The DOI matches its DataCite record; 56 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 16 of the 26 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
SimplE Embedding for Link Prediction in Knowledge Graphs
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Own interpretation · 24 No basis given · 13 Own result · 6 Supported · 5 Partly supported · 2 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 2 Own method · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“It has been shown in [40] that ComplEx is fully expressive with embeddings of length at most |E| · |R| .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [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
Section 3.2 (p. 14), Theorem 4, shows that the ComplEx factorization exists for any set of relation matrices using dimension at most nm. The paper identifies n as the number of entities and m as the number of relations, giving the claimed |E|·|R| bound. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [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. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [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 citation [41] is attached specifically to TransH in the list of translational approaches. The ‘Translating on Hyperplanes (TransH)’ section (p. 3) introduces and names that model, so the paper supports this identification citation; it need not establish the citing authors’ Corollary 1. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [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. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [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.
- Not matchedcites [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.
- Partly supportedcites [41] [41] Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI , pages 1112-1119, 2014. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not matchedcites [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.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Wang et al. [44] prove that TransE is not fully expressive.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [44] [44] Yanjie Wang, Rainer Gemulla, and Hui Li. On multi-relational link prediction with bilinear models. AAAI , 2018. - source
Section 3.3 (p. 4) states and proves that some Boolean tensors cannot be represented by any consistent TransE ranking. Section 3.1 (p. 3) also proves that some RESCAL models cannot be expressed by TransE, regardless of its size. These results support the claim that TransE is not fully expressive. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“While inverse of relations has been used for other purposes (see e.g., [20, 21, 6]), using them to address the independence of the entity vectors in CP is a novel contribution.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] [20] Ni Lao and William W Cohen. Relational retrieval using a combination of path-constrained random walks. Machine learning , 81(1):53-67, 2010. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [21] [21] Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanbo Luan, Maosong Sun, Siwei Rao, and Song Liu. Modeling relation paths for representation learning of knowledge bases. EMNLP , 2015. - source
The citation supports the sentence’s background clause: inverse relations had been used for other purposes. In §2.5, “Reverse Relation Addition,” the paper adds reverse relations so its model can use relation paths that would otherwise run against a relation’s direction. The sentence’s claim of novelty in CP is the citing authors’ own contribution, not a claim attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites [6] [6] Rajarshi Das, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Manzil Zaheer, Luke Vilnis, Ishan Durugkar, Akshay Krishnamurthy, Alex Smola, and Andrew McCallum. Go for a walk and arrive at the answer: Reasoning over paths in knowledge bases using reinforcement learning. NIPS Workshop on AKBC , 2017. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“CP generally performs poorly for link prediction as it learns two independent embedding vectors for each entity, whereas they are really tied.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“This independence has caused CP to perform poorly for KG completion [40].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [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
The Introduction (p. 2) says CP gives each entity two different embeddings and consequently has low prediction performance. The Results (p. 24) report that CP lags on both link-prediction benchmarks; the paper also notes an exception on fully observed data sets (p. 20), consistent with the claim’s 'generally' qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We also show that the function used in ComplEx [39, 40], a state-of-the-art approach for link prediction, involves redundant computations.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [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
The citation identifies ComplEx, not the citing authors’ own finding about redundant computations. Section 4 (p. 5) names the model ComplEx, and Section 4.3 (p. 6) reports its strong link-prediction results against the compared models. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [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
The citation identifies ComplEx and its scoring function, which the cited paper defines in Section 3.1 (p. 12). The statement that the function involves redundant computations is introduced as something the citing authors show, not as a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.89)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R3 : If entity e 1 has relation r with every entity in ∆ ⊂ E and entity e 2 has relation r with one of the entities in ∆ , then e 2 must have the relation r with every entity in ∆ .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition 4. Let r be a relation such that for any two entities e i and e j we have ( e i , r , e j ) ∈ ζ ⇐⇒ ( e j , r , e i ) ∈ ζ ′ (i.e. r is anti-symmetric). This property of r can be encoded into SimplE by tying the parameters v r -1 to the negative of v r .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Since DistMult does not distinguish between head and tail entities, it can only model symmetric relations.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [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
Section 4.1 (p. 5) identifies DistMult as BILINEAR-DIAG and describes its score as a weighted element-wise dot product of the two entity vectors. Section 3.2 (p. 4) specifies a diagonal relation matrix. Swapping the head and tail leaves that score unchanged, so the model cannot distinguish a relation from its reverse. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Tensor factorization approaches have proved to be an effective SRL approach for KG completion [29, 4, 39, 26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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
- Not matchedcites [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.
