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
Items 101–200 of 475
Generalized Zero-shot Intent Detection via Commonsense Knowledge
Siddique, A. B., Jamour, F., Xu, L., & Hristidis, V. (2021) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3404835.3462985 · Cited by 35
“Link prediction (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) augments knowledge graphs by predicting missing relations using existing ones.”
BackgroundResultApproximate inferring with confidence predicting based on uncertain knowledge graph embedding
Yang, S., Zhang, W., Tang, R., Zhang, M., & Huang, Z. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.07.098 · Cited by 26
LogicENN: A Neural Based Knowledge Graphs Embedding Model With Logical Rules
Nayyeri, M., Xu, C., Alam, M. M., Lehmann, J., & Yazdi, H. S. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2021.3121646 · Cited by 31
“SimplE [12] is one the recent embedding model which is proven to be fully expressive.”
BackgroundGraph Convolutional Auto-Encoders for Predicting Novel lncRNA-Disease Associations
Silva, A. B. O. V., & Spinosa, E. J. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2021.3070910 · Cited by 26
Han, Z., Zhang, G., Ma, Y., & Volker Tresp, C. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.639 · Cited by 29
“Another line of work is bilinear score functions (Nickel et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2014; Trouillon et al., 2016; Kazemi and Poole, 2018) that define product-based functions over embeddings, i.e., s RESCAL ( e s , r, e o ) = e Ts Re o , where relation matrix R ∈ R d × d contain weights r i,j that…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKnowledge graph embedding with the special orthogonal group in quaternion space for link prediction
Le, T., Tran, H., & Le, B. H. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110400 · Cited by 28
Search to Pass Messages for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Wang, Z., Du, H., Yao, Q., & Li, X. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.458 · Cited by 26
Structure-augmented knowledge graph embedding for sparse data with rule learning
Zhao, F., Sun, H., Jin, L., & Jin, H. (2020) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2020.05.017 · Cited by 27
Duality-Induced Regularizer for Semantic Matching Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Wang, J., Zhang, Z., Shi, Z., Cai, J., Ji, S., & Wu, F. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2022.3161804 · Cited by 26
“We Reimplement CP, ComplEx, and RESCAL Using the “reciprocal” setting [37], [41], Which Leads to Better Results Than the Reported Results in the Original Paper.”
MethodResultA Novel Tensor Learning Model for Joint Relational Triplet Extraction
Wang, Z., Nie, H., Zheng, W., Wang, Y., & Li, X. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2023.3265851 · Cited by 27
“These patterns are shown the semantic similarity among relations and have been studied in some previous works [33], [34], [35] in the link prediction task.”
ResultIterDE: An Iterative Knowledge Distillation Framework for Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Liu, J., Wang, P., Shang, Z., & Wu, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25570 · Cited by 24
An attention mechanism and residual network based knowledge graph-enhanced recommender system
Li, W., Zhong, H., Zhou, J., Chang, C., Lin, R., & Tang, Y. Z. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112042 · Cited by 25
M2KGRL: A semantic-matching based framework for multimodal knowledge graph representation learning
Chen, T., Wang, T., Zhang, H., & Xu, J. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126388 · Cited by 26
Knowledge Graph Embedding Compression
Sachan, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.238 · Cited by 27
“, 2016) 〈r, ei ⊗ ej〉 (ne + nr)d SimpleE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) 1”
Learning graph attention-aware knowledge graph embedding
Li, C., Peng, X., Niu, Y., Zhang, S., Peng, H. M., Zhou, C. D., & Li, J. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.01.139 · Cited by 24
Block term decomposition with distinct time granularities for temporal knowledge graph completion
Lai, Y., Chen, C., Zheng, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117036 · Cited by 24
TempCaps: A Capsule Network-based Embedding Model for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Fu, G., Zhao, M., Han, Z. Y., Ding, Z., Ma, Y., Schubert, M., Volker Tresp, C., & Wattenhofer, R. P. (2022) · Workshop on Structured Prediction for NLP (SPNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.spnlp-1.3 · Cited by 25
“The static models include TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2015) and SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) while temporal models are HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018), TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018), and DE-SimplE (Goel et al., 2020).”
MethodInfluentialTimespan-Aware Dynamic Knowledge Graph Embedding by Incorporating Temporal Evolution
Tang, X., Yuan, R., Li, Q., Wang, T., Yang, H., Cai, Y., & Song, H. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2964028 · Cited by 19
da Silva, E. S., Pedrini, H., & dos Santos, A. L. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2023.3257993 · Cited by 23
“We extended the experiments, reducing the dataset using about 60,000 edges by applying some common link prediction implementations [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], the results are shown in Tables V.”
