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
16 of 26 cited sources checked · 12 supported · 0 flagged · 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)
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- 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)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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)
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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)
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- 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 ∆ .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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 .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- 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)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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 .”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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 .”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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 .”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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 .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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 .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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 .”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Proposition 2 proof substitutes a multiplier for its reciprocal
MinorFrom p rs 1 + v r = α 3 q rs 2, substituting for q rs 2 requires division by α 3, not multiplication by it. The displayed equality therefore does not follow for general α 3.
“Therefore, p rs 2 + v r = α 2 q rs 2 = α 2 α 3 ( p rs 1 + v r )”
“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].”
BackgroundConvolutional 2D Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Dettmers, T., Minervini, P., Stenetorp, P., & Riedel, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11573 · Cited by 2,486 · cited 1×
“In future, SimplE could be improved or may help improve relational learning in several ways including: 1- building ensembles of SimplE models as [18] do it for DistMult, 2- adding SimplE to the relation-level ensembles of [44], 3- explicitly modelling the analogical structures of relations as in [23], 4- using [8]’s 1…”
MethodEmbedding Entities and Relations for Learning and Inference in Knowledge Bases
Yang, B., Yih, W.-T., He, X., Gao, J., & Deng, L. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6575 · Cited by 2,252 · cited 2×
“DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), one of the simplest multiplicative approaches, considers the embeddings for each entity and each relation to be a single vector of size k (v(e) and v(r)) and defines its similarity function as: f(E(h),E(r),E(t)) = 〈v(h), v(r), v(t)〉.”
BackgroundComplex Embeddings for Simple Link Prediction
Trouillon, T., Welbl, J., Riedel, S., Gaussier, É., & Bouchard, G. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.06357 · Cited by 2,100 · cited 4×
“Tensor factorization approaches (Nickel et al., 2012; Bordes et al., 2013b; Trouillon et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016) learn embeddings for entities and relationships and define a function from the embeddings to whether a relation exists between a head and a tail entity or not.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialToward an architecture for never-ending language learning
Carlson, A., Betteridge, J., Kisiel, B., Settles, B., Hruschka, E., & Mitchell, T. (2010) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v24i1.7519 · Cited by 2,000 · cited 1×
“During the past two decades, several knowledge graphs (KGs) containing (perhaps probabilistic) facts about the world have been constructed (Carlson et al., 2010; Fader et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2012; Dong et al., 2014; Shin et al., 2015).”
BackgroundKnowledge Graph Embedding via Dynamic Mapping Matrix
Ji, G., He, S., Xu, L., Liu, K., & Zhao, J. (2015) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.3115/v1/p15-1067 · Cited by 1,943 · cited 1×
“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.”
BackgroundA Review of Relational Machine Learning for Knowledge Graphs
Nickel, M., Murphy, K. P., Volker Tresp, C., & Gabrilovich, E. (2015) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2015.2483592 · Cited by 1,780
Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning
(2007) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7432.001.0001 · Cited by 1,643 · cited 2×
“Tensor factorization approaches have proved to be an effective SRL approach for KG completion [29, 4, 39, 26].”
BackgroundKnowledge vault: a web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion
Dong, X., Gabrilovich, E., Heitz, G., Horn, W., Lao, N., Murphy, K., Strohmann, T., Sun, S., & Zhang, W. (2014) · Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2623330.2623623 · Cited by 1,533 · cited 6×
“We report the results of TransR and NTN from [27], and ER-MLP from [32] for further comparison.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Expression of a Tensor or a Polyadic as a Sum of Products
Hitchcock, F. L. (1927) · Journal of Mathematics and Physics · doi:10.1002/sapm192761164 · Cited by 1,345 · cited 2×
“In canonical Polyadic (CP) decomposition [15], the embedding for each entity e has two vectors he, te ∈ R, and for each relation r has a single vector vr ∈ R.”
BackgroundA simple neural network module for relational reasoning
Santoro, A., Raposo, D., Barrett, D. G. T., Malinowski, M., Pascanu, R., Battaglia, P., & Lillicrap, T. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.01427 · Cited by 1,281 · cited 1×
“The function in deep learning approaches (Socher et al., 2013; Dong et al., 2014; Santoro et al., 2017) is typically a (deep) neural network.”