- Supportedcites [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
The Introduction (p. 1) describes low-rank tensor completion as an increasingly popular approach to knowledge-graph link prediction, a task it identifies as part of statistical relational learning. The Abstract (p. 1) and Conclusion (p. 8) report that the paper’s factorization approach outperforms alternatives on standard link-prediction benchmarks, supporting the claim of effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites [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.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [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. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Supportedcites [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
The citation identifies an embedding model in computer vision, rather than attributing the claim about SimplE’s ease of integration to this paper. Section 3.1, “Visual Translation Embedding,” describes VTransE as a model that maps visual object features into a relation embedding space. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [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
The citation appears in a list of examples of other embedding models, rather than as evidence for the citing authors’ conclusion about SimplE’s compatibility. The paper’s link-prediction model uses an R-GCN to produce latent entity representations for knowledge-base completion (model description, p. 1), so it fits the knowledge-graph example. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [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
The source specifies its FB15K and WN18 training, validation, and test splits in §4.2 (p. 5) and its regularized negative-log-likelihood objective in Appendix A (p. 11). Table 2 (§4.3, pp. 6–7) reports results for CP, TransE, DistMult, and ComplEx, as the citing sentence says it takes from this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Using the same search grid on embedding size and λ as [39] makes the results directly comparable to [39].
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The time complexity of both SimplE-ignr and SimplE is O ( d ) , i.e. linear in the size of vector embeddings.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This number is 2 for SimplE and 4 for ComplEx .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 .”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On FB15k, SimplE outperforms the existing baselines and gives state-of-the-art results among tensor factorization approaches.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Using the same search grid on embedding size and λ as [39] makes the results directly comparable to [39].
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These numbers were 0 . 334 , 0 . 404 , and 0 . 482 for SimplE, and 0 . 254 , 0 . 280 and 0 . 313 for ComplEx.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The rules in Table 2 correctly describe background knowledge in WN18.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such interpretability allows the embeddings learned through SimplE for an entity (or relation) to be potentially transferred to other domains.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SimplE can be viewed as a bilinear model similar to CP except that the M r matrices are constrained as in Fig 2(d).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The constraint over M r matrices in SimplE is very similar to the constraint in DistMult.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While the time complexity for TransE is O ( d ) where d is the size of the embedding vectors”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RESCAL can be considered a bilinear model which imposes no constraints on the M r matrices.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, what is being learned about movies through observations about acted does not affect the predictions about likes and vice versa.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A quadratic time complexity and parameter growth may arise two issues: 1- scalability problems, 2- overfitting.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Models with many parameters usually overfit and give poor performance.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DistMult can be considered a bilinear model which restricts the M r matrices to be diagonal as in Fig. 2(a).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In CP, observations about likes only update the t vector of movies and observations about acted only update the h vector.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DistMult and ComplEx have linear time complexities and the number of their parameters grow linearly with d .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We showed that our model, called SimplE, performs very well empirically and has several interesting properties.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To address this issue, [4] proposed a modification to raw MRR.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [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.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We tuned our hyper-parameters over the validation set.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MRR is a more robust measure than mean rank , since a single bad ranking can largely influence mean rank .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, three types of background knowledge can be incorporated into SimplE by tying the embeddings.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 5.1 Fully Expressiveness · p. 5
“Therefore, p rs 2 + v r = α 2 q rs 2 = α 2 α 3 ( p rs 1 + v r )”
§ 5.1 Fully Expressiveness · p. 5
“Then we know p rs 1 + v r = α 3 q rs 2 .”
Citations
Cites
WordNet: a lexical database for English
Miller, G. A. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/219717.219748 · Cited by 14,015 · cited 1×
“Datasets: We conducted experiments on two standard benchmarks: WN18 a subset of Wordnet [24], and FB15k a subset of Freebase [2].”
MethodApproximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function
Cybenko, G. (1989) · Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems · doi:10.1007/bf02551274 · Cited by 13,883
TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems
Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado, G. S., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.04467 · Cited by 9,408 · cited 1×
“Implementation: We implemented SimplE in TensorFlow [1].”
Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks
Hornik, K. (1991) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/0893-6080(91)90009-t · Cited by 6,091 · cited 1×
“xpressive as it forces relations to be symmetric. It has been shown in [40] that ComplEx is fully expressive with embeddings of length at most jEjjRj. According to the universal approximation theorem [5, 16], under certain conditions, neural networks are universal approximators of continuous functions over compact set…”
BackgroundModeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networks
Schlichtkrull, M., Kipf, T. N., Bloem, P., van den Berg, R., Titov, I., & Welling, M. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4_38 · Cited by 5,570 · cited 1×
“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].”
BackgroundFreebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge
Bollacker, K., Evans, C., Paritosh, P., Sturge, T., & Taylor, J. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/1376616.1376746 · Cited by 4,852 · cited 2×
“We conducted experiments on two standard benchmarks: WN18 a subset of Wordnet (Miller, 1995), and FB15k a subset of Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008).”
MethodKnowledge Graph Embedding by Translating on Hyperplanes
Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Feng, J., & Chen, Z. (2014) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8870 · Cited by 3,915 · cited 1×
“Translational approaches (Bordes et al., 2013b; Ji et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2016) apply an additive function over the embeddings.”
