CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 51Advanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic ModelingSemantic Web and Ontologies

A survey of embedding models of entities and relationships for knowledge graph completion

Open access
Nguyen, Dat Quoc·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1703.08098arXiv 1703.08098
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Knowledge graphs (KGs) of real-world facts about entities and their relationships are useful resources for a variety of natural language processing tasks. However, because knowledge graphs are typically incomplete, it is useful to perform knowledge graph completion or link prediction, i.e. predict whether a relationship not in the knowledge graph is likely to be true. This paper serves as a comprehensive survey of embedding models of entities and relationships for knowledge graph completion, summarizing up-to-date experimental results on standard benchmark datasets and pointing out potential future research directions.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1703.08098

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?

  • STransE, ConvKB and CapsE use transfer learning and require embeddings pre-trained on TransE.

    “We also note that STransE [42], ConvKB [41] and CapsE [43] use transfer learning and require embeddings pre-trained on TransE [8].”

    From Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [41]

    Section 4.2 (page unavailable) says CapsE uses pre-trained word embeddings to initialize entity vectors on WN18RR. It does not say those embeddings were pre-trained on TransE or that they are required. Section 3.1 describes STransE and ConvKB but does not establish transfer learning or a TransE pre-training requirement for either model. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The paper does not include pre-training times in its measurements for STransE, ConvKB and CapsE.

    “As already mentioned, STransE [42], ConvKB [41] and CapsE [43] require embeddings pre-trained on TransE [8]; we do not include pre-training times in our measurements.”

    From Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [41]

    The survey’s Tables 3 and 4 (Additional information; page unavailable) report entity-prediction results, not training-time measurements. A search for pre-training times and their exclusion found no passage addressing either. In the citing sentence, “we do not include pre-training times in our measurements” describes the citing authors’ own measurements, rather than a finding attributed to this survey. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • ConvKB and CapsE are the only models that require multiple batches for running one prediction, and this may have negatively affected their prediction performance.

    “we note that ConvKB [41] and CapsE [43] are the only models that require multiple batches for running one prediction, and this may have negatively affected their prediction performance.”

    From Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [41]

    The survey’s Table 4 (Additional information; page unavailable) lists entity-prediction results for ConvKB and CapsE, but does not describe their batching requirements. A search of our copy for multiple batches and their possible effect on prediction performance found no passage addressing either point. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 107