MethodRTFE: A Recursive Temporal Fact Embedding Framework for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Xu, Y., Haihong, E., Song, M., Song, W., Lv, X., Wang, H., & Yang, 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.451 · Cited by 28
“In recent years, a lot of work (Bordes et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015; Kazemi and Poole, 2018; Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020) has focused on KG completion by methods of graph embedding.”
BackgroundGeometric Algebra based Embeddings for Static and Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Xu, C., Nayyeri, M., Chen, Y.-Y., & Lehmann, J. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3151435 · Cited by 26
Shrinking Embeddings for Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graphs
Xiong, B., Nayyeri, M., Pan, S., & Staab, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.743 · Cited by 34
Out-of-Sample Representation Learning for Knowledge Graphs
Albooyeh, M., Goel, R., & Kazemi, S. M. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.241 · Cited by 24
“Loss function: We use the L2 regularized negative log-likelihood which has proved effective in several works (Trouillon et al., 2016; Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationAggregation or separation? Adaptive embedding message passing for knowledge graph completion
Li, Z., Chen, L., Jian, Y., Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Zhang, M., Xiao, K., Zhang, Y., Deng, H., & Hou, X. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.121639 · Cited by 24
Learning Embeddings from Knowledge Graphs With Numeric Edge Attributes
Pai, S., & Costabello, L. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/395 · Cited by 31
Gao, Y., He, Y., Kan, Z., Han, Y., Qiao, L., & Li, D. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.28 · Cited by 21
Integrating Entity Attributes for Error-Aware Knowledge Graph Embedding
Zhang, Q., Dong, J., Tan, Q., & Huang, X. X. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2023.3310149 · Cited by 22
“SimplE [42] SimplE embeddings offer interpretability and allow the integration of specific background knowledge by employing weight tying.”
BackgroundMethodTemporal Link Prediction Via Reinforcement Learning
Ye, T., Li, Y., & Wu, Z. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9413413 · Cited by 20
“Some methods, such as TransE [8], DistMult [9], Com-plEx [10] and SimplE [11], learn low-dimensional representations for entities and relations and construct a score function to evaluate facts.”
MethodStATIK: Structure and Text for Inductive Knowledge Graph Completion
Markowitz, E., Balasubramanian, K., Mirtaheri, M., Annavaram, M., Galstyan, A., & Steeg, G. V. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.46 · Cited by 23
Completing Scientific Facts in Knowledge Graphs of Research Concepts
Borrego, A., Dessı̀, D., Hernández, I., Osborne, F., Recupero, D. R., Ruiz, D., Buscaldi, D., & Motta, E. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3220241 · Cited by 23
“KG embeddings [23], [30] learn embedded representations of KGs entities and relations, performing different transformations in an embedding space [24], [25], [26], [31], [32], [33], [34].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTensor decompositions for temporal knowledge graph completion with time perspective
Yang, J., Ying, X., Shi, Y., & Xing, B. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121267 · Cited by 22
Guo, J., Zhao, M., Yu, J. X., Yu, R., Song, J., Wang, Q., Xu, L., & Yu, M. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.121409 · Cited by 19
Knowledge graph based reasoning in medical image analysis: A scoping review
Huang, Q., & Li, G. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109100 · Cited by 19
Efficient Relation-aware Scoring Function Search for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Di, S., Yao, Q., Zhang, Y., & Chen, L. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde51399.2021.00100 · Cited by 22
“Currently, BLMs are the most powerful in terms of both empirical results and theoretical guarantees [19] on expressiveness [10], [17].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialZhu, Y., Zhang, W., Chen, M., Chen, H., Cheng, X., Zhang, W., & Chen, H. (2022) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3488560.3498437 · Cited by 21
“The MRR of TransE, SimplE, ComplEx and RotatE on WN18RR improves from 0 .”
InfluentialQDN: A Quadruplet Distributor Network for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Wang, J., Wang, B., Gao, J., Li, X., Hu, Y., & Yin, B. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3274230 · Cited by 23
“DE-SimplE [34] uses the diachronic entity embedding function to embed the entity at different timestamps and operates SimplE [16] as the decoder to evaluate the confidence of the quadruplet.”
