Convolutional 2D Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Open accessAbstract
Link prediction for knowledge graphs is the task of predicting missing relationships between entities. Previous work on link prediction has focused on shallow, fast models which can scale to large knowledge graphs. However, these models learn less expressive features than deep, multi-layer models -- which potentially limits performance. In this work, we introduce ConvE, a multi-layer convolutional network model for link prediction, and report state-of-the-art results for several established datasets. We also show that the model is highly parameter efficient, yielding the same performance as DistMult and R-GCN with 8x and 17x fewer parameters. Analysis of our model suggests that it is particularly effective at modelling nodes with high indegree -- which are common in highly-connected, complex knowledge graphs such as Freebase and YAGO3. In addition, it has been noted that the WN18 and FB15k datasets suffer from test set leakage, due to inverse relations from the training set being present in the test set -- however, the extent of this issue has so far not been quantified. We find this problem to be severe: a simple rule-based model can achieve state-of-the-art results on both WN18 and FB15k. To ensure that models are evaluated on datasets where simply exploiting inverse relations cannot yield competitive results, we investigate and validate several commonly used datasets -- deriving robust variants where necessary. We then perform experiments on these robust datasets for our own and several previously proposed models and find that ConvE achieves state-of-the-art Mean Reciprocal Rank across most datasets.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
On WN18RR, the main relation patterns are symmetry/antisymmetry and composition.
“WN18RR (Dettmers et al., 2017) is a subset of WN18. The inverse relations are deleted, and the main relation patterns are symmetry/antisymmetry and composition .”
From RotatE: Knowledge Graph Embedding by Relational Rotation in Complex Space (2019) · cites this paper as Dettmers et al., 2017
The Knowledge Graph Datasets section (p. 4) says the authors created WN18RR to address inverse-relation leakage in WN18. The Results section (p. 5) says symmetric relationships remain in WN18RR. Our copy does not identify antisymmetry or composition as its main relation patterns. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRotatE treats head and tail entities in a uniform way, which is potentially useful for efficient 1-N scoring.
“In this way, the RotatE model treats head and tail entities in a uniform way, which is potentially useful for efficient 1-N scoring (Dettmers et al., 2017):”
From RotatE: Knowledge Graph Embedding by Relational Rotation in Complex Space (2019) · cites this paper as Dettmers et al., 2017
The “Fast Evaluation for Link Prediction Tasks” section (pp. 3–4) describes efficient 1-N scoring and says the technique can be applied to any 1-1 scoring model. It does not discuss RotatE or say that RotatE treats head and tail entities uniformly, so it supports the scoring-method rationale but not the model-specific assertion. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
RotatE: Knowledge Graph Embedding by Relational Rotation in Complex Space
Sun, Z., Deng, Z.-H., Nie, J.-Y., & Tang, J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.10197 · Cited by 1,414 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 drug repurposing
Zhou, Y., Wang, F., Tang, J., Nussinov, R., & Cheng, F. (2020) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30192-8 · Cited by 636 · see citing works
Semantic embeddings of generic objects for zero-shot learning
Hascoet, T., Ariki, Y., & Takiguchi, T. (2019) · EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing · doi:10.1186/s13640-018-0371-x · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dettmers, T., Minervini, P., Stenetorp, P., & Riedel, S.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2017
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1707.01476
- OpenAlex
- W4300579117
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- University College London
- Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Keywords
- knowledge graph embedding, link prediction, convolutional neural networks, multilayer model, parameter efficiency, inverse relations, Freebase
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