MethodLearning Entity and Relation Embeddings for Knowledge Graph Completion
Lin, Y., Liu, Z., Sun, M., Liu, Y., & Zhu, X. (2015) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9491 · Cited by 3,749 · cited 4×
“In TransE [4] In TransR [22], P r = Q r .”
InfluentialApproximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function
Cybenko, G. (1992) · Math. Control. Signals Syst. · doi:10.1007/bf02134016 · Cited by 3,475 · cited 1×
“According to the universal approximation theorem [5, 16], under certain conditions, neural networks are universal approximators of continuous functions over compact sets.”
BackgroundKnowledge Graph Embedding: A Survey of Approaches and Applications
Wang, Q., Mao, Z., Wang, B., & Guo, L. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2017.2754499 · Cited by 2,654 · cited 1×
“Details and discussions of these approaches can be found in several recent surveys [27, 43].”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [37][37] Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In NIPS , 2013. -
- [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
A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition, and Applications
Ji, S., Pan, S., Cambria, E., Marttinen, P., & Yu, P. S. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2021.3070843 · Cited by 2,947
Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d’Amato, C., de Melo, G., Gutiérrez, C., Kirrane, S., Gayo, J. E. L., Roberto Navigli, A., Neumaier, S., et al. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3447772 · Cited by 2,879
“SimplE [68] proposes to compute a standard CP decomposition, averaging terms across X, Y, Z to compute the final plausibility scores.”
A Survey of Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Methods, and Opportunities
Zhou, X., & Zafarani, R. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3395046 · Cited by 1,184
“…[Yang et al. 2014], TransE [Bordes et al. 2013], TransH [Wang et al. 2014], TransR [Lin et al. 2015], Com-plEx [Trouillon et al. 2016], SimplE [Kazemi and Poole 2018], and ConMask [Shi and Weninger 2018]); (ii) graph feature models , which assume that the existence of triples is conditionally…”
BackgroundKEPLER: A Unified Model for Knowledge Embedding and Pre-trained Language Representation
Wang, X., Gao, T., Zhu, Z., Zhang, Z., Liu, Z., Li, J., & Tang, J. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00360 · Cited by 676
Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction
Rossi, A., Barbosa, D., Firmani, D., Matinata, A., & Merialdo, P. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3424672 · Cited by 601
Diachronic Embedding for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Goel, R., Kazemi, S. M., Brubaker, M., & Poupart, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5815 · Cited by 282
Self-citation(2020) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.412 · Cited by 542
“SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) and TuckER (Balaˇzevi´c et al., 2019) are based on Canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition (Hitchcock, 1927) and Tucker decomposition (Tucker, 1966) respectively.”
MethodLearning from History: Modeling Temporal Knowledge Graphs with Sequential Copy-Generation Networks
Zhu, C., Chen, M., Fan, C., Cheng, G., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i5.16604 · Cited by 267
“2020) leverages diachronic embeddings to represent entities at different timestamps and employs the same score function as SimplE (Kazemi and Poole 2018) to score the plausibility of a quadruple.”
BackgroundKnowledge Graph Alignment Network with Gated Multi-Hop Neighborhood Aggregation
Sun, Z., Wang, C., Hu, W. P., Chen, M., Dai, J., Zhang, W., & Qu, Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5354 · Cited by 361
“2016), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole 2018) and RotatE (Sun et al.”
BackgroundMethodA Survey of Knowledge Graph Reasoning on Graph Types: Static, Dynamic, and Multi-Modal
Liang, K., Meng, L., Liu, M., Liu, Y., Tu, W., Wang, S., Zhou, S., Liu, X., Sun, F., & He, K. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3417451 · Cited by 438
Heterogeneous Network Representation Learning: A Unified Framework With Survey and Benchmark
Yang, C., Xiao, Y., Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., & Han, J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2020.3045924 · Cited by 379
“…min (cid:6) J ¼ X |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} Here, f ð ee u Þ ¼ ffiffiffiffiffi AA l p ee u in RESCAL [119] and DistMult [81]; f ð ee u Þ ¼ ffiffiffiffiffi AA l p ee u or ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi AA l (cid:6) 1 p ee u in SimplE [122]; f ð ee u Þ ¼ AA l ee u and f ð ee v Þ ¼ ee v in ComplEx [121].”
MethodA benchmarking study of embedding-based entity alignment for knowledge graphs
Sun, Z., Zhang, Q., Hu, W. P., Wang, C., Chen, M., Akrami, F., & Li, C. (2020) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3407790.3407828 · Cited by 304
“Existing KG embedding models can be generally divided into three categories: (i) translational models , e.g., TransE [5], TransH [82], TransR [49] and TransD [33]; (ii) semantic matching models , e.g., DistMult [86], ComplEx [76], HolE [54], SimplE [36], RotatE [71] and TuckER [3]; and (iii) deep models , e.g., ProjE…”
InfluentialA Survey on Knowledge Graph Embedding: Approaches, Applications and Benchmarks
Dai, Y., Wang, S., Xiong, N. N., & Guo, W. (2020) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics9050750 · Cited by 294
“In order to settle the independence issue of entity embedding vectors in Canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition, SimplE [68] proposes a simple enhancement of CP which introduces the reverse of relations and computes the average CP score of (h, r, t) and (t, r−1, h):”
BackgroundAnytime Bottom-Up Rule Learning for Knowledge Graph Completion
Meilicke, C., Chekol, M. W., Ruffinelli, D., & Stuckenschmidt, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/435 · Cited by 252
Hypernetwork Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Balažević, I., Allen, C., & Hospedales, T. M. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30493-5_52 · Cited by 229
A Survey on Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Link Prediction
Wang, M., Qiu, L., & Wang, X. (2021) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym13030485 · Cited by 212
“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.”
