Cited by 52Topic ModelingSemantic Web and OntologiesAdvanced Graph Neural Networks

Hierarchical Query Graph Generation for Complex Question Answering over Knowledge Graph

Qiu, Yunqi, Zhang, Kun, Wang, Yuanzhuo, Jin, Xiaolong, Bai, Long, Guan, Saiping, Cheng, Xueqi·2020·Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management

Abstract

Knowledge Graph Question Answering aims to automatically answer natural language questions via well-structured relation information between entities stored in knowledge graphs. When faced with a complex question with compositional semantics, query graph generation is a practical semantic parsing-based method. But existing works rely on heuristic rules with limited coverage, making them impractical on more complex questions. This paper proposes a Director-Actor-Critic framework to overcome these challenges. Through options over a Markov Decision Process, query graph generation is formulated as a hierarchical decision problem. The Director determines which types of triples the query graph needs, the Actor generates corresponding triples by choosing nodes and edges, and the Critic calculates the semantic similarity between the generated triples and the given questions. Moreover, to train from weak supervision, we base the framework on hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with intrinsic motivation. To accelerate the training process, we pre-train the Critic with high-reward trajectories generated by hand-crafted rules, and leverage curriculum learning to gradually increase the complexity of questions during query graph generation. Extensive experiments conducted over widely-used benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3340531.3411888

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Infrastructural disparities, including unequal access to devices and technical support, influence how AI is perceived across schools and regions.

    “Infrastructural disparities, including unequal access to devices and technical support, further influence how AI is perceived across schools and regions (Huang et al., 2021;Qiu et al., 2020).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 50 · Cited by 52

Authors
Qiu, Y., Zhang, K., Wang, Y., Jin, X., Bai, L., Guan, S., & Cheng, X.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-10-19
Pages
1285-1294
ISSN
2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3093717003
Cited by
52
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 9
FWCI
3.53
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • the GF Innovative Research Program
  • Central China Talents Program - Leading Talents Project of Science and Technology Innovation
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFB1402600,2017YFC0820404)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1836206,U1911401,61772501)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
Keywords
knowledge graph question answering, hierarchical reinforcement learning, Markov decision process, intrinsic motivation, weakly supervised learning, curriculum learning, semantic parsing, complex questions, compositional semantics, semantic similarity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review