BackgroundMethodA Knowledge Selective Adversarial Network for Link Prediction in Knowledge Graph
Hu, K., Liu, H., & Hao, T. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32233-5_14 · Cited by 19
Liu, L., Du, B., Fung, Y. R., Ji, H., Xu, J., & Tong, H. (2021) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3447548.3467128 · Cited by 19
Binarized Embeddings for Fast, Space-Efficient Knowledge Graph Completion
Hayashi, K., Kishimoto, K., & Shimbo, M. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2021.3075070 · Cited by 18
“It is known that the CP model (1) is fully expressive [12], i.e., given any knowledge graph, there exist embeddings of the entities and relations that accurately reconstruct it.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMADE: Multicurvature Adaptive Embedding for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Wang, J., Wang, B., Gao, J., Pan, S., Liu, T., Yin, B., & Gao, W. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2024.3392957 · Cited by 19
“1) SKGC Methods: TransE [14], DistMult [19], SimplE [22], and RotatE [15].”
MethodSelectE: Multi-scale adaptive selection network for knowledge graph representation learning
Zu, L., Lin, L., Fu, S., Guo, F., & Wu, J. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111554 · Cited by 18
Path-based reasoning with K-nearest neighbor and position embedding for knowledge graph completion
Peng, Z., Yu, H. Z., & Jia, X. (2021) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10844-021-00671-8 · Cited by 18
“To evaluate the performance of our model, we compare KPE-PTransE with several state-of-the-art models, including TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), TransR (Lin et al., 2015), PTransE (Lin et al., 2015), DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), SimplE (Kazemi & Poole, 2018), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 201…”
BackgroundMethodTranslation-Based Embeddings with Octonion for Knowledge Graph Completion
Yu, M., Bai, C., Yu, J. X., Zhao, M., Xu, T., Liu, H., Li, X., & Yu, R. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12083935 · Cited by 19
Tran, H.-N., & Takasu, A. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/314 · Cited by 20
“They make up most of recent state-of-the-art models such as ComplEx [Trouillon et al. , 2016], SimplE [Kazemi and Poole, 2018], TuckER [Balaˇzevi´c et al. , 2019], and MEI [Tran and Takasu, 2020].”
BackgroundLee, Y.-C., Lee, J., Lee, D., & Kim, S. (2022) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm54844.2022.00127 · Cited by 17
“DE-SimplE [12] represents each entity into a diachronic embedding in which a fraction of features reflects its own characteristics per timestamp.”
BackgroundEx pede Herculem: Augmenting Activity Transition Graph for Apps via Graph Convolution Network
Liu, Z., Chen, C., Wang, J., Su, Y., Huang, Y.-K., Hu, J., & Wang, Q. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00168 · Cited by 17
“Mehran et al. [107] developed SimplE based on CP to predict the link in knowledge graphs.”
SANe: Space adaptation network for temporal knowledge graph completion
Li, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, B., Huang, F., Chen, X., Lu, M. X., & Ma, S. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.120430 · Cited by 17
TransN: Heterogeneous Network Representation Learning by Translating Node Embeddings
Li, Z., Zheng, W., Lin, X., Zhao, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Jian, X., Chen, L., Yan, Q., & Mao, T. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde48307.2020.00057 · Cited by 18
“• SimplE [17] is a recent embedding method on knowledge graphs, which is an enhancement of the Canonical Polyadic decomposition [15] for tensors.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialResearch Ideas Discovery via Hierarchical Negative Correlation
Chen, L., Wang, X., Ban, T., Usman, M., Liu, S., Lyu, D., & Chen, H. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2022.3184498 · Cited by 20
“Kazemi and Poole [33] proposed SimplE for link prediction, an enhanced tensor factorization approach.”
BackgroundLearning knowledge graph embeddings by deep relational roto-reflection
Zeb, A., Saif, S., Chen, J., & Zhang, D. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109451 · Cited by 17
Re-Temp: Relation-Aware Temporal Representation Learning for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Wang, K., Han, C., & Poon, J. (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.20 · Cited by 16
Daiya, D., Wu, M.-S., & Lin, C. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053479 · Cited by 15
“We employ Kazemi’s proposition [9] in our extension InvED to Ding’s model [7].”
