The DOI matches its DataCite record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 13 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
RotatE: Knowledge Graph Embedding by Relational Rotation in Complex Space
Open accessAbstract
We study the problem of learning representations of entities and relations in knowledge graphs for predicting missing links. The success of such a task heavily relies on the ability of modeling and inferring the patterns of (or between) the relations. In this paper, we present a new approach for knowledge graph embedding called RotatE, which is able to model and infer various relation patterns including: symmetry/antisymmetry, inversion, and composition. Specifically, the RotatE model defines each relation as a rotation from the source entity to the target entity in the complex vector space. In addition, we propose a novel self-adversarial negative sampling technique for efficiently and effectively training the RotatE model. Experimental results on multiple benchmark knowledge graphs show that the proposed RotatE model is not only scalable, but also able to infer and model various relation patterns and significantly outperform existing state-of-the-art models for link prediction.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
RotatE embeds entities and relations in complex vector space and models each relation as an element-wise rotation from head to tail, allowing it to capture symmetry/antisymmetry, inversion, and composition patterns. It also introduces self-adversarial negative sampling and reports state-of-the-art link prediction results across several knowledge graph benchmarks.
Key findings
- RotatE outperforms prior state-of-the-art models on FB15k, WN18, FB15k-237, and WN18RR; e.g., it reaches MRR .797 / H@10 .884 on FB15k, .949 / .959 on WN18, .338 / .533 on FB15k-237, and .476 / .571 on WN18RR.
- On the Countries benchmark designed for composition inference, RotatE achieves AUC-PR 1.00 ± 0.00 on S1 and S2, and 0.95 ± 0.00 on S3, outperforming DistMult, ComplEx, and ConvE.
- Self-adversarial negative sampling improves TransE over uniform and KBGAN sampling: on FB15k-237 MRR .298 vs .242 and .278; on WN18RR .223 vs .186 and .210; on WN18 .736 vs .433 and .705.
- RotatE also reports strong results on YAGO3-10 (MRR .495, H@10 .670) and shows via embedding-phase histograms that symmetry, inversion, and composition patterns are implicitly represented.
Methods
- RotatE maps entities and relations to complex vectors and defines each relation as a rotation: \(t = h \circ r\), with \(|r_i| = 1\), and uses distance \(-\|h \circ r - t\|_2\).
- The paper proves RotatE can model symmetry/antisymmetry, inversion, and composition, and proposes self-adversarial negative sampling for training.
- Experiments use filtered link prediction on FB15k, WN18, FB15k-237, WN18RR, Countries, and YAGO3-10, with MR, MRR, Hits@N, and AUC-PR; baselines include TransE, DistMult, ComplEx, HolE, ConvE, and pRotatE.
Limitations
- The paper states future work includes evaluating RotatE on more datasets and using a probabilistic framework to model uncertainties of entities and relations.
- The paper notes that on Countries S3, TransE slightly outperforms RotatE because Countries lacks symmetric relations between regions and only requires inferring a region for a given city.
- Evident from the text: the pattern analysis excludes HolE and ConvE because HolE is equivalent to ComplEx and ConvE is treated as a hard-to-analyze black box; no regularization is used, and hyperparameters are tuned per benchmark.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
36 Own interpretation · 25 No basis given · 21 Own result · 6 Partly supported · 4 Sources not found · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“FB15k-237 (Toutanova & Chen, 2015) is a subset of FB15k, where inverse relations are deleted. Therefore, the key of link prediction on FB15k-237 boils down to model and infer the symmetry/antisymmetry and composition patterns.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Toutanova & Chen, 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.3 describes FB15KSelected as a subset of FB15K that retains one relation from each detected inverse or near-duplicate set, leaving 237 relations. Section 4.2 says the resulting task requires non-trivial inference after trivial cases involving symmetry or inverse relations are addressed. Neither section says that link prediction on this dataset boils down to modeling symmetry, antisymmetry, and composition patterns; composition and antisymmetry are not established as the key patterns. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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
“Toutanova & Chen (2015) showed that almost 81% of the test triplets ( x , r , y ) can be inferred via a directly linked triplet ( x , r ′ , y ) or ( y , r ′ , x ) . Therefore, the key of link prediction on FB15k is to model and infer the symmetry/antisymmetry and inversion patterns.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Toutanova & Chen (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2 reports that almost 81% of FB15K test triples have an entity pair directly linked in the training graph, and connects easy inferences to relation symmetry or inverse relations. The paper does not identify antisymmetry as a pattern behind that figure, nor establish that modeling these patterns is the key to FB15K link prediction overall. (LLM, conf=0.83)
boosteddirect- 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
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
“Table 4 summarizes our results on FB15k and WN18. We can see that RotatE outperforms all the state-of-the-art models.”
