Cited by 218Advanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic ModelingSemantic Web and Ontologies

ProjE: Embedding Projection for Knowledge Graph Completion

Open access
Shi, Baoxu, Weninger, Tim·2017·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

With the large volume of new information created every day, determining the validity of information in a knowledge graph and filling in its missing parts are crucial tasks for many researchers and practitioners. To address this challenge, a number of knowledge graph completion methods have been developed using low-dimensional graph embeddings. Although researchers continue to improve these models using an increasingly complex feature space, we show that simple changes in the architecture of the underlying model can outperform state-of-the-art models without the need for complex feature engineering. In this work, we present a shared variable neural network model called ProjE that fills-in missing information in a knowledge graph by learning joint embeddings of the knowledge graph’s entities and edges, and through subtle, but important, changes to the standard loss function. In doing so, ProjE has a parameter size that is smaller than 11 out of 15 existing methods while performing 37% better than the current-best method on standard datasets. We also show, via a new fact checking task, that ProjE is capable of accurately determining the veracity of many declarative statements.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10677

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Compared with TransE, ProjE saves many transformation matrix calculations because of its combination operations.

    “Compared with TransE, ProjE saves many transformation matrix calculations because of the combination operations”

    From A Survey on Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [176]

    The Model Architecture section (p. 3) describes ProjE’s combination operator and its diagonal matrices. It does not say that this saves transformation-matrix calculations compared with TransE; instead, it says ProjE has additional parameters relative to TransE. The claimed computational saving is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ProjE complements missing information in a knowledge graph by learning joint embeddings of entities and edges and modifying the loss function, improving the KGE model through trivial changes to the network architecture and eliminating complex feature engineering.

    “ProjE [176] complements the missing information in a KG by learning the joint embedding of the entities and edges and making modifications to the loss function, thus improving the KGE model through trivial changes to the network architecture and eliminating complex feature engineering.”

    From A Survey on Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [176]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Adamic, L. A., and Adar, E. 2003. Friends and neighbors on the Web. Social Networks 25(3):211-230.
  2. Bordes, A.; Weston, J.; Collobert, R.; and Bengio, Y. 2011. Learning Structured Embeddings of Knowledge Bases. AAAI .
  3. Bordes, A.; Glorot, X.; Weston, J.; and Bengio, Y. 2012. Joint Learning of Words and Meaning Representations for Open-Text Semantic Parsing. AISTATS 127-135.
  4. Bordes, A.; Usunier, N.; García-Durán, A.; Weston, J.; and Yakhnenko, O. 2013. Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi-relational Data. In NIPS , 2787-2795.
  5. Cucerzan, S. 2007. Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In EMNLP-CoNLL , volume 7, 708716.
  6. Dong, X.; Gabrilovich, E.; Heitz, G.; Horn, W.; Lao, N.; Murphy, K.; Strohmann, T.; Sun, S.; and Zhang, W. 2014. Knowledge vault: a web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion. In SIGKDD .
  7. García-Durán, A.; Bordes, A.; and Usunier, N. 2015. Composing Relationships with Translations. EMNLP 286-290.
  8. Gong, Y.; Jia, Y.; Leung, T.; Toshev, A.; and Ioffe, S. 2013. Deep convolutional ranking for multilabel image annotation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4894 . · arXiv
  9. Guillaumin, M.; Mensink, T.; Verbeek, J.; and Schmid, C. 2009. Tagprop: Discriminative metric learning in nearest neighbor models for image auto-annotation. In ICCV , 309316. IEEE.
  10. Gutmann, M., and Hyvärinen, A. 2010. Noise-contrastive estimation: A new estimation principle for unnormalized statistical models. In AISTATS , 297-304.
  11. Jean, S.; Cho, K.; Memisevic, R.; and Bengio, Y. 2015. On Using Very Large Target Vocabulary for Neural Machine Translation. ACL 1-10.
  12. Jeh, G., and Widom, J. 2002. SimRank: a measure of structural context similarity. In KDD , 538-543.
  13. Jenatton, R.; Le Roux, N.; Bordes, A.; and Obozinski, G. 2012. A latent factor model for highly multi-relational data. NIPS 3176-3184.
  14. Jia, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lin, H.; Jin, X.; and Cheng, X. 2016. Locally Adaptive Translation for Knowledge Graph Embedding. In AAAI .
  15. Kilicoglu, H.; Shin, D.; Fiszman, M.; Rosemblat, G.; and Rindflesch, T. C. 2012. SemMedDB: a PubMed-scale repository of biomedical semantic predications. Bioinformatics 28(23):3158-3160.
  16. Lao, N., and Cohen, W. W. 2010. Relational retrieval using a combination of path-constrained random walks. ML 81(1):53-67.
  17. Lehmann, J.; Isele, R.; and Jakob, M. 2014. DBpedia a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from Wikipedia. Semantic Web 5(1):167-195.
  18. Lin, Y.; Liu, Z.; Sun, M.; Liu, Y.; and Zhu, X. 2015. Learning Entity and Relation Embeddings for Knowledge Graph Completion. In AAAI , 2181-2187.
  19. Lin, Y.; Liu, Z.; and Sun, M. 2015. Modeling Relation Paths for Representation Learning of Knowledge Bases. EMNLP 705-714.
  20. Mikolov, T.; Sutskever, I.; Chen, K.; Corrado, G. S.; and Dean, J. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS .
  21. Neelakantan, A.; Roth, B.; and McCallum, A. 2015. Compositional Vector Space Models for Knowledge Base Inference. AAAI .
  22. Nickel, M.; Murphy, K.; Tresp, V.; and Gabrilovich, E. 2015. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs: From multi-relational link prediction to automated knowledge graph construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00759 . · arXiv
  23. Nickel, M.; Rosasco, L.; and Tomaso, P. 2016. Holographic Embeddings of Knowledge Graphs. In AAAI .
  24. Nickel, M.; Tresp, V.; and Kriegel, H.-P. 2011. A Three-Way Model for Collective Learning on Multi-Relational Data. In ICML , 809-816.
  25. Pareek, H. H., and Ravikumar, P. K. 2014. A representation theory for ranking functions. In NIPS , 361-369.
  26. Socher, R.; Chen, D.; Manning, C. D.; and Ng, A. Y. 2013. Reasoning With Neural Tensor Networks for Knowledge Base Completion. In NIPS , 926-934.
  27. Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Feng, J.; and Chen, Z. 2014. Knowledge Graph Embedding by Translating on Hyperplanes. AAAI 1112-1119.
  28. Xie, R.; Liu, Z.; Jia, J.; Luan, H.; and Sun, M. 2016. Representation Learning of Knowledge Graphs with Entity Descriptions . AAAI 189-205.
  29. Zhou, T.; Ren, J.; Medo, M.; and Zhang, Y.-C. 2007. Bipartite network projection and personal recommendation. Phys. Rev. E 76(4):046-115.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shi, B., & Weninger, T.
Affiliations
University of Notre Dame (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2017-02-12
Volume
31
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W2556343638
Cited by
218
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 4
FWCI
11.48
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
Keywords
knowledge graph completion, loss function design, parameter efficiency, fact-checking

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