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 301–400 of 475
Joint embedding in hierarchical distance and semantic representation learning for link prediction
Liu, J., Chen, J., Fan, C., et al. (2024) · Big Data Research · doi:10.1016/j.bdr.2024.100495 · Cited by 4
Capturing Semantic and Syntactic Information for Link Prediction in Knowledge Graphs
Wang, C., Yan, M., Yi, C., & Sha, Y. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30793-6_38 · Cited by 4
Embedding Taxonomical, Situational or Sequential Knowledge Graph Context for Recommendation Tasks
Werner, S., Rettinger, A., Halilaj, L., & Luettin, J. (2021) · Studies on the semantic web · doi:10.3233/ssw210046 · Cited by 4
“A more recent approach extends the current KGE method SimplE [15] to hypergraphs [9] but does not take into account temporal or sequential information.”
MethodHRotatE: Hybrid Relational Rotation Embedding for Knowledge Graph
Shah, A., Molokwu, B. C., & Kobti, Z. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533416 · Cited by 4
“HRotatE uses the inverse relation, and it computes an inverse score too based on the inspiration drawn from SimplE [15].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Novel Embedding Model for Knowledge Graph Completion Based on Quaternion
Gao, H., Yang, K., Yang, Y., & Qin, K. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Information, Communication and Networks (ICICN) · doi:10.1109/icicn52636.2021.9673862 · Cited by 4
Improved Knowledge Graph Embedding Using Background Taxonomic Information
Fatemi, B., Ravanbakhsh, S., & Poole, D. (2019) · AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33013526 · Cited by 25
“SimplE (Kazemi and Poole 2018c) achieves state-of-the-art in KG completion by considering two embeddings for each relation: one for the relation r ∈ R itself and one for its inverse.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationChen, Y., Li, X., Liu, Y., & Hu, T. (2025) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym17020173 · Cited by 3
Interleaving and cross-attention presents efficient knowledge graph embedding
Wu, J., Laili, Y., Qi, C., Li, Z., & Ren, L. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126930 · Cited by 4
Qiu, Q., Lu, S., Ma, K., et al. (2025) · Transactions in GIS · doi:10.1111/tgis.70042 · Cited by 3
Gong, K., Song, X., Liu, S., et al. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.129957 · Cited by 3
Few-Shot Knowledge Graph Completion Model Based on Relation Learning
Li, W., Gu, J., Li, A., Gao, Y., & Zhang, X. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13179513 · Cited by 3
Word Sense Disambiguation Combining Knowledge Graph and Text Hierarchical Structure
Cao, Y., Jin, C., Tang, Y., & Wei, Z. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing · doi:10.1145/3677524 · Cited by 3
Fair-RGNN: Mitigating Relational Bias on Knowledge Graphs
Chuang, Y.-N., Lai, K.-H., Tang, R., Du, M., Chang, C.-Y., Zou, N., & Hu, X. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3681792 · Cited by 11
“We test our framework on three publicly available datasets, which include FB15K-237 [40], Pokec-KG [39] and NBA-players 1 .”
Zhao, Y., Bollegala, D., Hirose, S., Jin, Y., & Kozu, T. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104725 · Cited by 3
Knowledge Graph for Solubility Big Data: Construction and Applications
Haiyang, X., Ruomei, Y., Yan, W., Guan, L., & Li, M. (2024) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1570 · Cited by 6
ZhangSun, J., Yu, Y., Zou, B., et al. (2025) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2522 · Cited by 3
“…al., 2013 ) .241 .341 .276 .198 DistMult ( Yang et al., 2014 ) .323 .446 .301 .199 ComplEx ( Trouillon et al., 2016 ) .337 .424 .387 .351 SimplE ( Kazemi & Poole, 2018 ) .441 .427 .399 .368 R-GCN ( Schlichtkrull et al., 2018 ) .255 .433 .289 .158 ConvE ( Dettmers et al., 2018 ) .443 .522 .463…”
InfluentialModeling N-ary Relational Knowledge Bases with Tensor Decomposition
Liu, Y., Yao, Q., & Li, Y. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3709002 · Cited by 3
“Based on the scoring function design, the typical works in binary relational KBs can be categorized into three groups: translational distance models [6, 19, 26, 50], neural network models [8, 37, 39], and tensor decomposition models [2, 22, 34, 43, 52].”