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.
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
“The performance of pRotatE and RotatE are similar on these two datasets.”
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.
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 difference between RotatE and pRotatE is much larger on FB15k-237 and WN18RR, where there are a lot of composition patterns.”
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.
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
“Experimental results on multiple benchmark knowledge graphs show that the proposed RotatE model is not only scalable, but also able to infer and model various relation patterns and significantly outperform existing state-of-the-art models for link prediction.”
- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · boosted
“Experimental results show that the RotatE model significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches.”
boosteddirect- 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 · boosted
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
“Table 5 summarizes our results on FB15k-237 and WN18RR, where the improvement is much more significant.”
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.
In the paper
“In addition, RotatE also outperforms state-of-the-art models on Countries (Bouchard et al., 2015), a benchmark explicitly designed for composition pattern inference and modeling.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bouchard et al., 2015
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
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
“Table 11 shows that the RotatE model also outperforms state-of-the-art models on YAGO3-10.”
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.
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
“Surprisingly, DistMult achieves good performance on this dataset although it cannot model the antisymmetry and inversion patterns.”
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. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“WN18RR (Dettmers et al., 2017) is a subset of WN18. The inverse relations are deleted, and the main relation patterns are symmetry/antisymmetry and composition .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dettmers et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Knowledge Graph Datasets section (p. 4) says the authors created WN18RR to address inverse-relation leakage in WN18. The Results section (p. 5) says symmetric relationships remain in WN18RR. Our copy does not identify antisymmetry or composition as its main relation patterns. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It contains 2 relations and 272 entities (244 countries, 5 regions and 23 subregions).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bouchard et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Nickel et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Relational Learning section (p. 5) describes two predicates, 244 countries and 5 regions, as claimed. It specifies 22 subregions, not 23, making the stated total 272 inconsistent with the paper's counts (271). (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“TransX can infer and model the symmetry/antisymmetry pattern when g r, 1 = g r, 2 , e.g. in TransH (Wang et al., 2014)”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wang et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The TransH section (p. 3) says that head and tail entities are projected onto the same relation-specific hyperplane, consistent with the claim’s use of TransH as an example of shared projections. But our copy does not state that TransH infers or models symmetry and antisymmetry patterns, or use the notation g_r,1 = g_r,2; its discussion of relation properties concerns reflexive and one-to-many/many-to-one/many-to-many relations. (LLM, conf=0.83)
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
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this way, the RotatE model treats head and tail entities in a uniform way, which is potentially useful for efficient 1-N scoring (Dettmers et al., 2017):”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dettmers et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Fast Evaluation for Link Prediction Tasks” section (pp. 3–4) describes efficient 1-N scoring and says the technique can be applied to any 1-1 scoring model. It does not discuss RotatE or say that RotatE treats head and tail entities uniformly, so it supports the scoring-method rationale but not the model-specific assertion. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- 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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Negative sampling has been proved quite effective for both learning knowledge graph embedding (Trouillon et al., 2016) and word embedding (Mikolov et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Trouillon et al., 2016 source
The Trouillon citation supports the knowledge-graph embedding part of the sentence. Section 4.4 (p. 7) reports that generating more negative triples improved ComplEx’s results on the FB15K link-prediction benchmark; the word-embedding part is attributed to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites Mikolov et al., 2013 source
The Mikolov et al. citation supports the word-embedding part of the sentence; the knowledge-graph part is attributed to Trouillon et al. The Conclusion (p. 8) says negative sampling learns accurate word representations, and Empirical Results (p. 5) reports that it outperformed hierarchical softmax on the word-analogy task. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosteddirect- 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.
- 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 RotatE model achieves the best performance on both FB15k and FB15k-237, as it is able to model all the three relation patterns.”
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.
The quote only partly states this claim.
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
“We can find that the performance of RotatE is quite stable for different random initialization.”
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
“On FB15k-237, the main relation pattern is composition. We can see that TransE performs really well while ComplEx does not perform well.”
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
“A deep investigation into RotatE relation embeddings shows that the three relation patterns are implicitly represented in the relation embeddings.”
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.
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
“We can see that ComplEx performs well while TransE does not perform well since ComplEx can infer both symmetry/antisymmetry and inversion patterns while TransE cannot infer symmetry pattern.”
