CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 5

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Know-Evolve: Deep Temporal Reasoning for Dynamic Knowledge Graphs

Trivedi, Rakshit, Dai, Hanjun, Wang, Yichen, Song, Le·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1705.05742arXiv 1705.05742
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The availability of large scale event data with time stamps has given rise to dynamically evolving knowledge graphs that contain temporal information for each edge. Reasoning over time in such dynamic knowledge graphs is not yet well understood. To this end, we present Know-Evolve, a novel deep evolutionary knowledge network that learns non-linearly evolving entity representations over time. The occurrence of a fact (edge) is modeled as a multivariate point process whose intensity function is modulated by the score for that fact computed based on the learned entity embeddings. We demonstrate significantly improved performance over various relational learning approaches on two large scale real-world datasets. Further, our method effectively predicts occurrence or recurrence time of a fact which is novel compared to prior reasoning approaches in multi-relational setting.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1705.05742

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • [Trivedi et al., 2017] uses a conditional intensity function implemented as the factual score to infer the time of the next fact occurrence given previously occurred facts.

    “The model uses a conditional intensity function, which is implemented as the factual score measured with entity/relation representations, to infer the time of the next fact occurrence, given previously occurred facts.”

    From Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as Trivedi et al., 2017

    Section 3.1 defines a conditional intensity for a fact’s occurrence using prior events, and Section 5.3 uses the model to predict when that fact will next occur. Section 3.2 computes a relational compatibility score from entity embeddings and a relation matrix. The score modulates the intensity; it is not itself the conditional intensity function, which also includes a time-dependent factor. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • [Trivedi et al., 2017] learns representations of the fact's head and tail entities at τ as the output of two separate RNNs.

    “Meanwhile, the representations of the fact's head entity and tail entity at τ are learned as the output of two separate RNNs, respectively.”

    From Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as Trivedi et al., 2017

    Section 3.3, Eqs. (5)–(6), gives separate recurrent update equations for the subject (head) and object (tail) entity embeddings. But it says the recurrent parameters W_hh and W_h are shared, so describing these as two separate RNNs overstates the distinction. The indexed passage has no page number. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • [Trivedi et al., 2017] models the occurrence of facts as a multidimensional temporal point process representing complex co-evolution of multiple dynamic events.

    “[Trivedi et al., 2017] models the occurrence of facts as a multidimensional temporal point process, which represents the complex co-evolution of multiple dynamic events.”

