CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 476Advanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic ModelingTensor decomposition and applications

SimplE Embedding for Link Prediction in Knowledge Graphs

Open access
Kazemi, Seyed Mehran, Poole, David·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1802.04868arXiv 1802.04868
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Knowledge graphs contain knowledge about the world and provide a structured representation of this knowledge. Current knowledge graphs contain only a small subset of what is true in the world. Link prediction approaches aim at predicting new links for a knowledge graph given the existing links among the entities. Tensor factorization approaches have proved promising for such link prediction problems. Proposed in 1927, Canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition is among the first tensor factorization approaches. CP generally performs poorly for link prediction as it learns two independent embedding vectors for each entity, whereas they are really tied. We present a simple enhancement of CP (which we call SimplE) to allow the two embeddings of each entity to be learned dependently. The complexity of SimplE grows linearly with the size of embeddings. The embeddings learned through SimplE are interpretable, and certain types of background knowledge can be incorporated into these embeddings through weight tying. We prove SimplE is fully expressive and derive a bound on the size of its embeddings for full expressivity. We show empirically that, despite its simplicity, SimplE outperforms several state-of-the-art tensor factorization techniques. SimplE's code is available on GitHub at https://github.com/Mehran-k/SimplE.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

SimplE is a simple bilinear tensor-factorization model for knowledge graph link prediction that ties the two CP embeddings of each entity via inverse relations, making them learned dependently while retaining linear complexity. It is proved fully expressive and empirically matches or outperforms ComplEx and other baselines on WN18 and FB15k, with large gains when background-knowledge rules are incorporated by weight tying.

Key findings

  • SimplE is fully expressive: Proposition 1 gives an embedding size of min(|E|·|R|, γ+1) for any ground truth with γ true facts; it addresses CP’s independent head/tail embeddings by averaging CP scores for (e_i, r, e_j) and (e_j, r^{-1}, e_i).
  • On WN18, SimplE achieves filtered MRR 0.942, raw MRR 0.588, and Hit@1/3/10 0.939/0.944/0.947; on FB15k, filtered MRR 0.727, raw MRR 0.239, and Hit@1/3/10 0.660/0.773/0.838. It outperforms ComplEx on FB15k filtered MRR (0.727 vs. 0.692) and is comparable on WN18 (0.942 vs. 0.941).
  • Background knowledge via weight tying: after removing redundant WN18 training triples (approximately 141K to 90K, about 36% reduction), filtered MRR was 0.221 for SimplE-ignr, 0.384 for SimplE, and 0.275 for ComplEx without rules; with tied rules, SimplE-ignr-bk reached 0.772 and SimplE-bk 0.776.
  • Complexity: SimplE and SimplE-ignr are O(d); per triple, SimplE-ignr uses 1 multiplication between three vectors, SimplE uses 2, and ComplEx uses 4, reducing computations by factors of 4 and 2 versus ComplEx. FSTransE is shown not fully expressive with restrictions R1–R3.

Methods

  • Model: tensor factorization based on CP; each entity has head h_e and tail t_e vectors, each relation has v_r and v_{r^{-1}}; score for (e_i, r, e_j) is 1/2(〈h_ei, v_r, t_ej〉 + 〈h_ej, v_{r^{-1}}, t_ei〉). SimplE-ignr updates both scores during training but tests only 〈h_ei, v_r, t_ej〉.
  • Training/evaluation: SGD with minibatches, negative sampling by corrupting head or tail (Bordes et al. procedure), and L2-regularized negative log-likelihood with softplus. Datasets: WN18 (40,943 entities, 18 relations, 141,442 train, 5,000 validation, 5,000 test triples) and FB15k (14,951 entities, 1,345 relations, 483,142 train, 50,000 validation, 59,071 test triples). Metrics: filtered/raw MRR and Hit@k; baselines include CP, TransE, TransR, DistMult, NTN, STransE, ER-MLP, and ComplEx.
  • Hyperparameters: TensorFlow implementation; embedding size 200; max iterations 1000; batch size 100; learning rate 0.1 for WN18 and 0.05 for FB15k; adagrad; 1 negative per positive for WN18 and 10 for FB15k. Best λ values: SimplE-ignr WN18 0.001, FB15k 0.03; SimplE WN18 0.03, FB15k 0.1.