BackgroundKnowledge Graph Embedding: A Survey from the Perspective of Representation Spaces
Cao, J., Fang, J., Meng, Z., & Liang, S. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3643806 · Cited by 208
“Specifically, the definition of group can naturally satisfy the basic properties (e.g., inversion, composition) of knowledge graphs , which means the group-based models should have”
BackgroundPairRE: Knowledge Graph Embeddings via Paired Relation Vectors
Chao, L., He, J., Wang, T., & Chu, W. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.336 · Cited by 221
“…the comparisons also include several leading methods, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2014), HolE (Nickel et al., 2016), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), SeeK (Xu et al., 2020) and OTE (Tang et al., 2019).”
InfluentialTeMP: Temporal Message Passing for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Wu, J., Cao, M., Cheung, J. C. K., & Hamilton, W. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.462 · Cited by 167
“We include TransE (Nguyen et al., 2016), DistMult (Yang et al., 2014), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016) and SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) in the realm of static KG embedding methods.”
BackgroundMethodSequence-to-Sequence Knowledge Graph Completion and Question Answering
Saxena, A., Kochsiek, A., & Gemulla, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.201 · Cited by 208
Knowledge Graph Contrastive Learning Based on Relation-Symmetrical Structure
Liang, K., Liu, Y., Zhou, S., Tu, W., Wen, Y., Yang, X., Dong, X., & Liu, X. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2023.3282989 · Cited by 169
A comprehensive overview of knowledge graph completion
Shen, T., Zhang, F., & Cheng, J. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109597 · Cited by 171
TransEdge: Translating Relation-Contextualized Embeddings for Knowledge Graphs
Sun, Z., Huang, J., Hu, W. P., Chen, M., Guo, L., & Qu, Y. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30793-6_35 · Cited by 143
“omplEx [29] use the bilinear Hadamard product to compute energy. HolE [20] substitutes the Hadamard product with circular correlation. Analogy [18] imposes analogical properties on embeddings. SimplE [14] proposes an enhancement of Canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition to compute energy. CrossE [35] exploits to simula…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAdaptive Attentional Network for Few-Shot Knowledge Graph Completion
Sheng, J., Guo, S., Chen, Z.-Y., Yue, J., Wang, L., Liu, T., & Xü, H. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.131 · Cited by 150
Knowledge Graph Quality Management: a Comprehensive Survey
Xue, B., & Zou, L. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3150080 · Cited by 108
“SimplE [106] learns two vectors for each entity and each relation like Canonical Polyadix (CP) decomposition”
Relational Message Passing for Knowledge Graph Completion
Wang, H., Ren, H., & Leskovec, J. (2021) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3447548.3467247 · Cited by 151
“Note that since relational message passing only models relations rather than entities, it brings three additional benefits compared with existing knowledge graph embedding methods [3, 13, 22, 24, 35, 39]: (1) it is inductive, since it can handle entities that do not appear in the training data during inference stage;…”
BackgroundMethodAli, M., Berrendorf, M., Hoyt, C. T., Vermue, L., Galkin, M., Sharifzadeh, S., Fischer, A., Volker Tresp, C., & Lehmann, J. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2021.3124805 · Cited by 167
Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion using a Linear Temporal Regularizer and Multivector Embeddings
Xu, C., Chen, Y.-Y., Nayyeri, M., & Lehmann, J. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.202 · Cited by 134
“Such approaches (Yang et al., 2014; Trouillon et al., 2016; Kazemi and Poole, 2018; Zhang et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020b) model a static KG as a low-dimensional 3rd-order tensor and consider knowledge graph completion as a tensor decomposition problem.”