InfluentialFeng, S., Lu, H., Liu, Q., Xu, P., Zheng, Y., Chen, B., & Huang, M. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16090717 · Cited by 4
Dynamic Relation Repairing for Knowledge Enhancement
Kang, R., & Wang, H. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2021.3101237 · Cited by 3
“Linkage prediction aims to catch the missing relations based on knowledge graph [25], [26].”
BackgroundTensor Decomposition for Link Prediction in Temporal Knowledge Graphs
Chekol, M. W. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP) · doi:10.1145/3460210.3493558 · Cited by 3
“The CP [17] and SimplE [14] models use the Cande-comp/Parafac (CP) tensor decomposition technique to approximate Y with a predicted tensor X ∈ R 𝑁 × 𝑀 × 𝑁 .”
MethodInfluentialAn Embedding Model for Knowledge Graph Completion Based on Graph Sub-Hop Convolutional Network
He, H., Niu, H., Feng, J., Nie, J., Zhang, Y., & Ren, J. (2022) · Big Data Research · doi:10.1016/j.bdr.2022.100351 · Cited by 3
Knowledge Graph Embeddings using Neural Ito Process: From Multiple Walks to Stochastic Trajectories
Nayyeri, M., Xiong, B., Mohammadi, M., Akter, M. M., Alam, M. M., Lehmann, J., & Staab, S. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.448 · Cited by 4
“We added reciprocal relations to the training samples as a standard technique used in (Kazemi and Poole, 2018; Lacroix et al., 2018).”
MethodFast and Slow Thinking: A Two-Step Schema-Aware Approach for Instance Completion in Knowledge Graphs
Yang, D., Qu, B., Rosso, P., & Cudré-Mauroux, P. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2023.3304137 · Cited by 4
“…model both symmetric and asymmetric relations; Analogy [81], which explicitly models analogical structuresinmulti-relationalKGembeddings; SimplE [82], which is an expressive and interpretable KG embedding techniques based on canonical polyadic tensor decomposition; RotatE [79], which defines a…”
MethodTrans-Trip: Translation-based embedding with Triplets for Heterogeneous Graphs.
Ammar, K., Inoubli, W., Zghal, S., et al. (2023) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.098 · Cited by 3
Zhang, T., Xu, R., Wang, C., Duan, Z., Chen, C., Qiu, M., Cheng, D., He, X., & Qian, W. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.969 · Cited by 4
Bayesian Inference with Complex Knowledge Graph Evidence
Toroghi, A., & Sanner, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i18.30040 · Cited by 6
“In this work, we use the SimplE KGE method (Kazemi and Poole 2018) because of its efficient computation and simple multiplicative scoring function that aligns with the Bayesian formulation by introducing a tensor factorized likelihood.”
MethodYang, J., Wang, X., Yang, L. T., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/tsc.2025.3541552 · Cited by 3
“The model can be extended to some existing bilinear models, such as RESCAL [31], DistMult [20], ComplEx [21], and Sim-plE [32], etc.”
Almagro-Hernández, G., Mulero-Hernández, J., Deshmukh, P., Bernabé-Díaz, J. A., Sánchez-Fernández, J. L., Espinoza-Arias, P., Mueller, J., & Fernández‐Breis, J. T. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113283 · Cited by 4
Zhang, K., Ouyang, G., & Huang, Y. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3572357 · Cited by 3
“SimplE [7] introduces inverse mapping for relations, improving the model’s expressive power through bidirectional score computation.”
A Non-commutative Bilinear Model for Answering Path Queries in Knowledge Graphs
Hayashi, K., & Shimbo, M. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1246 · Cited by 3
“More recent bilinear models such as ANALOGY 3 (Liu et al., 2017) and SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) also represent relations by diagonal matrices, and thus they can only model commutative relation paths.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Bi-directional Relation Aware Network for Link Prediction in Knowledge Graph
Hu, K., Liu, H., Zhan, C., et al. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-7670-6_22 · Cited by 3
Can Knowledge Graph Embeddings Tell Us What Fact-checked Claims Are About?
Beretta, V., Harispe, S., Boland, K., Seen, L. L., Todorov, K., & Tchechmedjiev, A. (2020) · Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP (Insights) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.insights-1.11 · Cited by 3
“, 2018) to link prediction in large KGs (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) allowing for KG completion/fusion.”
BackgroundInfluentialOpen-World Relationship Prediction
Wang, J., Wang, X., Luo, X., & Qin, W. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) · doi:10.1109/ictai50040.2020.00058 · Cited by 3
“TransE [1], Distmult [31], ComplEx [28] and SimplE [10] are examples of linear models.”