  1. Eneko Agirre, Oier López de Lacalle, and Aitor Soroa. 2013. Random Walks for Knowledge-Based Word Sense Disambiguation. Computational Linguistics, 40(1):57-84.
  2. Ricardo A. Baeza-Yates and Berthier A. Ribeiro-Neto. 2011. Modern Information Retrieval -the concepts and technology behind search, Second edition. Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow, England.
  3. Ivana Balažević, Carl Allen, and Timothy M Hospedales. 2019. Hypernetwork knowledge graph embeddings. In ICANN, pages 553-565.
  4. Ivana Balazevic, Carl Allen, and Timothy Hospedales. 2019. TuckER: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 5185-5194.
  5. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic Parsing on Freebase from Question-Answer Pairs. In EMNLP, pages 1533-1544.
  6. Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: A Collaboratively Created Graph Database for Structuring Human Knowledge. In SIGMOD, pages 1247-1250.
  7. Antoine Bordes, Jason Weston, Ronan Collobert, and Yoshua Bengio. 2011. Learning Structured Embeddings of Knowledge Bases. In AAAI, pages 301-306.
  8. Antoine Bordes, Xavier Glorot, Jason Weston, and Yoshua Bengio. 2012. A Semantic Matching Energy Function for Learning with Multi-relational Data. Machine Learning, 94(2):233-259.
  9. Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translat- ing Embeddings for Modeling Multi-relational Data. In NIPS, pages 2787-2795.
  10. Liwei Cai and William Yang Wang. 2018. KBGAN: Adversarial Learning for Knowledge Graph Embeddings. In NAACL-HLT, pages 1470-1480.
  11. Andrew Carlson, Justin Betteridge, Bryan Kisiel, Burr Settles, Estevam R. Hruschka, Jr., and Tom M. Mitchell. 2010. Toward an Architecture for Never-ending Language Learning. In AAAI, pages 1306-1313.
  12. L. Chang, M. Zhu, T. Gu, C. Bin, J. Qian, and J. Zhang. 2017. Knowledge Graph Embedding by Dynamic Translation. IEEE Access, 5:20898-20907.
  13. Wenhu Chen, Wenhan Xiong, Xifeng Yan, and William Yang Wang. 2018. Variational knowledge graph reason- ing. In NAACL-HLT, pages 1823-1832.
  14. Rajarshi Das, Arvind Neelakantan, David Belanger, and Andrew McCallum. 2017. Chains of Reasoning over Entities, Relations, and Text using Recurrent Neural Networks. In EACL, pages 132-141.
  15. Rajarshi Das, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Manzil Zaheer, Luke Vilnis, Ishan Durugkar, Akshay Krishnamurthy, Alex Smola, and Andrew McCallum. 2018. Go for a Walk and Arrive at the Answer: Reasoning Over Paths in Knowledge Bases using Reinforcement Learning. In ICLR.
  16. Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2D Knowledge Graph Embeddings. In AAAI, pages 1811-1818.
  17. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirec- tional transformers for language understanding. In NAACL-HLT, pages 4171-4186.
  18. 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 knowledge fusion. In KDD, pages 601-610.
  19. Alberto García Durán and Mathias Niepert. 2018. KBLRN: End-to-end learning of knowledge base representa- tions with latent, relational, and numerical features. In UAI.
  20. Sourav Dutta and Gerhard Weikum. 2015. Cross-Document Co-Reference Resolution using Sample-Based Clus- tering with Knowledge Enrichment. Transactions of ACL, 3:15-28.
  21. Takuma Ebisu and Ryutaro Ichise. 2018. TorusE: Knowledge Graph Embedding on a Lie Group. In AAAI, pages 1819-1826.
  22. Anthony Fader, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Oren Etzioni. 2014. Open Question Answering over Curated and Extracted Knowledge Bases. In KDD, pages 1156-1165.
  23. Joshua Feldman, Joe Davison, and Alexander M. Rush. 2019. Commonsense Knowledge Mining from Pretrained Models. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 1173-1178.
  24. Christiane D. Fellbaum. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.
  25. Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Mingdong Wang, Mantong Zhou, Yu Hao, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2016a. Knowledge graph embedding by flexible translation. In KR, pages 557-560.
  26. Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Yang Yang, and xiaoyan zhu. 2016b. GAKE: Graph Aware Knowledge Embedding. In COLING, pages 641-651.
  27. David Angelo Ferrucci. 2012. Introduction to "This is Watson". IBM Journal of Research and Development, 56(3):235-249.
