Message Passing for Complex Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs
Open accessAbstract
Question answering over knowledge graphs (KGQA) has evolved from simple single-fact questions to complex questions that require graph traversal and aggregation. We propose a novel approach for complex KGQA that uses unsupervised message passing, which propagates confidence scores obtained by parsing an input question and matching terms in the knowledge graph to a set of possible answers. First, we identify entity, relationship, and class names mentioned in a natural language question, and map these to their counterparts in the graph. Then, the confidence scores of these mappings propagate through the graph structure to locate the answer entities. Finally, these are aggregated depending on the identified question type. This approach can be efficiently implemented as a series of sparse matrix multiplications mimicking joins over small local subgraphs. Our evaluation results show that the proposed approach outperforms the state of the art on the LC-QuAD benchmark. Moreover, we show that the performance of the approach depends only on the quality of the question interpretation results, i.e., given a correct relevance score distribution, our approach always produces a correct answer ranking. Our error analysis reveals correct answers missing from the benchmark dataset and inconsistencies in the DBpedia knowledge graph. Finally, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed approach accompanied with an ablation study and an error analysis, which showcase the pitfalls for each of the question answering components in more detail.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Existing KBQA systems do not have a modular reasoner to perform logical reasoning using information available in the KB.
“However, existing KBQA systems (Diefenbach et al. 2020;Vakulenko et al. 2019;Sun et al. 2020) do not have a modular reasoner to perform logical reasoning using the information available in the knowledge base.”
From A Semantic Parsing and Reasoning-Based Approach to Knowledge Base Question Answering (2021) · cites this paper as Vakulenko et al. 2019
The Introduction (p. 2) says a core aspect of QAmp is disentangling reasoning from question interpretation. Section 3.2 (p. 4) describes a separate answer-inference process that traverses the knowledge graph and passes messages. This contradicts the claim insofar as it presents this cited system as lacking a modular reasoner, although the paper describes its reasoning as handling uncertainty rather than as formal logical reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.81)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting KBQA approaches face challenges including complex question understanding, scarcity of end-to-end training data, and the need for reasoning.
“Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) is a task where existing techniques have faced significant challenges, such as the need for complex question understanding, reasoning, and large training datasets.”
From A Semantic Parsing and Reasoning-Based Approach to Knowledge Base Question Answering (2021) · cites this paper as Vakulenko et al. 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- [1][1] Jun-Wei Bao, Nan Duan, Zhao Yan, Ming Zhou, and Tiejun Zhao. 2016. ConstraintBased Question Answering with Knowledge Graph. In COLING 2016 . 2503-2514. -
- [2][2] Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, et al. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. CoRR abs/1806.01261 (2018). arXiv:1806.01261 - · arXiv
- [3][3] Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 5 (2017), 135-146. -
- [4][4] Piero Andrea Bonatti, Stefan Decker, Axel Polleres, and Valentina Presutti. 2018. Knowledge Graphs: New Directions for Knowledge Representation on the Semantic Web (Dagstuhl Seminar 18371). Dagstuhl Reports 8, 9 (2018), 29-111. -
- [5][5] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. Largescale Simple Question Answering with Memory Networks. CoRR abs/1506.02075 (2015). arXiv:1506.02075 - · arXiv
- [6][6] Wim Bronnenberg, Harry Bunt, Jan Landsbergen, Remko Scha, Wijnand Schoenmakers, and Eric van Utteren. 1980. The question answering system Phliqa1. In Natural Language Question Answering Systems , L. Bolc (Ed.). MacMillan, 217-305. -
- [8][8] Dennis Diefenbach, Andreas Both, Kamal Deep Singh, and Pierre Maret. 2018. Towards a Question Answering System over the Semantic Web. CoRR abs/1803.00832 (2018). arXiv:1803.00832 - · arXiv
- [10][10] Javier D. Fernández, Miguel A. Martínez-Prieto, Claudio Gutiérrez, Axel Polleres, and Mario Arias. 2013. Binary RDF Representation for Publication and Exchange (HDT). J. Web Semant. 19 (2013), 22-41. -
- [11][11] Óscar Ferrández, Christian Spurk, Milen Kouylekov, Iustin Dornescu, Sergio Ferrández, Matteo Negri, Rubén Izquierdo, David Tomás, Constantin Orasan, Guenter Neumann, Bernardo Magnini, and José Luis Vicedo González. 2011. The QALL-ME Framework: A specifiable-domain multilingual Question Answering architecture. J. Web Semant. 9, 2 (2011), 137-145. -
- [12][12] André Freitas, Edward Curry, João Gabriel Oliveira, and Seán O'Riain. 2012. Querying Heterogeneous Datasets on the Linked Data Web: Challenges, Approaches, and Trends. IEEE Internet Computing 16, 1 (2012), 24-33. -
- [13][13] André Freitas, João Gabriel Oliveira, Seán O'Riain, João Carlos Pereira da Silva, and Edward Curry. 2013. Querying linked data graphs using semantic relatedness: A vocabulary independent approach. Data Knowl. Eng. 88 (2013), 126-141. -