Limitations

  • The paper does not have a dedicated limitations section; it lists future improvements (ensembles, 1-N scoring, combining with logic, incorporating other background knowledge) and notes that the background-knowledge experiment provides an upper bound on how much such knowledge can improve SimplE.
  • Evident from the text: empirical evaluation is limited to WN18 and FB15k, and the background-knowledge experiment is only on WN18 after removing redundant triples, so those gains may not generalize.
  • Evident from the text: no variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported; hyperparameters were tuned on validation sets, and results appear to be single runs as described.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1802.04868

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

16 of 26 cited sources checked · 12 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 5.1 Fully Expressiveness · p. 4

    ComplEx is fully expressive with embeddings of length at most |E|·|R|.

    “It has been shown in [40] that ComplEx is fully expressive with embeddings of length at most |E| · |R| .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] [40] Théo Trouillon, Christopher R Dance, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. Knowledge graph completion via complex tensor factorization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.06879 , 2017. - source
  • Premisecitation
    § 5.3 Time Complexity and Parameter Growth · p. 6

    To scale to the size of current KGs and keep up with their growth, a relational model must have linear time and memory complexity.

    “As described in [3], to scale to the size of the current KGs and keep up with their growth, a relational model must have a linear time and memory complexity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] [3] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Irreflexive and hierarchical relations as translations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.7158 , 2013. - source

      The Introduction (p. 1) describes the large size of knowledge bases, and Related work (p. 2) discusses which models scale to many entities and relation types. Neither passage says that linear time and memory complexity is necessary to scale or keep up with growth. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingcitation
    § 5.1 Fully Expressiveness · p. 5

    Other variants of translational approaches such as TransE, FTransE, STransE, TransH, and TransR also have the restrictions mentioned in Proposition 2.

    “Corollary 1. Other variants of translational approaches such as TransE, FTransE, STransE, TransH [41], and TransR [22] also have the restrictions mentioned in Proposition 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [41] [41] Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI , pages 1112-1119, 2014. - source
    • cites [22] [22] Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI , pages 2181-2187, 2015. - source

      The TransR section (p. 3) identifies TransR as a translational model, and the Cluster-based TransR section (p. 3) says it shares a limitation with TransE and TransH: one relation vector may not fit diverse entity pairs. Our copy does not identify the restrictions in the citing paper’s Proposition 2, so it cannot establish that TransR has those specific restrictions. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: For a triple (h,r,t) to hold in FSTransE, we should ideally have p_rh + v_r = α q_rt for some α.
  • Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Many existing translational approaches are not fully expressive.

    “We prove that many existing translational approaches (see e.g., [4, 17, 41, 26]) are not fully expressive and we identify severe restrictions on what they can represent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [4] [4] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS , pages 2787-2795, 2013. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [17] [17] Guoliang Ji, Shizhu He, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. Knowledge graph embedding via dynamic mapping matrix. In ACL (1) , pages 687-696, 2015. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [41] [41] Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI , pages 1112-1119, 2014. - source

      The section “Relations’ Mapping Properties in Embedding” (p. 2) identifies representational restrictions of TransE for reflexive and one-to-many/many-to-one relations. This supports the general concern about limited expressiveness, but the cited paper analyzes TransE specifically; it does not establish that many translational approaches are not fully expressive. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [26] [26] Dat Quoc Nguyen, Kairit Sirts, Lizhen Qu, and Mark Johnson. Stranse: a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge bases. In NAACL-HLT , 2016. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § 5.1 Fully Expressiveness · p. 4

    TransE is not fully expressive.