  28. Alberto García-Durán, Antoine Bordes, and Nicolas Usunier. 2015. Composing Relationships with Translations. In EMNLP, pages 286-290.
  29. Alberto García-Durán, Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, and Yves Grandvalet. 2016. Combining Two and Three- Way Embedding Models for Link Prediction in Knowledge Bases. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 55:715-742.
  30. Matt Gardner and Tom Mitchell. 2015. Efficient and Expressive Knowledge Base Completion Using Subgraph Feature Extraction. In EMNLP, pages 1488-1498.
  31. Matt Gardner, Partha P. Talukdar, Jayant Krishnamurthy, and Tom M. Mitchell. 2014. Incorporating Vector Space Similarity in Random Walk Inference over Knowledge Bases. In EMNLP, pages 397-406.
  32. Shu Guo, Quan Wang, Lihong Wang, Bin Wang, and Li Guo. 2016. Jointly embedding knowledge graphs and logical rules. In EMNLP, pages 192-202.
  33. Kelvin Guu, John Miller, and Percy Liang. 2015. Traversing Knowledge Graphs in Vector Space. In EMNLP, pages 318-327.
  34. Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Learning to Represent Knowledge Graphs with Gaussian Embedding. In CIKM, pages 623-632.
  35. Ruining He, Wang-Cheng Kang, and Julian McAuley. 2017. Translation-based recommendation. In RecSys, page 161169.
  36. Rodolphe Jenatton, Nicolas L. Roux, Antoine Bordes, and Guillaume R Obozinski. 2012. A latent factor model for highly multi-relational data. In NIPS, pages 3167-3175.
  37. Guoliang Ji, Shizhu He, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Knowledge Graph Embedding via Dynamic Mapping Matrix. In ACL-IJCNLP, pages 687-696.
  38. Guoliang Ji, Kang Liu, Shizhu He, and Jun Zhao. 2016. Knowledge Graph Completion with Adaptive Sparse Transfer Matrix. In AAAI, pages 985-991.
  39. Seyed Mehran Kazemi and David Poole. 2018. Simple embedding for link prediction in knowledge graphs. In NIPS, pages 4284-4295.
  40. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In ICLR.
  41. Jayant Krishnamurthy and Tom Mitchell. 2012. Weakly Supervised Training of Semantic Parsers. In EMNLP- CoNLL, pages 754-765.
  42. Denis Krompaß, Stephan Baier, and Volker Tresp. 2015. Type-Constrained Representation Learning in Knowl- edge Graphs. In ISWC, pages 640-655.
  43. Timothée Lacroix, Nicolas Usunier, and Guillaume Obozinski. 2018. Canonical Tensor Decomposition for Knowledge Base Completion. In ICML, pages 2869-2878.
  44. Ni Lao and William W. Cohen. 2010. Relational retrieval using a combination of path-constrained random walks. Machine Learning, 81(1):53-67.
  45. Ni Lao, Tom Mitchell, and William W. Cohen. 2011. Random Walk Inference and Learning in a Large Scale Knowledge Base. In EMNLP, pages 529-539.
  46. Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N. Mendes, Sebastian Hell- mann, 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.
  47. Chen Liang and Kenneth D. Forbus. 2015. Learning Plausible Inferences from Semantic Web Knowledge by Combining Analogical Generalization with Structured Logistic Regression. In AAAI, pages 551-557.
  48. Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanbo Luan, Maosong Sun, Siwei Rao, and Song Liu. 2015a. Modeling Relation Paths for Representation Learning of Knowledge Bases. In EMNLP, pages 705-714.
  49. Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015b. Learning Entity and Relation Embed- dings for Knowledge Graph Completion. In AAAI, pages 2181-2187.
  50. Qiao Liu, Liuyi Jiang, Minghao Han, Yao Liu, and Zhiguang Qin. 2016. Hierarchical Random Walk Inference in Knowledge Graphs. In SIGIR, pages 445-454.
  51. Hanxiao Liu, Yuexin Wu, and Yiming Yang. 2017. Analogical Inference for Multi-relational Embeddings. In ICML, pages 2168-2178.
  52. Yuanfei Luo, Quan Wang, Bin Wang, and Li Guo. 2015. Context-Dependent Knowledge Graph Embedding. In EMNLP, pages 1656-1661.
  53. Sahisnu Mazumder and Bing Liu. 2017. Context-aware Path Ranking for Knowledge Base Completion. In IJCAI, pages 1195-1201.
  54. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality. In NIPS, pages 3111-3119.
  55. George A. Miller. 1995. WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39-41.
  56. Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In ACL, pages 4710-4723.
  57. Roberto Navigli and Paola Velardi. 2005. Structural Semantic Interconnections: A Knowledge-Based Approach to Word Sense Disambiguation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27(7):1075- 1086.
