Cited by 164

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

KBGAN: Adversarial Learning for Knowledge Graph Embeddings

Cai, Liwei, Wang, William Yang·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)

Overview

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/n18-1133

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 An overview of the KBGAN framework. The generator (G) calculates a probability distribution over a set of candidate negative triples, then sample one triples from the distribution as the output. The discriminator (D) receives the generated negative triple as well as the ground truth triple (in the hexagonal box), and calculates their scores. G minimizes the score of the generated negative triple by policy gradient, and D minimizes the marginal loss between positive and negative triples by gradient descent.
Figure 1 An overview of the KBGAN framework. The generator (G) calculates a probability distribution over a set of candidate negative triples, then sample one triples from the distribution as the output. The discriminator (D) receives the generated negative triple as well as the ground truth triple (in the hexagonal box), and calculates their scores. G minimizes the score of the generated negative triple by policy gradient, and D minimizes the marginal loss between positive and negative triples by gradient descent.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Learning curves of KBGAN. All metrics improve steadily as training proceeds.
Figure 2 Learning curves of KBGAN. All metrics improve steadily as training proceeds.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collab- oratively created graph database for structuring hu- man knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. ACM, pages 1247-1250.
  2. 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. pages 2787-2795.
  3. Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stene- torp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2017. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01476 . · arXiv
  4. Xin Dong, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Geremy Heitz, Wilko Horn, Ni Lao, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Strohmann, Shaohua Sun, and Wei Zhang. 2014. Knowledge vault: A web-scale approach to probabilistic knowl- edge fusion. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, pages 601-610.
  5. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative ad- versarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. pages 2672-2680.
  6. Guoliang Ji, Shizhu He, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Knowledge graph embedding via dy- namic mapping matrix. In The 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  7. Felix Juefei-Xu, Vishnu Naresh Boddeti, and Marios Savvides. 2017. Gang of gans: Generative adversar- ial networks with maximum margin ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04865 . · arXiv
  8. Denis Krompaß, Stephan Baier, and Volker Tresp. 2015. Type-constrained representation learning in knowledge graphs. In International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, pages 640-655.
  9. Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation em- beddings for knowledge graph completion. In The Twenty-ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence. pages 2181-2187.
  10. Mehdi Mirza and Simon Osindero. 2014. Condi- tional generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.01784 .
  11. Tom M Mitchell, William Cohen, Estevam Hruschka, Partha Talukdar, Justin Betteridge, Andrew Carlson, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Matthew Gardner, Bryan Kisiel, Jayant Krishnamurthy, et al. 2015. Never- ending learning. In The Twenty-ninth AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence.
  12. Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, Volker Tresp, and Evgeniy Gabrilovich. 2015. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00759 . · arXiv
  13. Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso Poggio Poggio. 2016. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. In The Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pages 1955-1961.
  14. 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 Learning. pages 809-816.
  15. 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. ACM, pages 697-706.
  16. Richard S Sutton, David A McAllester, Satinder P Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 2000. Policy gradi- ent methods for reinforcement learning with func- tion approximation. In Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems. pages 1057-1063.
  17. Jun Wang, Lantao Yu, Weinan Zhang, Yu Gong, Yinghui Xu, Benyou Wang, Peng Zhang, and Dell Zhang. 2017. Irgan: A minimax game for unifying generative and discriminative information retrieval models. In The 40th International ACM SIGIR Con- ference.
  18. Ronald J Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient- following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning. Machine learning 8(3-4):229-256.
  19. Han Xiao, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2016. From one point to a manifold: Knowledge graph em- bedding for precise link prediction. In The Twenty- Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial In- telligence.
  20. Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. The 3rd International Conference on Learn- ing Representations .
  21. Lantao Yu, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. 2017. Seqgan: Sequence generative adversarial nets with policy gradient. In The Thirty-First AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence. pages 2852-2858.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cai, L., & Wang, W. Y.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)
Published
2018
Pages
1470-1480
Cited by
164
References
5

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