BackgroundMethodA Semantic Network Encoder for Associated Fact Prediction
Wang, Z., Sun, Y., Hu, X., et al. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2021.3053389 · Cited by 3
“The scoring function is defined as the negative translational distance f ð h; r; t Þ Later, bilinear methods [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] focus on calculating the credibility of the latent semantics of entities and relationships in the vector space.”
MethodFeng, J., & Lin, X. (2022) · Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1155/2022/5043838 · Cited by 3
“Therefore, it is introduced into personalized recommendation, which can alleviate the problem of cold start, find the potential relationship between recommended items, and improve the accuracy and diversity of recommendations [9, 10].”
BackgroundA Two-Stage Framework for Directed Hypergraph Link Prediction
Xiao, G., Liao, J., Tan, Z., et al. (2022) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math10142372 · Cited by 3
“There were many linear mathematics ways of link prediction created in recent years such as RESCAL [18], DistMult [19], ComplEx [20], and SimplE [21].”
BackgroundJin, Z., Men, T., Yuan, H., He, Z., Sui, D., Wang, C., Xue, Z., Chen, Y., & Zhao, J. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (ACL Demo) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-demo.16 · Cited by 3
“In CogKGE, we implement several translational distance models, including TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), TransH (Wang et al., 2014), TransR (Lin et al., 2015), TransD (Ji et al., 2015), TransA (Xiao et al., 2015), RotatE (Sun et al., 2018), BoxE (Abboud et al., 2020) and PairRE (Chao et al., 2020).”
MethodXu, J., Zhang, W., Duan, Q., & Li, S. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1937079/v1 · Cited by 3
Research on the Prospect of Knowledge Graph Completion Based on the Federated Setting
Zhao, A., Liu, Y., Wei, S., Yu, L., Feng, W., & Gu, Z. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc59305.2023.00019 · Cited by 2
“SimplE [20] initializes two vectors for each entity, and makes use of the inverse of relation to capture the symmetry of the relations in the scoring function, so that the two vectors can be trained in a mutually enhancing way, allowing the model to capture complex patterns of KGs more effectively.”
MethodZhou, N., Yuan, Y., & Chen, L. (2025) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-025-06556-5 · Cited by 2
Two-layer tensor decomposition for temporal kge graph completion
Yue, L., Ren, Y., Zeng, Y., et al. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.127953 · Cited by 2
Knowledge graph information bottleneck enhanced molecular representation learning
Dai, J., Fu, D., Qiu, Z., Ma, L., & Zhang, D. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107560 · Cited by 2
Lin, L., Suo, S., Fu, S., Zu, L., Zhang, S., & Liu, Y. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128923 · Cited by 3
Identification of Missing Knowledge in MBSE System Models Using Graph‐Based Machine Learning
Karagoz, E., Fischer, O. J. P., & Mavris, D. N. (2025) · Systems Engineering · doi:10.1002/sys.70013 · Cited by 3
Aprendizado de máquina e inferência em Grafos de Conhecimento
Silva, D., Ziviani, A., & Porto, F. A. M. (2019) · doi:10.5753/sbc.6251.1.4 · Cited by 2
“• Correspondência semântica: ANALOGY [Liu et al. 2017], ConvE [Dettmers et al. 2018], JOIE [Hao et al. 2019], MKBE [Pezeshkpour et al. 2018], RESCAL [Nickel et al. 2011], R-GCN [Schlichtkrull et al. 2018] e SimplE [Kazemi and Poole 2018].”
BackgroundInfluentialContrastive Learning in Neural Tensor Networks using Asymmetric Examples
Islam, M. M., Sarkhel, S., & Venugopal, D. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata52589.2021.9671631 · Cited by 2
“This is similar to the transitive relationship encoded in [14].”
BackgroundInfluentialKnowledge graph embedding based on semantic hierarchy
Fan, L., Sun, Y., Xu, F., et al. (2022) · Cognitive Robotics · doi:10.1016/j.cogr.2022.06.002 · Cited by 2
Xu, H., Bao, J., Li, H., He, C. H., & Chen, F. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13040742 · Cited by 3
“Static knowledge graph methods include TransE [27], DisMult [42], Com-Electronics plEx [5], SimplE [43].”