  58. Arvind Neelakantan, Benjamin Roth, and Andrew McCallum. 2015. Compositional Vector Space Models for Knowledge Base Completion. In ACL-IJCNLP, pages 156-166.
  59. Dat Quoc Nguyen, Kairit Sirts, Lizhen Qu, and Mark Johnson. 2016a. Neighborhood Mixture Model for Knowl- edge Base Completion. In CoNLL, pages 40-50.
  60. Dat Quoc Nguyen, Kairit Sirts, Lizhen Qu, and Mark Johnson. 2016b. STransE: a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge bases. In NAACL-HLT, pages 460-466.
  61. Dai Quoc Nguyen, Tu Dinh Nguyen, Dat Quoc Nguyen, and Dinh Phung. 2018. A Novel Embedding Model for Knowledge Base Completion Based on Convolutional Neural Network. In NAACL-HLT, pages 327-333.
  62. Dai Quoc Nguyen, Thanh Vu, Tu Dinh Nguyen, Dat Quoc Nguyen, and Dinh Phung. 2019. A Capsule Network- based Embedding Model for Knowledge Graph Completion and Search Personalization. In NAACL-HLT, pages pages 2180-2189.
  63. Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A Three-Way Model for Collective Learning on Multi-Relational Data. In ICML, pages 809-816.
  64. Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, Volker Tresp, and Evgeniy Gabrilovich. 2016a. A Review of Relational Machine Learning for Knowledge Graphs. the IEEE, 104(1):11-33.
  65. Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso Poggio. 2016b. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. In AAAI, pages 1955-1961.
  66. Mathias Niepert. 2016. Discriminative Gaifman Models. In NIPS, pages 3405-3413.
  67. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global Vectors for Word Represen- tation. In EMNLP, pages 1532-1543.
  68. Simone Paolo Ponzetto and Michael Strube. 2006. Exploiting Semantic Role Labeling, WordNet and Wikipedia for Coreference Resolution. In NAACL, pages 192-199.
  69. Sara Sabour, Nicholas Frosst, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2017. Dynamic Routing Between Capsules. In NIPS, pages 3856-3866.
  70. Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networks. In ESWC, pages 593-607.
  71. Chao Shang, Yun Tang, Jing Huang, Jinbo Bi, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2019. End-to-end Structure-Aware Convolutional Networks for Knowledge Base Completion. In AAAI, pages 3060-3067.
  72. Yelong Shen, Po-Sen Huang, Ming-Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. 2017. Modeling Large-Scale Structured Rela- tionships with Shared Memory for Knowledge Base Completion. In Rep4NLP, pages 57-68.
  73. Baoxu Shi and Tim Weninger. 2017. ProjE: Embedding Projection for Knowledge Graph Completion. In AAAI, pages 1236-1242.
  74. Baoxu Shi and Tim Weninger. 2018. Open-world knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 1957-1964.
  75. Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2013. Reasoning With Neural Tensor Networks for Knowledge Base Completion. In NIPS, pages 926-934.
  76. Fabian M. Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. 2007. YAGO: A Core of Semantic Knowledge. In WWW, pages 697-706.
  77. Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. RotatE: Knowledge Graph Embedding by Relational Rotation in Complex Space. In ICLR.
  78. C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. In CVPR, pages 2818-2826.
  79. Ryo Takahashi, Ran Tian, and Kentaro Inui. 2018. Interpretable and Compositional Relation Learning by Joint Training with an Autoencoder. In ACL, pages 2148-2159.
  80. Yi Tay, Anh Tuan Luu, Siu Cheung Hui, and Falk Brauer. 2017. Random Semantic Tensor Ensemble for Scalable Knowledge Graph Link Prediction. In WSDM, pages 751-760.
  81. Kristina Toutanova and Danqi Chen. 2015. Observed Versus Latent Features for Knowledge Base and Text Inference. In CVSC, pages 57-66.
  82. Kristina Toutanova, Victoria Lin, Wen-tau Yih, Hoifung Poon, and Chris Quirk. 2016. Compositional Learning of Embeddings for Relation Paths in Knowledge Base and Text. In ACL, pages 1434-1444.
  83. Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex Embeddings for Simple Link Prediction. In ICML, pages 2071-2080.
  84. Cunchao Tu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2017. TransNet: Translation-Based Network Representation Learning for Social Relation Extraction. In IJCAI, pages 2864-2870.