    “Wang et al. [44] prove that TransE is not fully expressive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] [44] Yanjie Wang, Rainer Gemulla, and Hui Li. On multi-relational link prediction with bilinear models. AAAI , 2018. - source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • May combine two claims. 18

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning
    § 3 Related Work · p. 3

    DistMult can only model symmetric relations.

    “Since DistMult does not distinguish between head and tail entities, it can only model symmetric relations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46] [46] Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. ICLR , 2015. - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 1

    Tensor factorization approaches have proved to be an effective statistical relational learning approach for knowledge graph completion.

    “Tensor factorization approaches have proved to be an effective SRL approach for KG completion [29, 4, 39, 26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [29] [29] Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. Factorizing yago: scalable machine learning for linked data. In World Wide Web , pages 271-280. ACM, 2012. - source
    • cites [4] [4] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS , pages 2787-2795, 2013. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [39] [39] Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In ICML , pages 2071-2080, 2016. - source
    • cites [26] [26] Dat Quoc Nguyen, Kairit Sirts, Lizhen Qu, and Mark Johnson. Stranse: a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge bases. In NAACL-HLT , 2016. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5.4 Family of Bilinear Models · p. 6

    Viewing SimplE as a single-vector-per-entity model makes it easily integrable (or compatible) with other embedding models in knowledge graph completion, computer vision and natural language processing.

    “Viewing SimplE as a single-vector-per-entity model makes it easily integrable (or compatible) with other embedding models (in knowledge graph completion, computer vision and natural language processing) such as [35, 47, 36].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [35] [35] Adam Santoro, David Raposo, David G Barrett, Mateusz Malinowski, Razvan Pascanu, Peter Battaglia, and Tim Lillicrap. A simple neural network module for relational reasoning. In NIPS , 2017. - source

      The Visual question answering section (p. 10) says the paper’s Relation Network module can readily be combined with CNNs and LSTMs, supporting the citation as an example of an integrable model used with vision and language inputs. It does not discuss SimplE, single-vector-per-entity representations, or compatibility with knowledge-graph-completion embedding models. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [47] [47] Hanwang Zhang, Zawlin Kyaw, Shih-Fu Chang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Visual translation embedding network for visual relation detection. In CVPR , volume 1, page 5, 2017. source
    • cites [36] [36] Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In European Semantic Web Conference , pages 593-607. Springer, 2018. - source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 6 Experiments and Results · p. 7

    The paper uses the same data splits and objective function as ComplEx, and reports the results of CP, TransE, DistMult, and ComplEx from [39].

    “Given that we use the same data splits and objective function as ComplEx, we report the results of CP, TransE, DistMult, and ComplEx from [39].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [39] [39] Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In ICML , pages 2071-2080, 2016. - source
    • Rests on an assumption: Using the same search grid on embedding size and λ as [39] makes the results directly comparable to [39].

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.3 Time Complexity and Parameter Growth · p. 6

    The time complexity of both SimplE-ignr and SimplE is O(d).

    “The time complexity of both SimplE-ignr and SimplE is O ( d ) , i.e. linear in the size of vector embeddings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 5.3 Time Complexity and Parameter Growth · p. 6

    The number of such multiplications is 2 for SimplE and 4 for ComplEx.

    “This number is 2 for SimplE and 4 for ComplEx .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.5 Redundancy in ComplEx · p. 7

    With the same number of parameters, the number of computations in ComplEx are 4x and 2x more than SimplE-ignr and SimplE.

    “As argued earlier, with the same number of parameters, the number of computations in ComplEx are 4x and 2x more than SimplE-ignr and SimplE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.5 Redundancy in ComplEx · p. 7

    In Example 2, according to ComplEx, the score for triple (e1,r,e3) is positive suggesting e1 probably has relation r with e3, while the score for triple (e2,r,e3) is negative suggesting e2 probably does not have relation r with e3.