Neural, symbolic and neural-symbolic reasoning on knowledge graphs
Zhang, J., Chen, B., Zhang, L., Ke, X., & Ding, H. (2021) · AI Open · doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.03.001 · Cited by 136
“P Q (Bordes et al., 2013) force h þ r to be close to t TransH (Wang et al., 2014) project entities into the relation-speci fi c hyperplane TransR (Lin et al., 2015) project entities and relations in separate spaces TransD (Ji et al., 2015) determine the project matrices by both entities and relations TransG (Xiao et al…”
MethodInfluentialKnowledge graph fusion for smart systems: A Survey
Nguyen, H. L., Vu, D. T., & Jung, J. J. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2020.03.014 · Cited by 121
CoDEx: A Comprehensive Knowledge Graph Completion Benchmark
Safavi, T., & Koutra, D. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.669 · Cited by 126
Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation and complex convolution for link prediction
Le, T., Le, N., & Le, B. H. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119122 · Cited by 105
Knowledge graph informed fake news classification via heterogeneous representation ensembles
Koloski, B., Stepišnik-Perdih, T., Robnik‐Šikonja, M., Pollak, S., & Škrlj, B. (2022) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2022.01.096 · Cited by 101
“To obtain the representations we use six knowledge graph embedding techniques: TransE [30], RotatE[31], QuatE[32], ComplEx[33], DistMult[34] and SimplE[35].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Review of Knowledge Graph Completion
Zamini, M., Reza, H., & Rabiei, M. (2022) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13080396 · Cited by 108
“Additionally, using R-GCN’s scoring function generates many negative triples for a positive triple [53].”
MethodAutoSF: Searching Scoring Functions for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Zhang, Y., Yao, Q., Dai, W., & Chen, L. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde48307.2020.00044 · Cited by 97
“RESCAL [30], DistMult [46], ComplEx [39], Analogy [24] and more recently proposed SimplE [18], [19], use a bilinear function h R t to model the plausibility of triplets, where R is a square matrix related to relation embedding.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDyERNIE: Dynamic Evolution of Riemannian Manifold Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Han, Z., Chen, P., Ma, Y., & Volker Tresp, C. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.593 · Cited by 98
“Translational approaches measure the plausibility of a triple as the distance between the translated subject and object entity embeddings, including TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) and its variations (Sun et al., 2019; Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
BackgroundTemporal Knowledge Base Completion: New Algorithms and Evaluation Protocols
Jain, P., Rathi, S., Mausam, M., & Chakrabarti, S. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.305 · Cited by 85
“In all cases, time-dependent entity embeddings are plugged into standard scoring functions like DistMult, CX, or SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
MethodGeneralizing Tensor Decomposition for N-ary Relational Knowledge Bases
Liu, Y., Yao, Q., & Li, Y. (2020) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3366423.3380188 · Cited by 86
“However, since the distance-based scoring function of TransH enforces constraints on relations, it fails to represent some binary relations in KBs [17].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-attention presents low-dimensional knowledge graph embeddings for link prediction
Baghershahi, P., Hosseini, R., & Moradi, H. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110124 · Cited by 79
“, 2014), both with single embedding for each entity, and similarly SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) based on Canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition (Hitchcock, 1927) except that it dependently embeds entities as source or target with respect to relations and their inverses.”
BackgroundMethodDai, Y., Guo, C., Guo, W., & Eickhoff, C. (2020) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa256 · Cited by 77
“• SimplE [11] develops an embedding method based on Canonical Polyadic decomposition that extends the model to learn the two embedding vectors of each entity independently.”
BackgroundMethodComplex graph convolutional network for link prediction in knowledge graphs
Zeb, A., Saif, S., Chen, J., Haq, A. U., Gong, Z., & Zhang, D. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116796 · Cited by 74
Relation Embedding with Dihedral Group in Knowledge Graph
Xu, C., & Li, R. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1026 · Cited by 76
“The properties are summarized in Table 1, with comparison to DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), ANALOGY (Liu et al., 2017) and SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
BackgroundInfluentialRole-Aware Modeling for N-ary Relational Knowledge Bases
Liu, Y., Yao, Q., & Li, Y. (2021) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3442381.3449874 · Cited by 67
Understanding the performance of knowledge graph embeddings in drug discovery
Bonner, S., Barrett, I. P., Ye, C., Swiers, R., Engkvist, O., Hoyt, C. T., & Hamilton, W. L. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ailsci.2022.100036 · Cited by 74
“…a choice of Binary Cross Entropy (BCEL), Softplus (SPL), Margin Ranking (MRL) and the self adversarial loss (called NSSA henceforth) from [36]) and with/without adding inverse relationships into the graph (the process of adding a copy of each triple during training with an inverse relation [21]).”
BackgroundComplex systems and network science: a survey
Yang, K., Li, J., Liu, M., Lei, T., Xu, X., Wu, H., Cao, J., & Qi, G. (2023) · Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics · doi:10.23919/jsee.2023.000080 · Cited by 64
DAPath: Distance-aware knowledge graph reasoning based on deep reinforcement learning
Tiwari, P., Zhu, H., & Pandey, H. M. (2020) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2020.11.012 · Cited by 55
“SimplE [30], HolE [31], TuckER [32], and deep learning models, such as ConvE [33], ConvKB [34], ConvR [35], CapsE [36], RSN [37], are also used to represent entities and relations.”
MethodApplication and evaluation of knowledge graph embeddings in biomedical data
Alshahrani, M., Thafar, M. A., & Essack, M. (2021) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.341 · Cited by 58
“As a result, SimplE similarity function is de fi ned as: The SimplE model authors ( Kazemi & Poole, 2018 ) de fi ned h s ; p ; o i to be h s ; p ; o i ¼ ð s (cid:7) p Þ (cid:8) o where (cid:7) represents the element-wise (Hadamard) product and the :amp:odot; represents the dot product.”