  85. Shikhar Vashishth, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, Nilesh Agrawal, and Partha Talukdar. 2020. InteractE: Improv- ing Convolution-based Knowledge Graph Embeddings by Increasing Feature Interactions. In AAAI.
  86. Petar Velikovi, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Li, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In ICLR.
  87. Thanh Vu, Dat Quoc Nguyen, Mark Johnson, Dawei Song, and Alistair Willis. 2017. Search Personalization with Embeddings. In ECIR, pages 598-604.
  88. Zhigang Wang and Juan-Zi Li. 2016. Text-Enhanced Representation Learning for Knowledge Graph. In IJCAI, pages 1293-1299.
  89. Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge Graph Embedding by Translating on Hyperplanes. In AAAI, pages 1112-1119.
  90. Quan Wang, Jing Liu, Yuanfei Luo, Bin Wang, and Chin-Yew Lin. 2016. Knowledge Base Completion via Coupled Path Ranking. In ACL, pages 1308-1318.
  91. Q. Wang, Z. Mao, B. Wang, and L. Guo. 2017. Knowledge graph embedding: A survey of approaches and applications. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(12):2724-2743.
  92. Zhuoyu Wei, Jun Zhao, and Kang Liu. 2016. Mining Inference Formulas by Goal-Directed Random Walks. In EMNLP, pages 1379-1388.
  93. Robert West, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Kevin Murphy, Shaohua Sun, Rahul Gupta, and Dekang Lin. 2014. Knowl- edge Base Completion via Search-based Question Answering. In WWW, pages 515-526.
  94. Jason Weston and Antoine Bordes. 2014. Embedding Methods for NLP. In EMNLP 2014 tutorial.
  95. Han Xiao, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2016. TransG : A Generative Model for Knowledge Graph Embed- ding. In ACL, pages 2316-2325.
  96. Han Xiao, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2017. SSP: semantic space projection for knowledge graph embed- ding with text descriptions. In AAAI, pages 3104-3110.
  97. Qizhe Xie, Xuezhe Ma, Zihang Dai, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. An Interpretable Knowledge Transfer Model for Knowledge Base Completion. In ACL, pages 950-962.
  98. Zhiwen Xie, Guangyou Zhou, Jin Liu, and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2020. ReInceptionE: Relation-aware inception network with joint local-global structural information for knowledge graph embedding. In ACL, pages 5929- 5939.
  99. Canran Xu and Ruijiang Li. 2019. Relation Embedding with Dihedral Group in Knowledge Graph. In ACL, pages 263-272.
  100. 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 ICLR.
  101. Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W Cohen. 2017. Differentiable Learning of Logical Rules for Knowledge Base Reasoning. In NIPS, pages 2316-2325.
  102. Wenpeng Yin, Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh, and Hinrich Schütze. 2018. Recurrent One-Hop Predictions for Reason- ing over Knowledge Graphs. In COLING, pages 2369-2378.
  103. Hee-Geun Yoon, Hyun-Je Song, Seong-Bae Park, and Se-Young Park. 2016. A Translation-Based Knowledge Graph Embedding Preserving Logical Property of Relations. In NAACL-HLT, pages 907-916.
  104. Fuzheng Zhang, Nicholas Jing Yuan, Defu Lian, Xing Xie, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2016. Collaborative knowledge base embedding for recommender systems. In KDD, page 353362.
  105. Hanwang Zhang, Zawlin Kyaw, Shih-Fu Chang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Visual translation embedding network for visual relation detection. In CVPR, pages 5532-5540.
  106. Shuai Zhang, Yi Tay, Lina Yao, and Qi Liu. 2019. Quaternion knowledge graph embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pages 2735-2745.
  107. Yuyu Zhang, Xinshi Chen, Yuan Yang, Arun Ramamurthy, Bo Li, Yuan Qi, and Le Song. 2020. Efficient proba- bilistic logic reasoning with graph neural networks. In ICLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, D. Q.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Nguyen, Dat Quoc
ORCID
Nguyen, Dat Quoc
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
Pages
1-14
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1703.08098
arXiv
1703.08098
OpenAlex
W3048357673
Cited by
51
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.20
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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, link prediction, entity embeddings, knowledge graphs, incomplete knowledge graphs, embedding models

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