Cited by 92Topic ModelingAdvanced Graph Neural NetworksMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

JointGT: Graph-Text Joint Representation Learning for Text Generation from Knowledge Graphs

Open access
Ke, Pei, Ji, Haozhe, Ran, Yu, Cui, Xin, Wang, Liwei, Song, Linfeng, Zhu, Xiaoyan, Huang, Minlie·2021·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021

Abstract

Existing pre-trained models for knowledgegraph-to-text (KG-to-text) generation simply fine-tune text-to-text pre-trained models such as BART or T5 on KG-to-text datasets, which largely ignore the graph structure during encoding and lack elaborate pre-training tasks to explicitly model graph-text alignments.To tackle these problems, we propose a graph-text joint representation learning model called JointGT.During encoding, we devise a structure-aware semantic aggregation module which is plugged into each Transformer layer to preserve the graph structure.Furthermore, we propose three new pre-training tasks to explicitly enhance the graph-text alignment including respective text / graph reconstruction, and graph-text alignment in the embedding space via Optimal Transport.Experiments show that JointGT obtains new stateof-the-art performance on various KG-to-text datasets 1 .

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 · 10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.223

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • Tasks are more difficult; more abstract multimodal tasks are proposed.

    “Tasks are more difficult.Beyond the straightforward tasks, more abstract multimodal tasks are proposed, e.g., MultiMET [153] (a multimodal dataset for metaphor understanding), Hateful Memes [154] (hate speech in multimodal memes).”

    From Multimodal learning with transformers: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as [154]

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

3 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Thiago Castro Ferreira, Chris van der Lee, Emiel van Miltenburg, and Emiel Krahmer. 2019. Neural data- to-text generation: A comparison between pipeline and end-to-end architectures. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 552-562.
  2. Diego Marcheggiani and Laura Perez-Beltrachini. 2018. Deep graph convolutional encoders for struc- tured data to text generation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 1-9.
  3. Tomás Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Gregory S. Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Distributed rep- resentations of words and phrases and their compo- sitionality. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, pages 3111-3119.
  4. Linfeng Song, Ante Wang, Jinsong Su, Yue Zhang, Kun Xu, Yubin Ge, and Dong Yu. 2020. Struc- tural information preserving for graph-to-text gen- eration. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7987-7998.
  5. Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: en- hanced language representation with informative en- tities. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1441-1451.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ke, P., Ji, H., Ran, Y., Cui, X., Wang, L., Song, L., Zhu, X., & Huang, M.
Affiliations
  • State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems (CN)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Tencent (China) (CN)
Corresponding author
Huang, Minlie
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021
Published
2021
Pages
2526-2538
OpenAlex
W3176175717
Cited by
92
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61876096, 61936010)
  • Tsinghua University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
pre-training tasks, textual reconstruction, graph reconstruction, optimal transport

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