MethodBermudo, M., Ayala, D., Hernández, I., Ruiz, D., & Toro, M. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124410 · Cited by 3
Large-Scale Knowledge Graphs as a Tool for Enhanced Robotic Perception
Adamik, M., Tiddi, I., Pernisch, R., & Stefan Schlobach, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series · doi:10.1609/aaaiss.v4i1.31814 · Cited by 2
“The next best performing embed-342 Concept Name wd id Sample# TransE DistMult RotatE QuatE SimplE ComplEx hits@1 hits@3 hits@5 hits@3 hits@5 hits@3 hits@5 hits@3 hits@5 hits@5 hits@5 Table 2: A summary of the results of the PET task on determining the correct subclass for the cups, chairs, and apples detected in the 3…”
SGKGE: Semantically Guided Knowledge Graph Embeddings via Complementary Latent Representations
Liu, R., Cao, Z., Wu, Z., Wu, Y., Xu, Q., & Huang, Q. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2025.3545773 · Cited by 3
“SimplE [31] proposes a tensor decomposition method based on canonical polyadic (CP) decomposition [32] to embed KGs, and alleviates the problem of independence of heads and tails.”
An Efficient Fuzzy System for Complex Query Answering on Knowledge Graphs
Lu, Y., Chen, H., Rao, Y., Yu, J., Hua, W., & Li, Q. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2025.3581959 · Cited by 3
“Neural LPs can be classified into translation-based models [22], [23], multiplicative models [24], [25], [26], and deep learning models [27], [28], [29], [30].”
Relation and Fact Type Supervised Knowledge Graph Embedding via Weighted Scores
Zhou, B., Chen, Y., Liu, K., & Zhao, J. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32381-3_21 · Cited by 2
Applications of Knowledge Representation Learning
Li, C., Li, A., Wang, Y., & Tu, H. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71590-8_10 · Cited by 2
LinkPred: a high performance library for link prediction in complex networks
Kerrache, S. (2021) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.521 · Cited by 2
Multi-view of Data for Auto Judge Model in Online Dispute Resolution
Huang, Q., & Ouyang, W. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84529-2_41 · Cited by 2
A Renovated CNN‐Based Model Enhances KGC Task Performance
Miao, F., Wang, X., Feng, F., Jin, C., & Jin, L. (2022) · Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1155/2022/5968047 · Cited by 2
“ComplEx [15] and SimplE [30] can be viewed as direct extensions of the DistMult, in which ComplEx applies the complex domain to handle a variety of binary relations, and in SimplE, the subject and object embeddings for the same entity are learned dependently.”
BackgroundLLR calculation for LDPC coded SCBT in 60 GHz WPAN
Kong, L., Xiao, Y., Lei, M., & Ye, H. (2010) · Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics · doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-4132.2010.05.003 · Cited by 2
Neighborhood Aggregation Embedding Model for Link Prediction in Knowledge Graphs
Wang, C., & Sha, Y. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50578-3_14 · Cited by 2
A Greedy Bit-flip Training Algorithm for Binarized Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Hayashi, K., Kishimoto, K., & Shimbo, M. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.10 · Cited by 2
“B-CP is based on the CP decomposition of a knowledge graph (Lacroix et al., 2018; Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
MethodSaha, B., Mandloi, V., & Ghosh, S. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) · doi:10.1109/icmla51294.2020.00181 · Cited by 2
“Fewapproaches have been proposed to construct a clinical knowledge graph with minimum supervision [10], [5].”
BackgroundEntity-Context and Relation-Context Combined Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Wu, Y. Q., Li, W., Fan, X., & Wang, B. (2021) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-021-05977-x · Cited by 2
“These methods include the bilinear meth-ods, such as DistMult [19], ANALOGY [20], SimplE [21], ComplEx [22], Dihedral [23], and HolE [24], and neural network-based methods, such as NTN [25], ProjE [26], and ER-MLP [27].”
MethodModeling N-ary relational data as gyro-polygons with learnable gyro-centroid
Yan, S., Zhang, Z., Xu, G., Sun, X., Li, S., & Wang, S. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109164 · Cited by 2
Extraction of Diagnostic Reasoning Relations for Clinical Knowledge Graphs
Socrates, V. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop (ACL SRW) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-srw.33 · Cited by 2
“…been made in the general and biomedical domains in recent years to tackle each of these problems, using techniques from the NLP and graph communities such as entity linking (EL) (Thibault Févry, 2020), relation extraction (RE) (Trisedya et al., 2019), and link prediction (Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
MethodZosa, E., Boroş, E., Koloski, B., & Pivovarova, L. (2022) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.semeval-1.156 · Cited by 2
“Similarly, we exploit six different knowledge graph embeddings: transE (Bordes et al., 2013), rotatE (Sun et al., 2019), complEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), distmult (Yang et al., 2015), simplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018), and quate (Zhang et al., 2019).”