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
“Figure 2d - 2g illustrate such a r 1 = r 2 ◦ r 3 case, where θ 2 ,i + θ 3 ,i = θ 1 ,i or θ 2 ,i + θ 3 ,i = θ 1 ,i +2 π .”
plainn = 3- 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
“We also notice that the probabilistic framework KG2E KL(bern) (He et al., 2015) is quite powerful, which consistently outperforms its corresponding knowledge graph embedding model”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites He et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
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
“We can find that self-adversarial sampling boosts the performance for both models”
plaindirect- 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
“The proposed technique is very general and can be applied to many existing knowledge graph embedding models.”
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: 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
“Specifically, the RotatE model defines each relation as a rotation from the source entity to the target entity in the complex vector space.”
- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
“Specifically, the RotatE model maps the entities and relations to the complex vector space and defines each relation as a rotation from the source entity to the target entity.”
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.
- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
In the paper
“This dataset also has many inverse relations. So the main relation patterns in WN18 are also symmetry/antisymmetry and inversion .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bordes et al., 2013
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: 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.
- Not matched
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
“Moreover, the RotatE model is scalable to large knowledge graphs as it remains linear in both time and memory.”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“we propose an approach called self-adversarial negative sampling, which samples negative triples according to the current embedding model.”
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.
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
“It is obvious to see that pRotatE can also model and infer all the three relation patterns.”
boosteddirect- 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
“the queries in Countries are of the form locatedIn ( c , ?) , and the answer is one of the five regions.”
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
“as it is able to model all the three relation patterns.”
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
“The reason is that DistMult cannot model antisymmetry and inversion patterns, and almost all the entities in WN18 are words and belong to the same entity type, which do not have the same problem as FB15K.”
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
“The Countries dataset has 3 tasks, each requiring inferring a composition pattern with increasing length and difficulty.”
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.
In the paper
“YAGO3-10 is a subset of YAGO3 (Mahdisoltani et al., 2013), which consists of entities that have a minimum of 10 relations each. It has 123,182 entities and 37 relations.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mahdisoltani et al., 2013
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: 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.
- Not matched
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
“Symmetry pattern requires the symmetric relations to have property r ◦ r = 1 , and the solution is r i = ± 1 .”
plaindirect- 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
“We can see that ComplEx performs well while TransE does not perform well since ComplEx can infer both symmetry/antisymmetry and inversion patterns while TransE cannot infer symmetry pattern.”
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
“TransE does not well on this dataset since it is not able to model the symmetric relations.”
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
“showing the importance of modeling the uncertainties in knowledge graphs.”
plain- 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
“We propose a self-adversarial sampling scheme which only relies on the current model.”
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
“The reason is that DistMult cannot model antisymmetry and inversion patterns, and almost all the entities in WN18 are words and belong to the same entity type, which do not have the same problem as FB15K.”
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
“ComplEx addresses the problem of DisMult and is able to infer both the symmetry and asymmetric patterns with complex 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: 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.
The paper relies on this without support.
Knowledge graphs are usually incomplete.
“Since knowledge graphs are usually incomplete, a fundamental problem for knowledge graph is predicting the missing links.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The success of link prediction on knowledge graphs heavily relies on the ability to model and infer relation patterns.
“The success of such a task heavily relies on the ability of modeling and inferring the patterns of (or between) the relations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is critical to find ways to model and infer symmetry/antisymmetry, inversion, and composition from observed facts in order to predict missing links.
“It is critical to find ways to model and infer these patterns, i.e., symmetry/antisymmetry , inversion , and composition , from the observed facts in order to predict missing links.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Countries dataset does not have symmetric relations between different regions.
“The reason is that the Countries datasets do not have the symmetric relation between different regions”
The paper relies on this without support.
WN18 has no significant composition pattern.
“Since there is no significant composition pattern in WN18, we study the inference of the composition patterns on FB15k-237”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“RotatE [35] can model and infer various relation patterns, including symmetry (antisymmetry), inversion and composition.”
From A Survey on Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [35]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is critical to find ways to model and infer these patterns, i.e., symmetry/antisymmetry, inversion and composition, from observed facts in order to predict missing links [35].”
From A Survey on Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [35]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As shown in Table 5, RotatE [35] and HypER [24] outperform the other models”
From A Survey on Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [35]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Theorem 1. Rotation transformation can model symmetric pattern.”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Self-adversarial training has been proven to be effective in [7]”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“RotatE [55] represents relations as rotations in a complex latent space, with 𝒉 , 𝒓 and 𝒕 all belonging to C 𝑑 . The 𝒓 embedding is a rotation vector: in all its elements, the complex component conveys the rotation along that axis, whereas the real component is always equal to 1. The rotation 𝒓 is applied to 𝒉 by operating an element-wise product (once again noted with ⊙ in 1). L1 norm is used for”
From Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [55]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and have the properties of composition and symmetry of relations”
From Implicit Relation Linking for Question Answering over Knowledge Graph (2022) · cites this paper as Sun et al., 2019
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
§ 4.6 FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON TRANSE AND COMPLEX · p. 9
“The RotatE model achieves the best performance on both FB15k and FB15k-237, as it is able to model all the three relation patterns.”
