The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Learning Continuous Hierarchies in the Lorentz Model of Hyperbolic Geometry
Open accessAbstract
We are concerned with the discovery of hierarchical relationships from large-scale unstructured similarity scores. For this purpose, we study different models of hyperbolic space and find that learning embeddings in the Lorentz model is substantially more efficient than in the Poincaré-ball model. We show that the proposed approach allows us to learn high-quality embeddings of large taxonomies which yield improvements over Poincaré embeddings, especially in low dimensions. Lastly, we apply our model to discover hierarchies in two real-world datasets: we show that an embedding in hyperbolic space can reveal important aspects of a company's organizational structure as well as reveal historical relationships between language families.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Existing works that consider hierarchical relations do not take into account existing non-hierarchical relations.
“Existing works that consider hierarchical relations [13] do not take into account existing non-hierarchical relations [14].”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
The Introduction (p. 1) says the method infers hierarchies from pairwise similarity measurements and explicitly separates relatedness from generality. Section 3.3 (pp. 4–5) likewise uses similarity scores, including comparisons between concepts that are not hierarchically comparable. Thus the paper does take non-hierarchical similarity information into account, contrary to the claim's blanket assertion. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting methods for hierarchical relations can only be applied to graphs with a single hierarchical relation type and are not suitable for real-world KGs that simultaneously encode multiple hierarchies using many different relations.
“However, current KG embeddings can model only a single global hierarchy (single global partial ordering) and fail to model multiple heterogeneous hierarchies that exist in a single KG.”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Section 3.3 (p. 4) models the concepts in this paper using one unobserved hierarchy and one partial order. It does not establish that current KG embeddings generally can model only a single hierarchy or fail on KGs with multiple relation types. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting models treat all relations in a KG as part of one single hierarchy, limiting the ability to reason with different types of heterogeneous hierarchical relations.
“However, existing models treat all relations in a KG as part of one single hierarchy, limiting the ability to reason with different types of heterogeneous hierarchical relations.”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Section 3.3 (p. 4) assumes one unobserved hierarchy for the paper’s own task of inferring concept relationships from pairwise similarities. The Introduction (p. 1) and Related Work (p. 2) do not say that existing knowledge-graph models place all relation types in one hierarchy or that this limits reasoning over heterogeneous hierarchical relations. Searches for those terms and paraphrases found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Agarwal, S., Wills, J., Cayton, L., Lanckriet, G., Kriegman, D., and Belongie, S. Generalized non-metric multidimensional scaling. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pp. 11-18, 2007.
- Antoniou, G. and Van Harmelen, F. Web ontology language: Owl. In Handbook on ontologies , pp. 67-92. Springer, 2004.
- Asta, D. M. and Shalizi, C. R. Geometric network comparisons. In Meila, M. and Heskes, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI , pp. 102-110, 2015.
- Baldi, P. An introduction to the Indo-European languages . SIU Press, 1983.
- Bonnabel, S. Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. , 58(9):22172229, 2013.
- Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Alekseyenko, A. V., Drummond, A. J., Gray, R. D., Suchard, M. A., and Atkinson, Q. D. Mapping the origins and expansion of the indo-european language family. Science , 337(6097):957-960, 2012.
- Campbell, L. Historical linguistics . Edinburgh University Press, 2013.
- De Sa, C., Gu, A., Ré, C., and Sala, F. Representation tradeoffs for hyperbolic embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03329 , 2018. · arXiv
- Dodds, P. S., Watts, D. J., and Sabel, C. F. Information exchange and the robustness of organizational networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 100 (21):12516-12521, 2003.
- Duda, R. O., Hart, P. E., Stork, D. G., et al. Pattern classification , volume 2. Wiley New York, 1973.
- Ganea, O.-E., Bécigneul, G., and Hofmann, T. Hyperbolic entailment cones for learning hierarchical embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01882 , 2018. · arXiv
- Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. The growth of logic in the child . Routledge & Paul, 1964.
- 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing , volume 1, pp. 1-10, 2015.
- Kemp, C. and Tenenbaum, J. B. The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105(31):10687-10692, 2008.
- Kleinberg, R. Geographic routing using hyperbolic space. In INFOCOM 2007. 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE , pp. 1902-1909. IEEE, 2007.
- Krioukov, D., Papadopoulos, F., Kitsak, M., Vahdat, A., and Boguná, M. Hyperbolic geometry of complex networks. Physical Review E , 82(3):036106, 2010.
- Mayr, E. The role of systematics in biology. Science , 159 (3815):595-599, 1968.
- Nickel, M. and Kiela, D. Poincaré embeddings for learning hierarchical representations. pp. 6338-6347, 2017.
- Rogers, F. Medical subject headings. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association , 51:114-116, 1963.
- Silla, C. N. and Freitas, A. A. A survey of hierarchical classification across different application domains. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 22(1-2):31-72, 2011.
- Sun, K., Wang, J., Kalousis, A., and Marchand-Maillet, S. Space-time local embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 , pp. 100-108, 2015.
- Tamuz, O., Liu, C., Belongie, S., Shamir, O., and Kalai, A. T. Adaptively learning the crowd kernel. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 673-680, 2011.
- Van Der Maaten, L. and Weinberger, K. Stochastic triplet embedding. In Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP), 2012 IEEE International Workshop on , pp. 1-6. IEEE, 2012.
- Vendrov, I., Kiros, R., Fidler, S., and Urtasun, R. Orderembeddings of images and language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06361 , 2015. · arXiv
- Vilnis, L. and McCallum, A. Word representations via gaussian embedding. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2015.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones
Bai, Y., Ying, R., Ren, H., & Leskovec, J. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14923 · Cited by 31
“Recent works in this area propose the use of a variety of embedding geometries such as hyperbolic embeddings, box embeddings, and cone embeddings [10, 11, 12] to model partial ordering property of hierarchical relations, but two important challenges remain: (1) Existing works that consider hierarchical relations [13]…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Nickel, M., & Kiela, D.
- Affiliations
- Meta (Israel) (IL)
- ORCID
- Nickel, Maximilian
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 3779-3788
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1806.03417
- OpenAlex
- W2804622816
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- International Conference on Machine Learning
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Topological and Geometric Data Analysis
- Keywords
- hyperbolic embeddings, Lorentz model, Poincaré ball model, hierarchical relations, similarity scores, taxonomy (general classification scheme), embedding learning, organizational structure, language family relationships, hyperbolic space
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.
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