MethodThe similarity between Disease and Drug Network in Link Prediction
Azam, M., & Nouman, M. (2022) · ICST Transactions on Mobile Communications and Applications · doi:10.4108/eetmca.v7i2.2667 · Cited by 2
“To recognize whether there is a connection or not, a few calculations are being utilized like regulated learning/grouping, k-closest neighbor, and backing vector machines[25].”
MethodWang, M., Zhou, J., Wang, J., Gan, J., & Li, Z. (2023) · Mathematical Foundations of Computing · doi:10.3934/mfc.2023020 · Cited by 2
CosUKG: A Representation Learning Framework for Uncertain Knowledge Graphs
Shen, Q., & Qu, A. (2024) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math12101419 · Cited by 3
MSGE: A Multi-step Gated Model for Knowledge Graph Completion
Tan, C., Yang, K., Dai, X., Huang, S., & Chen, J. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47426-3_33 · Cited by 2
“While plenty of bilinear models [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] propose different energy functions representing the score of its validity rather than measure the distance between entities.”
BackgroundMethodNASE: Learning Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction via Neural Architecture SearchPreprint
Kou, X., Luo, B., Hu, H., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.07723 · Cited by 2
Inferring Cyber Threat Intelligence -- A Knowledge Graph-based ApproachPreprint
Rastogi, N., Dutta, S., Christian, R., Zaki, M., Gittens, A., & Aggarwal, C. C. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Bridging Graph Neural Networks and Statistical Relational Learning: Relational One-Class GCN.Preprint
Dhami, D. S., Yan, S., & Natarajan, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Negative Sampling in Knowledge Representation Learning: A Mini-Review
Qian, J., Li, G., Atkinson, K. M., & Yue, Y. (2020) · doi:10.5121/csit.2020.101519 · Cited by 1
Xie, J., Jiang, J., Xiao, J., & Guan, Y. (2022) · International Conference on Computer Application and Information Security (ICCAIS) · doi:10.1117/12.2637402 · Cited by 1
“For an OOKB entity e, we use a relation-specific matrix Mr to reflect the influence of relation r on entity e′, the examples of the transition function are listed: T(ve) = tanh(Mrve′) (4) T(ve) = ReLU(Mrve′) (5) Pooling Function.”
MethodAn End-to-End Training Method to Ensemble Bi-Linear Models for Knowledge Graph Completion
Cen, S., Liu, H., Liu, C., Zou, X., Dai, G., & Wang, X. (2023) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icmlc58545.2023.10327968 · Cited by 1
“We select the single bilinear models: DistMult [2], ComplEx [3], Analogy [4], SimplE [5], and the ensemble method in [7] as baselines.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRevolutionary Strategy for Depicting Knowledge Graphs with Temporal Attributes
Li, S., & Li, Q. (2024) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math12091324 · Cited by 1
Public Behavior and Emotion Correlation Mining Driven by Aspect From News Corpus
Wang, X., Chang, Y., Kou, L., Luo, X., & Zhang, H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2024.3441011 · Cited by 1
“1) Baseline Model and Assessment Metrics: Six knowledge representation models are selected for comparative experiments, which includes the classical DistMult [37], Com-plEx [38], Analogy [39], SimplE [40] models, and the recently proposed TuckERL [41] and CTKGC [42] knowledge representation models.”
Explicit and Implicit Feature Contrastive Learning Model for Knowledge Graph Link Prediction
Yuan, X., Wang, W., Gao, B., et al. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24227353 · Cited by 1
Efficient Latent-based Scoring Function Search for N-ary Relational Knowledge Bases
Di, S., Zhang, Y., Yao, Q., Zhou, X., & Chen, L. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3707644 · Cited by 2
“As in [28, 51, 66, 84], KG relations have several common relational patterns based on their properties, such as symmetry [78], anti-symmetry [44, 60], and inversion [28].”
InfluentialChen, B., Li, H., & Shi, Z. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3535143 · Cited by 1
“The TransR model [30], by exploring multiple attributes of entities, maps different relations to different attributes of entities, thereby projecting entities and relations into distinct vector spaces.”
Ammar, K., Inoubli, W., Zghal, S., et al. (2025) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-025-02357-x · Cited by 1
“More recent developments include SimplE [72], which achieves fully expressive embeddings by incorporating both forward and backward relations, effectively handling complex relationships.”