    “According to ComplEx, the score for triple ( e 1 , r , e 3 ) is positive suggesting e 1 probably has relation r with e 3 . However the score for triple ( e 2 , r , e 3 ) is negative suggesting e 2 probably does not have relation r with e 3 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6.1 Entity Prediction Results · p. 8

    On FB15k, SimplE outperforms the existing baselines and gives state-of-the-art results among tensor factorization approaches.

    “On FB15k, SimplE outperforms the existing baselines and gives state-of-the-art results among tensor factorization approaches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Using the same search grid on embedding size and λ as [39] makes the results directly comparable to [39].

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6.2 Incorporating background knowledge · p. 9

    For SimplE-ignr-bk and SimplE-bk, the filtered MRRs were 0.772 and 0.776 respectively, substantially higher than the case without background knowledge.

    “For SimplE-ignr-bk and SimplE-bk, the filtered MRRs were 0 . 772 and 0 . 776 respectively, substantially higher than the case without background knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6.2 Incorporating background knowledge · p. 9

    For SimplE-ignr-bk, hit@1, hit@3, hit@10 were 0.715, 0.809 and 0.877; for SimplE-bk they were 0.715, 0.818 and 0.883, also substantially higher than the models without background knowledge.

    “For SimplE-ignr-bk, these numbers were 0 . 715 , 0 . 809 and 0 . 877 and for SimplE-bk they were 0 . 715 , 0 . 818 and 0 . 883 , also substantially higher than the models without background knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6.2 Incorporating background knowledge · p. 9

    These hit@k numbers were 0.334, 0.404, and 0.482 for SimplE, and 0.254, 0.280 and 0.313 for ComplEx.

    “These numbers were 0 . 334 , 0 . 404 , and 0 . 482 for SimplE, and 0 . 254 , 0 . 280 and 0 . 313 for ComplEx.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 6.2 Incorporating background knowledge · p. 9

    Most of the rules in Table 2 are of the form ∀ e_i,e_j ∈ E: (e_i,r1,e_j) ∈ ζ ⇔ (e_j,r2,e_i) ∈ ζ.

    “As can be viewed in Table 2, most of the rules are of the form ∀ e i , e j ∈ E : ( e i , r 1 , e j ) ∈ ζ ⇔ ( e j , r 2 , e i ) ∈ ζ .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2 Incorporating Background Knowledge into the Embeddings · p. 5

    Such interpretability allows the embeddings learned through SimplE for an entity or relation to be potentially transferred to other domains.

    “Such interpretability allows the embeddings learned through SimplE for an entity (or relation) to be potentially transferred to other domains.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.4 Family of Bilinear Models · p. 6

    SimplE can be viewed as a bilinear model similar to CP except that the M_r matrices are constrained as in Fig 2(d).

    “SimplE can be viewed as a bilinear model similar to CP except that the M r matrices are constrained as in Fig 2(d).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.2 Incorporating Background Knowledge into the Embeddings · p. 5

    In SimplE, each element of the embedding vector of entities can be considered as a feature of the entity and the corresponding element of a relation can be considered as a measure of how important that feature is to the relation.

    “In SimplE, each element of the embedding vector of the entities can be considered as a feature of the entity and the corresponding element of a relation can be considered as a measure of how important that feature is to the relation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.4 Family of Bilinear Models · p. 6

    The constraint over M_r matrices in SimplE is very similar to the constraint in DistMult.

    “The constraint over M r matrices in SimplE is very similar to the constraint in DistMult.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 5.3 Time Complexity and Parameter Growth · p. 6

    The time complexity for TransE is O(d).

    “While the time complexity for TransE is O ( d ) where d is the size of the embedding vectors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.4 Family of Bilinear Models · p. 6

    RESCAL can be considered a bilinear model which imposes no constraints on the M_r matrices.