BackgroundInfluentialWang, J., Zhang, Q., Shi, F., Li, D., Cai, Y., Wang, J., Li, B., Wang, X., Zhang, Z., & Zheng, C. (2023) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103350 · Cited by 55
Pretrain-KGE: Learning Knowledge Representation from Pretrained Language Models
Zhang, Z., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Su, Q., Sun, X., & He, B. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.25 · Cited by 52
“…2018); while semantic matching models define a score function to match latent semantics of the head, tail entity and the relation, such as, RESCAL (Nickel et al., 2011), Dist-Mult (Yang et al., 2015), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016) and QuatE (Zhang et al., 2019).”
BackgroundTemporal knowledge graph embedding via sparse transfer matrix
Wang, X., Lyu, S., Wang, X., Wu, X., & Chen, H. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.12.019 · Cited by 54
Medical knowledge-based network for Patient-oriented Visual Question Answering
Huang, J., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Yang, Z., Gong, X., Wang, F. L., Xu, X., & Liu, W. (2022) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103241 · Cited by 56
Time2Vec: Learning a Vector Representation of Time
Kazemi, S. M., Goel, R., Eghbali, S., Ramanan, J., Sahota, J., Thakur, S., Wu, S., Smyth, C., Poupart, P., & Brubaker, M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.05321 · Cited by 206
Self-citationNetworked Knowledge and Complex Networks: An Engineering View
Lü, J., Wen, G., Lu, R., Wang, Y., & Zhang, S. (2022) · IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica · doi:10.1109/jas.2022.105737 · Cited by 52
TransRHS: A Representation Learning Method for Knowledge Graphs with Relation Hierarchical Structure
Zhang, F., Wang, X., Li, Z., & Li, J. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/413 · Cited by 51
Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs with Debate Dynamics
Hildebrandt, M. E., Serna, J. A. Q., Ma, Y., Ringsquandl, M., Joblin, M., & Volker Tresp, C. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.6600 · Cited by 48
“…learning include the translational embedding methods TransE (Bordes et al. 2013) and TransR (Lin et al. 2015) as well as the factorization approaches RESCAL (Nickel, Tresp, and Kriegel 2011), DistMult (Yang et al. 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al. 2016), and SimplE (Kazemi and Poole 2018).”
MethodContrastive Multi-Modal Knowledge Graph Representation Learning
Fang, Q., Zhang, X., Hu, J., Wu, X., & Xu, C. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3220625 · Cited by 48
“SimplE [25] extends Dis-tMult to allow two embeddings of each entity to be learned dependently.”
BackgroundGe, Z., & Brintrup, A. M. (2025) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2025.2543964 · Cited by 68
Structural context-based knowledge graph embedding for link prediction
Zhang, Q., Wang, R., Yang, J., & Xue, L. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.10.088 · Cited by 45
TeAST: Temporal Knowledge Graph Embedding via Archimedean Spiral Timeline
Li, J., Su, X., & Gao, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.862 · Cited by 45
“We compare our model with the state-of-the-art TKGE models, including TTransE (Leblay and Chekol, 2018), DE-SimplE (Goel et al., 2020), TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018), ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021), TCom-plEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021), BoxTE (Mess-ner…”
MethodInfluentialTowards Continual Knowledge Graph Embedding via Incremental Distillation
Liu, J., Ke, W., Wang, P., Shang, Z., Gao, J., Li, G., Ji, K., & Liu, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i8.28722 · Cited by 42
Positive-Unlabeled Learning with Adversarial Data Augmentation for Knowledge Graph Completion
Tang, Z., Pei, S., Zhang, Z., Zhu, Y., Zhuang, F., Hoehndorf, R., & Zhang, X. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/312 · Cited by 44
HJE: Joint Convolutional Representation Learning for Knowledge Hypergraph Completion
Li, Z., Wang, C., Wang, X., Chen, Z., & Li, J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3365727 · Cited by 42
“HypE[11]drawsinspirationfromSimplE[41]andincorpo-ratespositioninformationusingpositionalfiltersineachfact.”
Capturing associations in graphs
Fan, W., Jin, R., Liu, M., Lü, P., Tian, C., & Zhou, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3407790.3407795 · Cited by 39
“We followed the PyTorch framework, the hyper-parameter search strategy and training settings of [53, 34] to train classifier M .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCheng, K., Yang, Z., Zhang, M., & Sun, Y. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.769 · Cited by 42
“We evaluate our proposed method against SOTA algorithms, including (1) basic KGE models (e.g., RESCAL (Nickel et al., 2011), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), Hy-pER (Balaževi´c et al., 2019a), TuckER (Balaže-vi´c et al., 2019b), TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2014) and RotatE (Sun et al., 2019)),…”
Temporal Knowledge Graph Embedding Model based on Additive Time Series DecompositionPreprint
Xu, C., Nayyeri, M., Alkhoury, F., Yazdi, H. S., & Lehmann, J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.07893 · Cited by 67
“Inspired by diachronic word embeddings, DE-SimplE [8] uses diachronic entity embeddings to represent entities at different time steps and exploit the same score function as SimplE [12] to score the plausibility of a quadruple.”