BackgroundWu, W., Li, H., Wang, H., & Zhu, K. Q. (2012) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/2213836.2213891 · Cited by 781 · cited 1×
“During the past two decades, several knowledge graphs (KGs) containing (perhaps probabilistic) facts about the world have been constructed (Carlson et al., 2010; Fader et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2012; Dong et al., 2014; Shin et al., 2015).”
BackgroundModeling Relation Paths for Representation Learning of Knowledge Bases
Lin, Y., Liu, Z., Luan, H., Sun, M., Rao, S., & Liu, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1082 · Cited by 657 · cited 1×
“, [20, 21, 6]), using them to address the independence of the entity vectors in CP is a novel contribution.”
BackgroundRelational retrieval using a combination of path-constrained random walks
Lao, N., & Cohen, W. W. (2010) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-010-5205-8 · Cited by 616 · cited 1×
“versa. SimplE takes advantage of the inverse of relations to address the independence of the two vectors for each entity in CP. 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. Model Definitio…”
MethodVisual Translation Embedding Network for Visual Relation Detection
Zhang, H., Kyaw, Z., Chang, S.-F., & Chua, T.-S. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.331 · Cited by 586 · 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].”
BackgroundHolographic embeddings of knowledge graphs
Nickel, M., Rosasco, L., & Poggio, T. (2016) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10314 · Cited by 559 · cited 2×
“We report the results of TransR and NTN from [27], and ER-MLP from [32] for further comparison.”
BackgroundMethodDas, R., Dhuliawala, S., Zaheer, M., Vilnis, L., Durugkar, I., Krishnamurthy, A., Smola, A. J., & McCallum, A. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05851 · Cited by 518
Factorizing YAGO: scalable machine learning for linked data
Nickel, M., Tresp, V., & Kriegel, H.-P. (2012) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187874 · Cited by 370 · cited 7×
“In RESCAL [28], the embedding vector for each entity e is v e ∈ R d and for each relation r is v r ∈ R d × d and the similarity function for a triple ( h , r , t ) is v r · vec ( v h ⊗ v t ) , where ⊗ represents the outer product of two vectors and vec ( .”
BackgroundInfluentialStatistical Relational Artificial Intelligence: Logic, Probability, and Computation
de Raedt, L., Kersting, K., Natarajan, S., & Poole, D. (2016) · Statistical Relational Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-01574-8 · Cited by 353
Self-citationAnalogical Inference for Multi-Relational EmbeddingsPreprint
Liu, H., Wu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.02426 · Cited by 303 · cited 1×
“…could be improved or may help improve relational learning in several ways including: 1-building ensembles of SimplE models as [18] do it for DistMult, 2-adding SimplE to the relation-level ensembles of [44], 3-explicitly modelling the analogical structures of relations as in [23], 4-using [8]’s 1-”
MethodJointly Embedding Knowledge Graphs and Logical Rules
Guo, S., Wang, Q., Wang, L., Wang, B., & Guo, L. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1019 · Cited by 278 · cited 1×
“f several studies. Towards this goal, many existing approaches rely on post-processing steps or add additional terms to the loss function to penalize predictions that violate the background knowledge [34, 42, 45, 13, 9]. Minervini et al. [25] show how background knowledge in terms of equivalence and inversion can be i…”
MethodStatistical Relational Artificial Intelligence
Raedt, L. D., Kersting, K., Natarajan, S., & Poole, D. (2016) · Synthesis lectures on artificial intelligence and machine learning · doi:10.2200/s00692ed1v01y201601aim032 · Cited by 267 · cited 2×
“Tensor factorization approaches have proved to be an effective SRL approach for KG completion [29, 4, 39, 26].”
BackgroundSelf-citationSTransE: a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge bases
Nguyen, D. Q., Sirts, K., Qu, L., & Johnson, M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-1054 · Cited by 177 · cited 9×
“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.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKnowledge Base Completion: Baselines Strike Back
Kadlec, R., Bajgar, O., & Kleindienst, J. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-2609 · Cited by 173 · cited 1×
“In future, SimplE can be improved or may help improve relational learning in several ways including: 1- building ensembles of SimplE models as (Kadlec et al., 2017) do it for DistMult, 2- adding SimplE to the relationlevel ensembles of Wang et al.”