    “RESCAL can be considered a bilinear model which imposes no constraints on the M r matrices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4 SimplE: A Simple Yet Fully Expressive Model · p. 3

    Therefore, what is being learned about movies through observations about acted does not affect the predictions about likes and vice versa.

    “Therefore, what is being learned about movies through observations about acted does not affect the predictions about likes and vice versa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.4 Family of Bilinear Models · p. 6

    ComplEx can be considered a bilinear model with its M_r matrices constrained according to Fig. 2(b), when each entity embedding is a single vector [re_e; im_e] in R^{2d}.

    “For ComplEx, if we consider the embedding for each entity e to be a single vector [ re e ; im e ] ∈ R 2 d , then it can be considered a bilinear model with its M r matrices constrained according to Fig. 2(b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Time Complexity and Parameter Growth · p. 6

    With the same number of parameters, SimplE-ignr and SimplE reduce the computations by a factor of 4 and 2 respectively compared to ComplEx.

    “Thus, with the same number of parameters, SimplE-ignr and SimplE reduce the computations by a factor of 4 and 2 respectively compared to ComplEx .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Time Complexity and Parameter Growth · p. 6

    Quadratic time complexity and parameter growth may arise two issues: scalability problems and overfitting.

    “A quadratic time complexity and parameter growth may arise two issues: 1- scalability problems, 2- overfitting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Models with many parameters usually overfit and give poor performance.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.4 Family of Bilinear Models · p. 6

    DistMult can be considered a bilinear model which restricts the M_r matrices to be diagonal.

    “DistMult can be considered a bilinear model which restricts the M r matrices to be diagonal as in Fig. 2(a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 4 SimplE: A Simple Yet Fully Expressive Model · p. 3

    In CP, observations about likes only update the t vector of movies and observations about acted only update the h vector.

    “In CP, observations about likes only update the t vector of movies and observations about acted only update the h vector.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 5.3 Time Complexity and Parameter Growth · p. 6

    DistMult and ComplEx have linear time complexities and the number of their parameters grow linearly with d.

    “DistMult and ComplEx have linear time complexities and the number of their parameters grow linearly with d .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 7 Conclusion · p. 9

    The model called SimplE performs very well empirically and has several interesting properties.

    “We showed that our model, called SimplE, performs very well empirically and has several interesting properties.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 6 Experiments and Results · p. 8

    Filtered MRR is a modification to raw MRR proposed by [4] to address the issue that raw MRR may be flawed because there can be several correct entities for a test triple.

    “To address this issue, [4] proposed a modification to raw MRR.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] [4] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS , pages 2787-2795, 2013. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § 6 Experiments and Results · p. 8

    The paper tuned its hyper-parameters over the validation set.

    “We tuned our hyper-parameters over the validation set.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6 Experiments and Results · p. 7

    MRR is a more robust measure than mean rank, since a single bad ranking can largely influence mean rank.

    “MRR is a more robust measure than mean rank , since a single bad ranking can largely influence mean rank .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6.1 Entity Prediction Results · p. 8

    SimplE (and SimplE-ignr) work especially well on FB15k in terms of filtered MRR and hit@1, so SimplE tends to do well at having its first prediction being correct.

    “SimplE (and SimplE-ignr) work especially well on this dataset in terms of filtered MRR and hit@1 , so SimplE tends to do well at having its first prediction being correct.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.5 Redundancy in ComplEx · p. 7

    Since the only difference between e1 and e2 in Example 2 is that the imaginary part changes from 4 to 6, it is difficult to associate a meaning to these numbers.

    “Since the only difference between e 1 and e 2 is that the imaginary part changes from 4 to 6 , it is difficult to associate a meaning to these numbers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7 Conclusion · p. 9

    Three types of background knowledge can be incorporated into SimplE by tying the embeddings.