MethodAmador-Domínguez, E., Serrano, E., Manrique, D., Hohenecker, P., & Lukasiewicz, T. (2021) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.02.018 · Cited by 16
Text-Graph Enhanced Knowledge Graph Representation Learning
Hu, L., Zhang, M., Li, S., Shi, J., Shi, C., Yang, C. H., & Liu, Z. (2021) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2021.697856 · Cited by 18
“Apart from translation-based models, semantic matching models using similarity-based scoring function have been explored (Yang et al., 2015; Trouillon et al., 2017; Kazemi and Poole, 2018; Bansal et al., 2019).”
MethodDataType-Aware Knowledge Graph Representation Learning in Hyperbolic Space
Shen, Y., Zhao, L., Wang, X., Li, J., & Zhang, X. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3459637.3482421 · Cited by 16
“SimplE [17] is an enhancement of the canonical polyadic decomposition, which allows learning two embeddings of each entity independently.”
BackgroundEntity Summarization via Exploiting Description Complementarity and Salience
Chen, L., Li, Z., He, W., Cheng, G., Xu, T., Yuan, N. J., & Chen, E. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2022.3149047 · Cited by 16
“Besides, SimplE [42] proposes a simple enhancement of canonical polyadic decomposition.”
PTKE: Translation-based temporal knowledge graph embedding in polar coordinate system
Liu, R., Yin, G., Liu, Z., & Zhang, L. (2023) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2023.01.079 · Cited by 16
Knowledge Graph Embeddings in Geometric Algebras
Xu, C., Nayyeri, M., Chen, Y.-Y., & Lehmann, J. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.46 · Cited by 16
“, 2018), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), TorusE (Ebisu and Ichise, 2018), RotatE, pRotatE (Sun et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialLarge-scale agent-based simulations of online social networks
Murić, G., Tregubov, A., Blythe, J., et al. (2022) · Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems · doi:10.1007/s10458-022-09565-7 · Cited by 15
“There has been extensive research in the area of network embedding and its application to link prediction [17, 19, 22, 26].”
BackgroundIncorporating logic rules with textual representations for interpretable knowledge graph reasoning
Pan, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, L., & Huang, Y. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110787 · Cited by 15
RoCS: Knowledge Graph Embedding Based on Joint Cosine Similarity
Wang, L., Luo, J., Deng, S., & Guo, X. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13010147 · Cited by 17
Contrastive Predictive Embedding for learning and inference in knowledge graph
Liu, C., Wei, Z., & Zhou, L. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112730 · Cited by 16
Representing a Heterogeneous Pharmaceutical Knowledge-Graph with Textual Information
Asada, M., Gunasekaran, N., Miwa, M., & Sasaki, Y. (2021) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2021.670206 · Cited by 15
“This evaluation setting has been adopted in many existing studies as a fi ltered setting (Bordes et al., 2013; Trouillon et al., 2016; Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
BackgroundMethodCone Semantics for Logics with Negation
Özçep, Ö. L., Leemhuis, M., & Wolter, D. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/252 · Cited by 15
“…graphs, i.e., of sets of triples of the form ( a R b ) for objects a and b and relations R , or even embeddings of knowledge graphs with additional background knowledge, say an ontology consisting of axioms in some (expressive) logic [Mehran Kazemi and Poole, 2018; Kulmanov et al. , 2019].”
BackgroundXie, P., Zhou, G., Liu, J., & Huang, J. X. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121086 · Cited by 14
Knowledge graph embedding with inverse function representation for link prediction
Zhang, Q., & Xu, Y. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107225 · Cited by 14
Dai, Y., Yan, M., & Li, J. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.121698 · Cited by 14
ConvD: Attention Enhanced Dynamic Convolutional Embeddings for Knowledge Graph Completion
Guo, W., Li, Z., Wang, X., Chen, Z., Zhao, J., Li, J., & Yuan, Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2025.3582243 · Cited by 21
“Subsequent works have further explored simplifying the complex patterns of relation matrices [4] and addressing issues such as asymmetric relation matching [21].”