MethodEnd-to-End Differentiable ProvingPreprint
Rocktäschel, T., & Riedel, S. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.11040 · Cited by 152 · cited 1×
“, with [19]) to improve property prediction, 6combining SimplE with (or use SimplE as a sub-component in) techniques from other categories of relational learning as [33] do with ComplEx, 7- incorporating other types of background knowledge (e.”
MethodImproving Knowledge Graph Embedding Using Simple Constraints
Ding, B., Wang, Q., Wang, B., & Guo, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1011 · Cited by 151 · cited 1×
“f several studies. Towards this goal, many existing approaches rely on post-processing steps or add additional terms to the loss function to penalize predictions that violate the background knowledge [34, 42, 45, 13, 9]. Minervini et al. [25] show how background knowledge in terms of equivalence and inversion can be i…”
MethodLifted Rule Injection for Relation Embeddings
Demeester, T., Rocktäschel, T., & Riedel, S. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1146 · Cited by 142 · cited 1×
“It has been observed in several works that hybrid models (models based on a combination of the approaches in these categories) may result in higher predictive performance compared to models based on approaches in a single category (Lin et al., 2015a; Neelakantan et al., 2015; Demeester et al., 2016; Niepert, 2016).”
MethodFast query execution for retrieval models based on path-constrained random walks
Lao, N., & Cohen, W. W. (2010) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/1835804.1835916 · Cited by 99
Lifted graphical models: a survey
Kimmig, A., Mihalkova, L. S., & Getoor, L. C. (2014) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-014-5443-2 · Cited by 87 · cited 1×
“Several recent surveys and comparative studies describe and compare the approaches in one or more of these categories on several tasks (Kimmig et al., 2015; Nickel et al., 2016a; Kazemi et al., 2017).”
BackgroundKnowledge Base Completion via Coupled Path Ranking
Wang, Q., Liu, J., Luo, Y., Wang, B., & Lin, C.-Y. (2016) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-1124 · Cited by 79
On the Equivalence of Holographic and Complex Embeddings for Link Prediction
Hayashi, K., & Shimbo, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-2088 · Cited by 73 · cited 1×
“HolE [32] is a multiplicative model that is isomorphic to ComplEx [14].”
BackgroundOn Multi-Relational Link Prediction with Bilinear Models
Wang, Y., Gemulla, R., & Li, H. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11738 · Cited by 65
Low-Dimensional Embeddings of Logic
Rocktäschel, T., Bošnjak, M., Singh, S., & Riedel, S. (2014) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.3115/v1/w14-2409 · Cited by 62 · cited 1×
“f several studies. Towards this goal, many existing approaches rely on post-processing steps or add additional terms to the loss function to penalize predictions that violate the background knowledge [34, 42, 45, 13, 9]. Minervini et al. [25] show how background knowledge in terms of equivalence and inversion can be i…”
MethodRegularizing Knowledge Graph Embeddings via Equivalence and Inversion Axioms
Minervini, P., Costabello, L., Muñoz, E., Nováček, V., & Vandenbussche, P.-Y. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71249-9_40 · Cited by 60
Incremental knowledge base construction using DeepDive
De, C., Ratner, A., Ré, C., Shin, J., Wang, F., Wu, S., & Zhang, C. (2016) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-016-0437-2 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“During the past two decades, several knowledge graphs (KGs) containing (perhaps probabilistic) facts about the world have been constructed (Carlson et al., 2010; Fader et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2012; Dong et al., 2014; Shin et al., 2015).”
BackgroundA survey of embedding models of entities and relationships for knowledge graph completion
Nguyen, D. Q. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.08098 · Cited by 51 · cited 2×
“We report the results of TransR and NTN from [27], and ER-MLP from [32] for further comparison.”