    From Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as Trivedi et al., 2017

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Aalen, Odd, Borgan, Ornulf, and Gjessing, Hakon. Sur- vival and event history analysis: a process point of view. Springer, 2008.
  2. Bordes, Antoine, Weston, Jason, Collobert, Ronan, and Bengio, Yoshua. Learning structured embeddings of knowledge bases. In Conference on Artificial Intelligence, number EPFL-CONF-192344, 2011.
  3. Bordes, Antoine, Usunier, Nicolas, Garcia-Duran, Alberto, Weston, Jason, and Yakhnenko, Oksana. Translating em- beddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 2787-2795, 2013.
  4. Dai, Hanjun, Dai, Bo, and Song, Le. Discriminative em- beddings of latent variable models for structured data. In ICML, 2016a.
  5. Dai, Hanjun, Wang, Yichen, Trivedi, Rakshit, and Song, Le. Deep coevolutionary network: Embedding user and item features for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03675, 2016b. · arXiv
  6. Daley, D.J. and Vere-Jones, D. An introduction to the the- ory of point processes: volume II: general theory and structure, volume 2. Springer, 2007.
  7. Dong, Xin, Gabrilovich, Evgeniy, Heitz, Geremy, Horn, Wilko, Lao, Ni, Murphy, Kevin, Strohmann, Thomas, Sun, Shaohua, and Zhang, Wei. Knowledge vault: A web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 601-610, 2014.
  8. Du, Nan, Wang, Yichen, He, Niao, and Song, Le. Time sensitive recommendation from recurrent user activities. In NIPS, 2015.
  9. Du, Nan, Dai, Hanjun, Trivedi, Rakshit, Upadhyay, Utkarsh, Gomez-Rodriguez, Manuel, and Song, Le. Recurrent marked temporal point processes: Embedding event his- tory to vector. In KDD, 2016.
  10. Esteban, Cristobal, Tresp, Volker, Yang, Yinchong, Baier, Stephan, and Krompa, Denis. Predicting the co-evolution of event and knowledge graphs. In 2016 19th Interna- tional Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), pp. 98-105, 2016.
  11. Farajtabar, Mehrdad, Du, Nan, Gomez-Rodriguez, Manuel, Valera, Isabel, Zha, Hongyuan, and Song, Le. Shaping social activity by incentivizing users. In NIPS, 2014.
  12. Farajtabar, Mehrdad, Wang, Yichen, Gomez-Rodriguez, Manuel, Li, Shuang, Zha, Hongyuan, and Song, Le. Coe- volve: A joint point process model for information diffu- sion and network co-evolution. In NIPS, 2015.
  13. Gutmann, Michael U and Hyvärinen, Aapo. Noise- contrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(Feb):307-361, 2012.
  14. Hawkes, Alan G. Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes. Biometrika, 58(1):83-90, 1971.
  15. Hidasi, Balazs, Karatzoglou, Alexandros, Baltrunas, Linas, and Tikk, Domonkos. Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. In ICLR, 2016.
  16. Liu, Quan, Jiang, Hui, Evdokimov, Andrew, Ling, Zhen- Hua, Zhu, Xiaodan, Wei, Si, and Hu, Yu. Probabilistic reasoning via deep learning: Neural association models. arXiv:1603.07704v2, 2016. · arXiv
  17. Loglisci, Corrado and Malerba, Donato. Leveraging tempo- ral autocorrelation of historical data for improving accu- racy in network regression. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 10(1):40-53, 2017.
  18. Nickel, Maximilian, Tresp, Volker, and Kriegel, Hans- Peter. A three-way model for collective learning on multi- relational data. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11), pp. 809- 816, 2011.
  19. Nickel, Maximilian, Murphy, Kevin, Tresp, Volker, and Gabrilovich, Evgeniy. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2016a.
  20. Schein, Aaron, Zhou, Mingyuan, Blei, David, and Wal- lach, Hanna. Bayesian poisson tucker decomposi- tion for learning the structure of international relations. arXiv:1606.01855, 2016. · arXiv
  21. Sharan, Umang and Neville, Jennifer. Temporal-relational classifiers for prediction in evolving domains. In 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 540-549, 2008.
  22. Socher, Richard, Chen, Danqi, Manning, Christopher D, and Ng, Andrew. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 926-934, 2013.
  23. Wang, Yichen, Du, Nan, Trivedi, Rakshit, and Song, Le. Coevolutionary latent feature processes for continuous- time user-item interactions. In NIPS, 2016a.
  24. Wang, Yichen, Theodorou, Evangelos, Verma, Apurv, and Song, Le. A stochastic differential equation framework for guiding online user activities in closed loop. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.09021, 2016b. · arXiv
  25. Wang, Yichen, Xie, Bo, Du, Nan, and Song, Le. Isotonic hawkes processes. In ICML, 2016c.
  26. Wang, Yichen, Williams, Grady, Theodorou, Evangelos, and Song, Le. Variational policy for guiding point processes. In ICML, 2017a.
  27. Yang, Bishan, Yih, Wen-tau, He, Xiaodong, Gao, Jianfeng, and Deng, Li. Embedding entities and relations for learn- ing and inference in knowledge bases. arXiv:1412.6575, 2015. · arXiv
  28. Yang, Shuang-Hong and Zha, Hongyuan. Mixture of mutu- ally exciting processes for viral diffusion. In ICML, pp. 1-9, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Trivedi, R., Dai, H., Wang, Y., & Song, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1705.05742
arXiv
1705.05742
References
2
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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