Triple Classification for Scholarly Knowledge Graph Completion
Jaradeh, M. Y., Singh, K., Stocker, M., & Auer, S. (2021) · International Conference on Knowledge Capture · doi:10.1145/3460210.3493582 · Cited by 18
“iv) Other KGEmodels, specifically: AATE [4] and TEKE [40] that leverage textual information; Contextualized graph embeddings with mKG2E [17]; Complex-values KG embeddings techniques RotatE [35] and ComplEX [36]; compositional vector-space embeddings HolE [30]; Learning embeddings dependently with SimplE [23]; v) BERT…”
MethodHeterogeneous representation learning and matching for few-shot relation prediction
Wu, T., Ma, H., Wang, C., Qiao, S., Zhang, L., & Yu, S. (2022) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2022.108830 · Cited by 15
DTI-MPFM: A multi-perspective fusion model for predicting potential drug–target interactions
He, C., Yang, C., Zhang, H., Long, Y., & Zhao, X. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125740 · Cited by 13
ECOLA: Enhancing Temporal Knowledge Embeddings with Contextualized Language Representations
Han, Z. Y., Liao, R., Gu, J., Zhang, Y., Ding, Z., Gu, Y., Koeppl, H., Schütze, H., & Volker Tresp, C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.335 · Cited by 15
“Qualitative Analysis To investigate why incorporating textual knowledge can improve the tKG embedding models’ performance, we study the test samples that have been correctly predicted by the fusion model ECOLA-DE but wrongly by the tKG model DE-SimplE.”
MethodInfluentialZhou, Y., Zhu, C., & Zhu, W. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103705 · Cited by 14
Knowledge Graph Embeddings and Explainable AI
Bianchi, F., Rossiello, G., Luca, C., Palmonari, M., & Minervini, P. (2020) · Studies on the semantic web · doi:10.3233/ssw200011 · Cited by 74
“In general, bilinear models obtain good results in the link prediction tasks [44].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialUnderstanding Negative Sampling in Knowledge Graph Embedding
Qian, J., Li, G., Atkinson, K. M., & Yue, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications · doi:10.5121/ijaia.2021.12105 · Cited by 14
Knowledge Graph Representation Learning using Ordinary Differential Equations
Nayyeri, M., Xu, C., Hoffmann, F., Alam, M. M., Lehmann, J., & Vahdati, S. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.750 · Cited by 13
“Moreover, because ComplEx is fully expressive (as defined in (Kazemi and Poole, 2018)) and it is subsumed by SFieldE , we conclude that Neuro-SFieldE is also fully expressive.”
BackgroundE8-IJS@LT-EDI-ACL2022 - BERT, AutoML and Knowledge-graph backed Detection of Depression
Tavchioski, I., Koloski, B., Škrlj, B., & Pollak, S. (2022) · Workshop on Language Technology for Equality, Diversity, Inclusion (LT-EDI) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.ltedi-1.36 · Cited by 14
“…KG. Based on which representations the data catches, we utilize 6 different knowledge graph representations: transE (Bordes et al., 2013), rotatE (Sun et al., 2019), complEx (Trouil-lon et al., 2016), distmult (Yang et al., 2015), sim-plE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), and quate (Zhang et al., 2019).”
MethodKnowledge graph completion using topological correlation and multi-perspective independence
Yu, M., Zhang, Q., Yu, J. X., Zhao, M., Li, X., Jin, D., Yang, M., & Yu, R. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110031 · Cited by 13
MQuadE: a Unified Model for Knowledge Fact Embedding
Yu, J., Cai, Y., Sun, M., & Li, P. (2021) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3442381.3449879 · Cited by 13
“DistMult [38] can be regarded as Canonical Polyadic (CP) tensor decomposition of the three order binary tensor of the knowledge graph [10, 13].”
MethodSynergies between machine learning and reasoning - An introduction by the Kay R. Amel group
Baaj, I., Bouraoui, Z., Cornuéjols, A., Denœux, T., Destercke, S., Didier Dubois, A., Lesot, M., Marques-Silva, J. P., Mengin, J., Prade, H. M., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Approximate Reasoning · doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2024.109206 · Cited by 13
Binarized Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Kishimoto, K., Hayashi, K., Akai, G., Shimbo, M., & Komatani, K. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15712-8_12 · Cited by 12
“Following literature [20], we formulate a logistic regression model for solving the CP decomposition problem.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialA knowledge graph completion model integrating entity description and network structure
Yu, C., Zhang, Z., An, L., & Li, G. (2022) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-01-2022-0031 · Cited by 12
Meta-Learning Based Dynamic Adaptive Relation Learning for Few-Shot Knowledge Graph Completion
Cai, L., Wang, L., Yuan, R., & Lai, T. (2023) · Big Data Research · doi:10.1016/j.bdr.2023.100394 · Cited by 14
Generalized Relation Learning with Semantic Correlation Awareness for Link Prediction
Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, J., Liang, H., Lei, W., Sun, Z., Jatowt, A., & Yang, Z. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i5.16598 · Cited by 13
“New knowledge emerges continuously, and hence the issue of incompleteness of KGs has triggered wide research interests in link prediction task, which requires predicting the missing links in KGs (Seyed and David 2018).”