BackgroundMethodLarge-scale Knowledge Base Completion
Wei, Z., Zhao, J., Liu, K., Qi, Z., Sun, Z., & Tian, G. (2015) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/2806416.2806513 · Cited by 43
Knowledge Graph Completion via Complex Tensor Factorization
Trouillon, T., Dance, C. R., Welbl, J., Riedel, S., Gaussier, É., & Bouchard, G. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.06879 · Cited by 41 · cited 3×
“We also show that the function used in ComplEx [39, 40], a state-of-the-art approach for link prediction, involves redundant computations.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRelNN: A Deep Neural Model for Relational Learning
Kazemi, S. M., & Poole, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.12111 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“generate many negative triples for a positive triple (Trouillon et al. [39] show that generating more negative triples improves accuracy), 5- combining SimplE with logic-based approaches (e.g., with [19]) to improve property prediction, 6- combining SimplE with (or use SimplE as a sub-component in) techniques from oth…”
MethodSelf-citationDomingos, P., Kok, S., Lowd, D., Poon, H., Richardson, M., & Singla, P. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78652-8_4 · Cited by 40 · cited 1×
“sting ones. Three of the main categories of SRL approaches to link prediction include weighted rule learning, graph random walk, and tensor factorization. Weighted rule models (De Raedt et al., 2007; Domingos et al., 2008; Kimmig et al., 2012; Kazemi et al., 2014) typically learn first-order logic rules that define the…”
BackgroundDiscriminative Gaifman ModelsPreprint
Niepert, M. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.09369 · Cited by 34
Complex and Holographic Embeddings of Knowledge Graphs: A ComparisonPreprint
Trouillon, T., & Nickel, M. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.01475 · Cited by 23 · cited 1×
“This independence assumption has caused polyadic decomposition to perform poorly for KG completion (Trouillon et al., 2017).”
MethodIrreflexive and Hierarchical Relations as Translations
Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J., & Yakhnenko, O. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1304.7158 · Cited by 23 · cited 1×
“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.”
BackgroundComparing Aggregators for Relational Probabilistic Models
Kazemi, S. M., Fatemi, B., Kim, A., et al. (2017) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.07785 · Cited by 9 · cited 1×
“Several recent surveys and comparative studies describe and compare the approaches in one or more of these categories on several tasks (Kimmig et al., 2015; Nickel et al., 2016a; Kazemi et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationKnowlege Graph Embedding by Flexible TranslationPreprint
Feng, J., Zhou, M., Yu, H., Huang, M., & Zhu, X. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1505.05253 · Cited by 4 · cited 1×
“FTransE [11], slightly changes the dissimilarity function defining it as ||Prvh + vr − αQrvt||i for a value of α that minimizes the norm for each triple.”
BackgroundKnowledge Base Completion: Baselines Strike Back
Kadlec, R., Bajgar, O., & Kleindienst, J. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10744
On the Equivalence of Holographic and Complex Embeddings for Link Prediction
Hayashi, K., & Shimbo, M. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.05563
Flagged first, then by citations
13 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [4][4] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS , pages 2787-2795, 2013. -
- [28][28] Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In ICML , volume 11, pages 809-816, 2011. -
- [30][30] Maximilian Nickel, Xueyan Jiang, and Volker Tresp. Reducing the rank in relational factorization models by including observable patterns. In NIPS , pages 1179-1187, 2014. -
- [37][37] Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In NIPS , 2013. -
- [42][42] Quan Wang, Bin Wang, Li Guo, et al. Knowledge base completion using embeddings and rules. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 1859-1866, 2015. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition, and Applications
Ji, S., Pan, S., Cambria, E., Marttinen, P., & Yu, P. S. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2021.3070843 · Cited by 2,947
Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d’Amato, C., de Melo, G., Gutiérrez, C., Kirrane, S., Gayo, J. E. L., Roberto Navigli, A., Neumaier, S., et al. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3447772 · Cited by 2,879
“SimplE [68] proposes to compute a standard CP decomposition, averaging terms across X, Y, Z to compute the final plausibility scores.”
A Survey of Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Methods, and Opportunities
Zhou, X., & Zafarani, R. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3395046 · Cited by 1,184
“…[Yang et al. 2014], TransE [Bordes et al. 2013], TransH [Wang et al. 2014], TransR [Lin et al. 2015], Com-plEx [Trouillon et al. 2016], SimplE [Kazemi and Poole 2018], and ConMask [Shi and Weninger 2018]); (ii) graph feature models , which assume that the existence of triples is conditionally…”
BackgroundKEPLER: A Unified Model for Knowledge Embedding and Pre-trained Language Representation
Wang, X., Gao, T., Zhu, Z., Zhang, Z., Liu, Z., Li, J., & Tang, J. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00360 · Cited by 676
Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction
Rossi, A., Barbosa, D., Firmani, D., Matinata, A., & Merialdo, P. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3424672 · Cited by 601
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
