Quantifying and filtering knowledge generated by literature based discovery

Is automatic detection of hidden knowledge an anomaly?

BACKGROUND

The quantity of documents being published requires researchers to specialize to a narrower field, meaning that inferable connections between publications (particularly from different domains) can be missed. This has given rise to automatic literature based discovery (LBD). However, unless heavily filtered, LBD generates more potential new knowledge than can be manually verified and another form of selection is required before the results can be passed onto a user. Since a large proportion of the automatically generated hidden knowledge is valid but generally known, we investigate the hypothesis that non trivial, interesting, hidden knowledge can be treated as an anomaly and identified using anomaly detection approaches.

RESULTS

Two experiments are conducted: (1) to avoid errors arising from incorrect extraction of relations, the hypothesis is validated using manually annotated relations appearing in a thesaurus, and (2) automatically extracted relations are used to investigate the hypothesis on publication abstracts. These allow an investigation of a potential upper bound and the detection of limitations yielded by automatic relation extraction.

CONCLUSION

We apply one-class SVM and isolation forest anomaly detection algorithms to a set of hidden connections to rank connections by identifying outlying (interesting) ones and show that the approach increases the F₁ measure by a factor of 10 while greatly reducing the quantity of hidden knowledge to manually verify. We also demonstrate the statistical significance of this result.

A systematic review on literature-based discovery workflow

As scientific publication rates increase, knowledge acquisition and the research development process have become more complex and time-consuming. Literature-Based Discovery (LBD), supporting automated knowledge discovery, helps facilitate this process by eliciting novel knowledge by analysing existing scientific literature. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the LBD workflow by answering nine research questions related to the major components of the LBD workflow (i.e., input, process, output, and evaluation). With regards to the input component, we discuss the data types and data sources used in the literature. The process component presents filtering techniques, ranking/thresholding techniques, domains, generalisability levels, and resources. Subsequently, the output component focuses on the visualisation techniques used in LBD discipline. As for the evaluation component, we outline the evaluation techniques, their generalisability, and the quantitative measures used to validate results. To conclude, we summarise the findings of the review for each component by highlighting the possible future research directions.