§ 4.4 IMPLICIT RELATION PATTERN INFERENCE · p. 9
“| ComplEx | .780 | .890 | .319 | .509 | 1 . 00 ± 0 . 00 | 0 . 98 ± 0 . 00 | 0 . 88 ± 0 . 01 |”
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
§ 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 6
“We can see that RotatE outperforms all the state-of-the-art models.”
§ 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 7
“| DistMult [ ♦ ] | 42 | .798 | - | - | .893 | 655 | .797 | - | - | .946 |”
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 CONCLUSION · p. 10
“if tphr < 1 . 5 and hptr ≥ 1 . 5 , r is treated as one-to-many.”
§ 5 CONCLUSION · p. 10
“the average number of tails per head ( tphr ) and the average number of head per tail ( hptr ).”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 2787-2795, 2013.
- Guillaume Bouchard, Sameer Singh, and Theo Trouillon. On approximate reasoning capabilities of low-rank vector spaces. AAAI Spring Syposium on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR): Integrating Symbolic and Neural Approaches , 2015.
- Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. Learning to represent knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pp. 623-632. ACM, 2015.
- Ni Lao, Tom Mitchell, and William W Cohen. Random walk inference and learning in a large scale knowledge base. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 529-539. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011.
- George A Miller. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM , 38(11): 39-41, 1995.
- Tim Rockt¨ aschel and Sebastian Riedel. End-to-end differentiable proving. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 3788-3800, 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,201–1,300 of 1,414
RTFE: A Recursive Temporal Fact Embedding Framework for Temporal Knowledge Graph CompletionPreprint
Xu, Y., Haihong, E., Song, M., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.14653 · Cited by 1
Theoretical Knowledge Graph Reasoning via Ending Anchored Rules.Preprint
Zhang, C., Katsis, Y., Vázquez‐Baeza, Y., Bartko, A., Kim, H., & Hsu, C. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
A Data-Driven Study of Commonsense Knowledge using the ConceptNet Knowledge BasePreprint
Shen, K., & Kejriwal, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.14084 · Cited by 4
PPKE: Knowledge Representation Learning by Path-based Pre-trainingPreprint
He, B., Zhou, D., Xie, J., Xiao, J., Jiang, X., & Liu, Q. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.03573 · Cited by 1
CEAR: Cross-Entity Aware Reranker for Knowledge Base CompletionPreprint
Kolluru, K., Chauhan, M., Nandwani, Y., Singla, P., & Mausam (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.08741 · Cited by 3
Towards humanized open-domain conversational agents
Zhong, P. (2021) · DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) · doi:10.32657/10356/147791 · Cited by 1
NOTE: Solution for KDD-CUP 2021 WikiKG90M-LSCPreprint
Su, W., Fang, Z., Zhong, H., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.01892 · Cited by 1
How Knowledge Graph and Attention Help? A Quantitative Analysis into Bag-level Relation ExtractionPreprint
Hu, Z., Cao, Y., Huang, L., & Chua, T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.12064 · Cited by 1
CollaborER: A Self-supervised Entity Resolution Framework Using Multi-features CollaborationPreprint
Ge, C., Wang, P., Lü, C., Liu, X., Zheng, B., & Gao, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.08090 · Cited by 1
Cui, J., Kim, K., Na, S. H., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Is There More Pattern in Knowledge Graph? Exploring Proximity Pattern for Knowledge Graph EmbeddingPreprint
Li, R., Cao, Y., Zhu, Q., Li, X., & Fang, F. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.00720 · Cited by 1
LPRules: Rule Induction in Knowledge Graphs Using Linear Programming.Preprint
Dash, S., & Gonçalves, J. P. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
(2020) · doi:10.5121/csit.2020.1015 · Cited by 1
LEMON: LanguagE MOdel for Negative Sampling of Knowledge Graph EmbeddingsPreprint
Rony, M. R. A. H., Alam, M. M., Ali, S., Saleem, Q., Lehmann, J., & Vahdati, S. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2188328/v1 · Cited by 1
M 2ixKG: Mixing for Harder Negative Samples in Knowledge GraphPreprint
Che, F., & Tao, J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4617063 · Cited by 1
Knowledge Graph Link Prediction via Hyperbolic Attenuated Attention NetworksPreprint
Zhang, X., Wu, J., Peng, H., & Wang, J. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4187318/v1 · Cited by 1
Improving plant functional annotation from knowledge graphs using Graph Neural NetworksPreprint
