Cited by 178Advanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic ModelingSemantic Web and Ontologies

STransE: a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge bases

Open access
Nguyen, Dat Quoc, Sirts, Kairit, Qu, Lizhen, Johnson, Mark·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Abstract

Dat Quoc Nguyen, Kairit Sirts, Lizhen Qu, Mark Johnson. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2016.

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/n16-1054

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.

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?

  • TransE and its variants FTransE and STransE are not fully expressive because of contradictions they impose between different relation types.

    “They further prove other models are not fully expressive: DistMult, because it cannot model asymmetric relations; and transitive models such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) and its variants FTransE (Feng et al., 2016) and STransE (Nguyen et al., 2016), because of certain contradictions that they impose between different relation types.”

    From TuckER: Tensor Factorization for Knowledge Graph Completion (2019) · cites this paper as Nguyen et al., 2016

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Gabor Angeli and Christopher Manning. 2013. Philoso- phers are Mortal: Inferring the Truth of Unseen Facts. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 133-142.
  2. Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: A Col- laboratively Created Graph Database for Structuring Human Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1247-1250.
  3. Antoine Bordes, Jason Weston, Ronan Collobert, and Yoshua Bengio. 2011. Learning Structured Em- beddings of Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 301-306.
  4. Antoine Bordes, Xavier Glorot, Jason Weston, and Yoshua Bengio. 2012. A Semantic Matching Energy Function for Learning with Multi-relational Data. Ma- chine Learning, 94(2):233-259.
  5. Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi-relational Data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, pages 2787-2795.
  6. John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011. Adaptive Subgradient Methods for Online Learning and Stochastic Optimization. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2121-2159.
  7. Christiane D. Fellbaum. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.
  8. Alberto Garcia-Duran, Antoine Bordes, and Nicolas Usunier. 2015a. Composing Relationships with Translations. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 286-290.
  9. Alberto Garcia-Duran, Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, and Yves Grandvalet. 2015b. Combining Two And Three-Way Embeddings Models for Link Prediction in Knowledge Bases. CoRR, abs/1506.00999. · arXiv
  10. Matt Gardner and Tom Mitchell. 2015. Efficient and Ex- pressive Knowledge Base Completion Using Subgraph Feature Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2015 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1488-1498.
  11. Kelvin Guu, John Miller, and Percy Liang. 2015. Traversing Knowledge Graphs in Vector Space. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 318- 327.
  12. Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Learning to Represent Knowledge Graphs with Gaus- sian Embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM In- ternational on Conference on Information and Knowl- edge Management, pages 623-632.
  13. Rodolphe Jenatton, Nicolas L. Roux, Antoine Bordes, and Guillaume R Obozinski. 2012. A latent factor model for highly multi-relational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pages 3167-3175.
  14. Guoliang Ji, Shizhu He, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Knowledge Graph Embedding via Dy- namic Mapping Matrix. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Pa- pers), pages 687-696.
  15. Denis Krompa, Stephan Baier, and Volker Tresp. 2015. Type-Constrained Representation Learning in Knowl- edge Graphs. In Proceedings of the 14th International Semantic Web Conference, pages 640-655.
  16. Ni Lao, Tom Mitchell, and William W. Cohen. 2011. Random Walk Inference and Learning in a Large Scale Knowledge Base. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 529-539.
  17. Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N. Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick van Kleef, Sören Auer, and Christian Bizer. 2015. DBpedia -A Large-scale, Multilingual Knowledge Base Extracted from Wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195.
  18. Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanbo Luan, Maosong Sun, Siwei Rao, and Song Liu. 2015a. Modeling Rela- tion Paths for Representation Learning of Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 705-714.
  19. Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015b. Learning Entity and Relation Em- beddings for Knowledge Graph Completion. In Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence Learning, pages 2181-2187.
  20. D. C. Liu and J. Nocedal. 1989. On the Limited Memory BFGS Method for Large Scale Optimization. Mathe- matical Programming, 45(3):503-528.
  21. Yuanfei Luo, Quan Wang, Bin Wang, and Li Guo. 2015. Context-Dependent Knowledge Graph Embed- ding. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1656-1661.
  22. Tomas Mikolov, Wen-tau Yih, and Geoffrey Zweig. 2013. Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies, pages 746-751.
  23. Arvind Neelakantan, Benjamin Roth, and Andrew Mc- Callum. 2015. Compositional Vector Space Models for Knowledge Base Completion. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 156-166.
  24. Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A Three-Way Model for Collective Learning on Multi-Relational Data. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, pages 809-816.
  25. Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, Volker Tresp, and Ev- geniy Gabrilovich. 2015. A Review of Relational Ma- chine Learning for Knowledge Graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE, to appear.
  26. Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, Andrew McCallum, and Benjamin M. Marlin. 2013. Relation Extraction with Matrix Factorization and Universal Schemas. In Pro- ceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North Ameri- can Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 74- 84.
  27. Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2013. Reasoning With Neural Ten- sor Networks for Knowledge Base Completion. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, pages 926-934.
  28. Fabian M. Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. 2007. YAGO: A Core of Semantic Knowl- edge. In Proceedings of the 16th International Con- ference on World Wide Web, pages 697-706.
  29. Ben Taskar, Ming fai Wong, Pieter Abbeel, and Daphne Koller. 2004. Link Prediction in Relational Data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 16, pages 659-666.
  30. Kristina Toutanova and Danqi Chen. 2015. Observed Versus Latent Features for Knowledge Base and Text Inference. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Continuous Vector Space Models and their Composi- tionality, pages 57-66.
  31. Kristina Toutanova, Danqi Chen, Patrick Pantel, Hoifung Poon, Pallavi Choudhury, and Michael Gamon. 2015. Representing Text for Joint Embedding of Text and Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the 2015 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1499-1509.
  32. Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014a. Knowledge Graph and Text Jointly Em- bedding. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1591-1601.
  33. Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014b. Knowledge Graph Embedding by Translating on Hyperplanes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 1112-1119.
  34. Robert West, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Kevin Murphy, Shao- hua Sun, Rahul Gupta, and Dekang Lin. 2014. Knowledge Base Completion via Search-based Ques- tion Answering. In Proceedings of the 23rd Interna- tional Conference on World Wide Web, pages 515-526.
  35. Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding Entities and Relations for Learning and Inference in Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
  36. Matthew D. Zeiler. 2012. ADADELTA: An Adaptive Learning Rate Method. CoRR, abs/1212.5701. · arXiv
  37. Yu Zhao, Sheng Gao, Patrick Gallinari, and Jun Guo. 2015. Knowledge Base Completion by Learn- ing Pairwise-Interaction Differentiated Embeddings. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 29(5):1486- 1504.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, D. Q., Sirts, K., Qu, L., & Johnson, M.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Data61 (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Published
2016
Pages
460-466
OpenAlex
W2463781041
Cited by
177
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 4
FWCI
14.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Australian Research Council (DP160102156)
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 base embedding, entity embeddings, knowledge graphs

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