InfluentialMei, G., Pan, L., & Liu, S. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.10.001 · Cited by 39
Ma, C., Zhou, Z., Liu, H., & Koslicki, D. (2022) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giad057 · Cited by 46
“SimpLE [Kazemi and Poole, 2018] is a tensor-factorization-based model to learn the semantic relation of a knowledge-graph triple.”
BackgroundMulti-task Pre-training Language Model for Semantic Network Completion
Li, D., Zhu, B., Yang, S., Xu, K., Ming, Y., He, Y., & Wang, H. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing · doi:10.1145/3627704 · Cited by 59
“For LP-BERT, the orders of the correct predicted results are [1,2,1,2,2], while the orders are [3,3,5,3,3] for MLM-”
BackgroundMethodSchema aware iterative Knowledge Graph completion
Wiharja, K. R. S., Pan, J. Z., Kollingbaum, M. J., & Deng, Y. (2020) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2020.100616 · Cited by 39
“There are two kinds of completion services for Knowledge Graphs, one for adding types of entities, called type prediction, while the other for adding relations between entities, called link prediction [31].”
BackgroundAdvanced Persistent Threat intelligent profiling technique: A survey
Tang, B., Wang, J., Yu, Z., Chen, B., Ge, W., Yu, J., & Lu, T. (2022) · Computers & Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.108261 · Cited by 37
Knowledge graph embedding learning system for defect diagnosis in additive manufacturing
Wang, R., & Cheung, C. F. (2023) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2023.103912 · Cited by 37
RHO: Reducing Hallucination in Open-domain Dialogues with Knowledge Grounding
Ji, Z., Liu, Z., Lee, N., Yu, T., Wilie, B., Zeng, M., & Fung, P. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.275 · Cited by 37
Wang, X., Wang, Y., Yang, J., Jia, X., Li, L., Ding, W., & Wang, F. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102321 · Cited by 42
Xie, Z., Zhu, R., Liu, J., Zhou, G., & Huang, J. X. (2022) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103076 · Cited by 36
He, M., Zhu, L., & Bai, L. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127680 · Cited by 37
Hadamard Product in Deep Learning: Introduction, Advances and Challenges
Chrysos, G. G., Wu, Y., Pascanu, R., Torr, P. H. S., & Cevher, V. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3560423 · Cited by 43
“SimplE [186] requires the Hadamard product to capture correlations between entities from other triplets, while CrossE [187] learns ”interacting” embeddings that jointly capture the entity-relationship correlations.”
SEEK: Segmented Embedding of Knowledge Graphs
Xu, W., Zheng, S., He, L., Shao, B., Yin, J. P., & Liu, T. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.358 · Cited by 37
“Some latest methods that achieve current state-of-the-art performance on FB15K, including Single DistMult (Kadlec et al., 2017), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), and DihEdral (Xu and Li, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialKnowledge Graph Embedding with Atrous Convolution and Residual Learning
Ren, F., Li, J., Zhang, H., Liu, S., Li, B., Ming, R., & Bai, Y. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.134 · Cited by 40
“…(Nickel et al. , 2016) 0.524 40.2 61.3 73.9 93.8 93.0 94.5 94.9 ComplEx (Trouillon et al. , 2016) 0.692 59.9 75.9 84.0 0.941 93.6 94.5 94.7 SimplE (Kazemi et al. , 2018) 0.727 66.0 77.3 83.8 0.942 93.9 94.4 94.7 D4-Gumbel (Xu and Li, 2019) 0 (Shang et al. , 2019) 0.35 26.0 39.0 54.0 0.47 43.0…”
InfluentialBiomedical Text Link Prediction for Drug Discovery: A Case Study with COVID-19
McCoy, K., Gudapati, S., He, L., Horlander, E., Kartchner, D., Kulkarni, S., Mehra, N., Prakash, J., Thenot, H., Vanga, S. V., et al. (2021) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics13060794 · Cited by 37
Ultrahyperbolic Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Xiong, B., Zhu, S., Nayyeri, M., Xu, C., Pan, S., Zhou, C. D., & Staab, S. (2022) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3534678.3539333 · Cited by 39
“To make the model scalable to the size of the current KGs and keep up with their growth, a KG embedding model should have linear time and parameter complexity [3, 15].”
MethodZhou, D., Gan, Z., Shi, X., Patwari, A., Rush, E. N., Bonzel, C.-L., Panickan, V. A., Hong, C., Ho, Y.-L. A., Cai, T. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2022.104147 · Cited by 36
Joint framework for tensor decomposition-based temporal knowledge graph completion
Zhang, F., Chen, H., Shi, Y., Cheng, J., & Lin, J. (2023) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.119853 · Cited by 35
Benchmark and Best Practices for Biomedical Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Chang, D., Balažević, I., Allen, C., Chawla, D. G., Brandt, C., & Taylor, A. (2020) · Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (BioNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.bionlp-1.18 · Cited by 36
“SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) modifies Canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition (Hitchcock, 1927) to allow two embeddings for each entity (head and tail) to be learned dependently.”