BackgroundXiao, Y., Zheng, S., Feng, H., Huang, Y., Leng, J.-W., & Hong, J. (2025) · Journal of manufacturing systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2025.08.002 · Cited by 10
Efficient Hyper-parameter Search for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., Yao, Q., & Li, Y. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.194 · Cited by 14
Shan, W., Shen, C., Luo, L., & Ding, P. (2023) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.108020 · Cited by 11
An Overview of Utilizing Knowledge Bases in Neural Networks for Question Answering
Kafle, S., de Silva, N., & Dou, D. (2020) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-020-10035-2 · Cited by 11
“Kazemi and Poole (2018) and Kazemi and Elqursh (2017) also show the limitation of expressiveness of translation based methods in a manner similar to dimensionality reductions where the expressiveness is limited but regularity is stronger with smaller number of dimensions.”
BackgroundKnowledge graph embedding with shared latent semantic units
Zhang, Z., Zhuang, F., Qu, M., Niu, Z.-Y., Xiong, H., & He, Q. (2021) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2021.02.013 · Cited by 12
Daruna, A., Das, D., & Chernova, S. (2022) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros47612.2022.9982104 · Cited by 11
“Method User? KGE Agnostic? Negative Correlations? Standalone? F1 Fidelity (μ, σ) SimplE [18] Expert ✗ ✓ ✓ N/A ITransF [17] Expert ✗ ✓ ✓ N/A CrossE [20] ¬Expert ✗ ✓ ✓ N/A DistMult [19] ¬Expert ✓ ✗ ✓ N/A OxKBC [21] ¬Expert ✓ ✓ ✗ N/A XKE [16] ¬Expert ✓ ✓ ✓ (87.”
Friendly Neighbors: Contextualized Sequence-to-Sequence Link Prediction
Kochsiek, A., Saxena, A., Nair, I., & Gemulla, R. (2023) · Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.repl4nlp-1.11 · Cited by 12
Embedding Ontologies in the Description Logic ALC by Axis-Aligned Cones
Özçep, Ö. L., Leemhuis, M., & Wolter, D. (2023) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.13939 · Cited by 11
Lee, Y.-C., Lee, J., Lee, D., & Kim, S. (2023) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.119857 · Cited by 11
Joint Embedding Learning of Educational Knowledge Graphs
Yao, S., Wang, R., Sun, S., Bu, D., & Liu, J. (2020) · Advances in analytics for learning and teaching · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41099-5_12 · Cited by 15
“KG embedding techniques [6,23,15,14] learn continuous low-dimensional vector representations of KGs.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAggregating neighborhood information for negative sampling for knowledge graph embedding
Liu, H., Hu, K., Wang, F. L., & Hao, T. (2020) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-020-04940-5 · Cited by 12
“An expressive tensor factorization model SimplE [30] made ComplEx simpler by reducing parameters and computations.”
MethodLeveraging Static Models for Link Prediction in Temporal Knowledge Graphs
Radstok, W., Chekol, M., & Velegrakis, Y. (2021) · 2021 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) · doi:10.1109/ictai52525.2021.00165 · Cited by 9
“However, [15] propose a simple enhancement to CP that addresses this independence, called SimplE.”
MethodHRER: A New Bottom-Up Rule Learning for Knowledge Graph Completion
Liang, Z., Yang, J., Liu, H., Huang, K., Cui, L., Qu, L., & Li, X. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11060908 · Cited by 11
Survey of Fake News Datasets and Detection Methods in European and Asian Languages
Amjad, M., Butt, S., Zhila, A., et al. (2022) · Acta Polytechnica Hungarica · doi:10.12700/aph.19.10.2022.10.11 · Cited by 10
MPI-VGAE: protein–metabolite enzymatic reaction link learning by variational graph autoencoders
Wang, C., Yuan, C., Wang, Y., Chen, R., Shi, Y., Zhang, T., Xue, F., Patti, G. J., Wei, L., & Hou, Q. (2023) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbad189 · Cited by 13
Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning Based on Entity Relationship Similarity Perception
Feng, S., Zhou, C., Liu, Q., et al. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13122417 · Cited by 10
“DE-SimplE: DE-SimplE [39] extends the SimplE [40] model based on diachronic embedding (DE).”
Background
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