- [14][14] Amir Gandomi and Murtaza Haider. 2015. Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. International journal of information management 35, 2 (2015), 137-144. -
- [15][15] Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, et al. 2017. Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry. In ICML 2017 . 1263-1272. -
- [16][16] Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, et al. 2017. Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answering. In CVPR 2017 . -
- [17][17] Bert F. Green, Alice K. Wolf, Carol Chomsky, and Kenneth Laughery. 1963. Baseball: An automatic question answerer. In Computers and Thought . McGraw-Hill, 219-224. -
- [18][18] William L. Hamilton, Payal Bajaj, Marinka Zitnik, Dan Jurafsky, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Embedding Logical Queries on Knowledge Graphs. In NeurIPS . 2030-2041. -
- [20][20] Gary G Hendrix. 1982. Natural-language interface. Computational Linguistics 8, 2 (1982), 56-61. -
- [21][21] Fuad Jamour, Ibrahim Abdelaziz, and Panos Kalnis. 2018. A demonstration of MAGiQ: matrix algebra approach for solving RDF graph queries. Proc. the VLDB Endowment 11, 12 (2018), 1978-1981. -
- [25][25] Daphne Koller, Nir Friedman, and Francis Bach. 2009. Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques . MIT press. -
- [26][26] John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data. In ICML 2001 . 282-289. -
- [27][27] Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, et al. 2015. DBpedia - A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from Wikipedia. Semantic Web 6, 2 (2015), 167-195. -
- [28][28] Gaurav Maheshwari, Priyansh Trivedi, et al. 2018. Learning to Rank Query Graphs for Complex Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01118 (2018). - · arXiv
- [29][29] Gaurav Maheshwari, Priyansh Trivedi, Denis Lukovnikov, Nilesh Chakraborty, Asja Fischer, and Jens Lehmann. 2018. Learning to Rank Query Graphs for Complex Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01118 (2018). - · arXiv
- [30][30] Christopher Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2010. Introduction to information retrieval. Natural Language Engineering 16, 1 (2010), 100-103. -
- [32][32] András Micsik, Sándor Turbucz, and Attila Györök. 2014. LODmilla: a Linked Data Browser for All. In Posters&Demos SEMANTiCS 2014 , Sack Harald, Filipowska Agata, Lehmann Jens, and Hellmann Sebastian (Eds.). CEUR-WS.org, 31-34. -
- [34][34] Ajay Patel, Alexander Sands, Chris Callison-Burch, and Marianna Apidianaki. 2018. Magnitude: A Fast, Efficient Universal Vector Embedding Utility Package. In EMNLP 2018 . 120-126. -
- [35][35] Judea Pearl. 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. -
- [36][36] Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In EMNLP 2014 . 1532-1543. -
- [37][37] Michael Petrochuk and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. SimpleQuestions Nearly Solved: A New Upperbound and Baseline Approach. In EMNLP 2018 . 554-558. -
- [38][38] Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100, 000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text. In EMNLP 2016 . 2383-2392. -
- [42][42] Kuldeep Singh, Ioanna Lytra, Arun Sethupat Radhakrishna, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Maria-Esther Vidal, and Jens Lehmann. 2018. No One is Perfect: Analysing the Performance of Question Answering Components over the DBpedia Knowledge Graph. CoRR abs/1809.10044 (2018). - · arXiv
- [44][44] Daniil Sorokin and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. Modeling Semantics with Gated Graph Neural Networks for Knowledge Base Question Answering. In COLING 2018 . 3306-3317. -
- [48][48] Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM 57, 10 (2014), 78-85. -
- [51][51] William Aaron Woods. 1977. Lunar rocks in natural English: Explorations in natural language question answering. In Linguistic Structures Processing , A. Zampoli (Ed.). Elsevier North-Holland, 521-569. -
- [53][53] Lei Zou, Ruizhe Huang, Haixun Wang, Jeffrey Xu Yu, Wenqiang He, and Dongyan Zhao. 2014. Natural language question answering over RDF: a graph data driven approach. In SIGMOD 2014 . 313-324.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Semantic Parsing and Reasoning-Based Approach to Knowledge Base Question Answering
Abdelaziz, I., Ravishankar, S., Kapanipathi, P., Roukos, S., & Gray, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i18.17988 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“QAmp is also state-of-the-art on LC-QuAD dataset, and 3) WSDAqua-core1 (Diefenbach et al. 2020) which to the best of our knowledge, is the only approach evaluated on both QALD and LC-QuAD.”
MethodInfluential
- Authors
- Vakulenko, S., Fernandez Garcia, J. D., Polleres, A., de Rijke, M., & Cochez, M.
- Affiliations
- Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT)
- Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria
- University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-11-03
- Pages
- 1431-1440
- ISSN
- 2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2968990071
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- handle.uba.uva.nl
- Locations
- ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Publikationsdatenbank der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- WU Research (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft (855407)
- H2020 Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions (645751)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
- Keywords
- complex question answering, knowledge graphs, message passing, question parsing, sparse matrix multiplication, join of graphs, answer ranking, LC-QuAD, DBpedia, error analysis
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