MethodHou, X., Ma, R., Yan, L., & Ma, Z. (2023) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.119225 · Cited by 33
ComPath: User Interest Mining in Heterogeneous Signed Social Networks for Internet of People
Dhelim, S., Ning, H., & Aung, N. (2020) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.3037109 · Cited by 33
“4 Knowledge Graph Embedding (SimplE) [28]: SimpIE is a tensor factorization approach based on canonical polyadic decomposition that addresses the independence among the two embedding vectors of the entities.”
MethodLearning hyperbolic attention-based embeddings for link prediction in knowledge graphs
Zeb, A., Haq, A. U., Chen, J., Lei, Z., & Zhang, D. (2021) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107369 · Cited by 33
TARGAT: A Time-Aware Relational Graph Attention Model for Temporal Knowledge Graph Embedding
Xie, Z., Zhu, R., Liu, J., Zhou, G., & Huang, J. X. (2023) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2023.3282101 · Cited by 34
“Bilinear models [23], [24], [34], [35], [36], [61], [62] leverage bilinear score functions to represent linear transformations on the embedding of entities.”
BackgroundRoAN: A relation-oriented attention network for temporal knowledge graph completion
Bai, L., Ma, X., Meng, X., Ren, X., & Ke, Y. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106308 · Cited by 32
Hyperbolic Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Knowledge Base Completion
Kolyvakis, P., Kalousis, A., & Kiritsis, D. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49461-2_12 · Cited by 34
“Lemma 1 The restrictions proved by Kazemi and Poole (2018) can be lifted for the TransE model when we consider that a fact is valid iff s R (s, o) ≤ λR for sufficient λR > 0.”
Influential5* Knowledge Graph Embeddings with Projective Transformations
Nayyeri, M., Vahdati, S., Aykul, C., & Lehmann, J. (2021) · AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i10.17095 · Cited by 32
“Definition 2 (from [9]) .”
Current Challenges and Future Directions in Podcast Information Access
Jones, R., Zamani, H., Schedl, M., Chen, C.-W., Reddy, S., Clifton, A., Jussi Karlgren, C., Hashemi, H., Pappu, A., Nazari, Z., et al. (2021) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3404835.3462805 · Cited by 42
Link Prediction with Attention Applied on Multiple Knowledge Graph Embedding Models
Gregucci, C., Nayyeri, M., Hernández, D., & Staab, S. (2023) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3543507.3583358 · Cited by 38
“We say that a modelm1 subsumes a modelm2 if for every given KGG and scoring by modelm2, there exists a scoring by model m1 such that the score of every triple t ∈ G bym1 approximates the score of t bym2 [19, 22].”
BackgroundKhoury, J., Klisura, Đ., Zanddizari, H., Parra, G. D. L. T., Najafirad, P., & Bou‐Harb, E. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00009 · Cited by 34
Open-world knowledge graph completion with multiple interaction attention
Niu, L., Fu, C., Yang, Q., Li, Z., Chen, Z., Liu, Q., & Zheng, K. (2020) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-020-00847-2 · Cited by 30
“SimplE [16] and TuckER [1] employ tensor decomposition to train and obtain representations of head entities, tail entities and relations.”
MethodLineaRE: Simple but Powerful Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction
Peng, Y., & Zhang, J. (2020) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm50108.2020.00051 · Cited by 30
“Quite a few methods [1], [6]-[8], [19], [20] have been proposed for knowledge graph embedding.”
MethodBilinear Scoring Function Search for Knowledge Graph Learning
Zhang, Y., Yao, Q., & Kwok, J. T.-Y. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2022.3157321 · Cited by 31
“KG is naturally incomplete [1], and KG completion is a representative task in KG learning [3], [6], [7], [10], [14], [17], [21].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCAFE: Knowledge graph completion using neighborhood-aware features
Borrego, A., Ayala, D., Hernández, I., Rivero, C. R., & Ruiz, D. (2021) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104302 · Cited by 31
Binarized graph neural network
Wang, H., Lian, D., Zhang, Y., Qin, L., He, X., Lin, Y., & Lin, X. (2021) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · Cited by 29
Knowledge-infused Learning for Entity Prediction in Driving Scenes
Wickramarachchi, R., Henson, C. A., & Sheth, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2021.759110 · Cited by 31
“Second, HolE (Nickel et al., 2016) uses the circular correlation (denoted by + in Table 4 ) among head and tail of a triple with its relation embedding to learn an ef fi cient compression of a full expressive (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) bi-linear model.”
MethodEntity Context and Relational Paths for Knowledge Graph Completion.Preprint
Wang, H., Ren, H., & Leskovec, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 33
Metadata
- 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)
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
