeneous graph via the trained transition matrix. edge2vec is validated on three biomedical domain tasks: biomedical entity classification, compound-gene bioactivity prediction, and biomedical information retrieval. Results show that by considering edge-types into node embedding learning in heterogeneous graphs, \textbf{edge2vec}\ significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models on all three tasks. We propose this method for its added value relative to existing graph analytical methodology, and in the real world context of biomedical knowledge discovery applicability.

cs.IR

Innovative Science

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.

physics.soc-ph