Frugal: Efficient and Economic Embedding Model Training with Commodity GPUs
Xie, M., Zeng, S., Guo, H., Gao, S., & Lu, Y. (2025) · International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) · doi:10.1145/3669940.3707245 · Cited by 1
“For KG, we evaluate 4 different graph embedding models, including ComplEx [42], DistMult [50], SimplE [24], and TransE [15].”
Xie, Y., Wang, H., Jing, X., & Gu, Z. (2025) · Array · doi:10.1016/j.array.2025.100404 · Cited by 1
Knowledge Graph Construction and Complementation for Research Projects
Li, T., Lin, M., Wang, W., et al. (2025) · Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics · doi:10.23919/jsee.2025.000064 · Cited by 1
RIDE: Redensification-based intrinsic density estimation for knowledge graphs
Kong, W.-K., Duan, Y., Tao, X., & Zu, Y. (2025) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2025.111876 · Cited by 3
Graph Embeddings to Empower Entity Retrieval
Gerritse, E. J., Hasibi, F., & de Vries, A. P. (2025) · Information Retrieval Research · doi:10.54195/irrj.19877 · Cited by 3
“This resulted in various proposals for KG embeddings that extend this method with additional objectives, such as DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), and SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
HSAE: Hierarchical structure augment embedding for various knowledge graph completion
Xue, Y., Cai, W., Ma, Y., Senhadji, L., Shu, H., & Wu, J. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.114320 · Cited by 1
Chetoui, I., Bachari, E. E., & Adnani, M. E. (2026) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-026-00452-2 · Cited by 1
Luo, H., Hou, L., Yan, C., Wang, J., Luo, J., & Zhang, G. (2026) · Interdisciplinary Sciences Computational Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12539-026-00821-y · Cited by 1
Bilinear Model for Knowledge Graph Completion with Hard Negative Examples Mining
Wu, Z., & Zhou, Y. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC) · doi:10.1109/iccc51575.2020.9344879 · Cited by 1
“SimplE[9] These previous work have achieved outstanding results in the task of complementing knowledge.”
ResultTarget identification and validation
Ashenden, S. K., Kurbatova, N., & Bartosik, A. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820045-2.00005-2 · Cited by 1
Knowledge Graph Representation Learning Based on Automatic Network Search for Link Prediction
Gu, Z., & Chen, H. (2022) · Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences · doi:10.32604/cmes.2023.024332 · Cited by 1
Wu, D., Jing, Z., Li, M., et al. (2022) · 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9892443 · Cited by 1
“SimplE [12]: SimplE is a tensor component decomposition method based on canonical polyadic (CP) [18], which solves the problem of independence between two embedded vectors of an entity.”
MethodInfluentialRouting User-Interest Markov Tree for Scalable Personalized Knowledge-Aware Recommendation
Zheng, Y., Wei, P., Chen, Z., Tang, C., & Lin, L. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3276395 · Cited by 1
“Such technique has been widely used in a large body of work [15], [18], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].”
MethodHow Much do Knowledge Graphs Impact Transformer Models for Extracting Biomedical Events?
Zanella-Calzada, L. A., & Toussaint, Y. (2023) · Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (BioNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bionlp-1.12 · Cited by 1
“Table 5 compares five KG models used for the computation of these embeddings, TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), TransH (Wang et al., 2014), TransD (Ji et al., 2015), DistMult (Yang et al., 2014), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018).”
MethodInfluentialTransformer-based Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Hu, S., Wang, B., Wang, J., Ma, Y., & Zhao, L. (2023) · International Conference on Computer Communication and Artificial Intelligence (CCAI) · doi:10.1109/ccai57533.2023.10201286 · Cited by 2
“• SKGC models: TransE [11], DistMult [14], SimplE [15] and ComplEx [16].”
MethodTKGF-NTP: Temporal Knowledge Graph Forecasting via Neural Temporal Point Process
Han, G., Chen, W., Zhang, X., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws60048.2023.00051 · Cited by 1
Time-aware Knowledge Hypergraph Link Prediction
Chen, Z., Wang, X., Wang, C., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Software and Informatics · doi:10.21655/ijsi.1673-7288.00310 · Cited by 1
Link Prediction Based on Feature Mapping and Bi-Directional Convolution
Feng, P., Zhang, X., Wu, H., Wang, Y., Yang, Z., & Ouyang, D. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14052089 · Cited by 1
Extending Graph Rules with Oracles
Liu, X., Dong, B., Fu, W., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3654621.3654641 · Cited by 1
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