    “For instance, three types of background knowledge can be incorporated into SimplE by tying the embeddings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 6 Experiments and Results · p. 8

    The paper computed filtered MRR over the validation set every 50 iterations for WN18 and every 100 iterations for FB15k and selected the iteration that resulted in the best validation filtered MRR.

    “We computed the filtered MRR of our model over the validation set every 50 iterations for WN18 and every 100 iterations for FB 15 k and selected the iteration that resulted in the best validation filtered MRR.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.4 Family of Bilinear Models · p. 6

    Several other restrictions on the M_r matrices are equivalent to SimplE, e.g., restricting M_r matrices to be zero everywhere except on the counterdiagonal.

    “Note that several other restrictions on the M r matrices are equivalent to SimplE, e.g., restricting M r matrices to be zero everywhere except on the counterdiagonal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
35 of 35

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Models with many parameters usually overfit and give poor performance.

    “Models with many parameters usually overfit and give poor performance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For a triple (h,r,t) to hold in FSTransE, we should ideally have p_rh + v_r = α q_rt for some α.

    “For any entity e and relation r , let p re = P r v e and q re = Q r v e . For a triple ( h , r , t ) to hold, we should ideally have p rh + v r = αq rt for some α .”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.

    “To test this empirically, we conducted an experiment on WN18 in which we incorporated several such rules into the embeddings as outlined in Propositions 3, 4, and 5. The rules can be found in Table 2.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Using the same search grid on embedding size and λ as [39] makes the results directly comparable to [39].

    “We used the same search grid on embedding size and λ as [39] to make our results directly comparable to their results.”
4 of 4

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?

  • SimplEx has low performance for FB15k-237 and high performance for FB15k because FB15k contains inverse relations and SimplEx can model inverse relations appropriately.

    “SimplEx [152] has low performance for FB15k-237 and high performance for FB15k because FB15k contains inverse relations and SimplEx can model the inverse relations appropriately.”

    From A Survey on Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [152]

    Section 6.1 (p. 8) reports strong SimplE performance on FB15k, and Section 4 (p. 3) says the model uses inverse relations. The paper reports experiments on WN18 and FB15k, not FB15k-237 (Section 6, p. 7); it does not establish low performance on FB15k-237 or attribute its FB15k results to inverse relations in that dataset. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • SimplE is fully expressive and can model asymmetric relations.

    “It has been demonstrated that SimplE is fully expressive, and therefore, unlike DistMult, it can model also asymmetric relations.”

    From Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

  • SimplE, TuckER, ComplEx and HolE have been demonstrated to be fully expressive.

    “Examples of models that have been demonstrated to be fully expressive are SimplE [27], TuckER [6], ComplEx [61] and HolE [60].”

    From Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Proposition 2 proof substitutes a multiplier for its reciprocal

    Minor

    From p rs 1 + v r = α 3 q rs 2, substituting for q rs 2 requires division by α 3, not multiplication by it. The displayed equality therefore does not follow for general α 3.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

13 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [4][4] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS , pages 2787-2795, 2013. -
  2. [28][28] Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In ICML , volume 11, pages 809-816, 2011. -
  3. [30][30] Maximilian Nickel, Xueyan Jiang, and Volker Tresp. Reducing the rank in relational factorization models by including observable patterns. In NIPS , pages 1179-1187, 2014. -
  4. [37][37] Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In NIPS , 2013. -
  5. [42][42] Quan Wang, Bin Wang, Li Guo, et al. Knowledge base completion using embeddings and rules. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 1859-1866, 2015. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kazemi, S. M., & Poole, D.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
ORCID
Poole, David
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1802.04868
arXiv
1802.04868
OpenAlex
W2785761199
Cited by
476
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 20
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
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 › Mathematics › Computational Mathematics › Tensor decomposition and applications
Keywords
link prediction, knowledge graphs, SIMPLE, canonical polyadic decomposition, tensor decomposition, entity embeddings, weight tying, expressivity, interpretable embeddings

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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