Ngo, T. G. B., Liseron-Monfils, C., Das, S., Ubbens, J. R., Ashe, P. C., & Konkin, D. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.05.07.652750 · Cited by 1
Using Pairwise Occurrence Information to Improve Knowledge Graph Completion on Large-Scale DatasetsPreprint
Balkır, E., Naslidnyk, M., Palfrey, D., et al. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.11583
Exploring Effects of Random Walk Based Minibatch Selection Policy on Knowledge Graph CompletionPreprint
Santra, B., Sharma, P., Roychowdhury, S., & Goyal, P. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.05553
Knowledge Graph Embedding with Linear Representation for Link PredictionPreprint
Peng, Y., & Zhang, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Addressing Class-Imbalance Problem in Personalized RankingPreprint
Yu, L., Pei, S., Zhang, C., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.09272
Pre-trained Language Models as Symbolic Reasoners over Knowledge?Preprint
Kassner, N., Kroje, B., & Schütze, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Multi-teacher Knowledge Distillation for Knowledge Graph Completion.Preprint
Wang, K., Liu, Y., Ma, Q., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University)
CO2Vec: Embeddings of Co-Ordered Networks Based on Mutual Reinforcement
Chiang, M.-F., Lim, E., Lee, W.-C., et al. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa49011.2020.00027
Fact Checking via Path Embedding and AggregationPreprint
Pirrò, G. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.08028
Automated Graph Generation at Sentence Level for Reading Comprehension Based on Conceptual Graphs
Lin, W.-H., & Lu, C.-S. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.240
Within-Document Event Coreference with BERT-Based Contextualized RepresentationsPreprint
Ahmed, S. R., & Martin, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09600
High-efficiency Euclidean-based Models for Low-dimensional Knowledge Graph Embeddings.Preprint
Wang, K., Liu, Y., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
GCE: Global Contextual Information for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Wang, C., & Zhong, J. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72113-8_45
Sequence Embedding for Zero or Low Resource Knowledge Graph Completion
Du, Z. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-73194-6_20
NePTuNe: Neural Powered Tucker Network for Knowledge Graph CompletionPreprint
Sonkar, S., Katiyar, A., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.07824
HYPER^2: Hyperbolic Poincare Embedding for Hyper-Relational Link PredictionPreprint
Yan, S., Zhang, Z., Sun, X., Xu, G., Li, J., & Li, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.09871
Overview of Knowledge Graph Completion Algorithms Based on Representation Learning
Zhou, Y., Feng, J., Yang, Z., & Wang, H. (2021) · International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics (ICCCBDA) · doi:10.1109/icccbda51879.2021.9442554
Node Classification on Relational Graphs Using Deep-RGCNs
Chandra, N. (2021) · doi:10.15368/theses.2021.18
Representing Syntax and Composition with Geometric TransformationsPreprint
Bertolini, L., Weeds, J., Weir, D. J., & Peng, Q. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.01904
A Systematic Investigation of KB-Text Embedding Alignment at ScalePreprint
Pahuja, V., Gu, Y., Chen, W., Bahrami, M., Liu, L., Chen, W., & Su, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.01586
AutoSF+: Towards Automatic Scoring Function Design for Knowledge Graph Embedding.Preprint
Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Yao, Q. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Tensor Methods for Signal Reconstruction and Network Embedding
Kanatsoulis, C. I. (2020) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota)
Self-Attention Network for Text Representation Learning
Shen, T. (2021) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney)
Technical Report of Team GraphMIRAcles in the WikiKG90M-LSC Track of OGB-LSC @ KDD Cup 2021Preprint
Cai, J., Chen, J., Pan, T., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.05476
Are Missing Links Predictable? An Inferential Benchmark for Knowledge Graph CompletionPreprint
Cao, Y., Ji, X., Lv, X., Li, J., Wen, Y., & Zhang, H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.01387 · Cited by 3
Hyperbolic Knowledge Graph Embedding with Logical Pattern Learning
Li, W., & Peng, R. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9534404
Knowledge Sheaves: A Sheaf-Theoretic Framework for Knowledge Graph EmbeddingPreprint
Gebhart, T., Hansen, J., & Schrater, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.03789
Employing Multi-granularity Features to Extract Entity Relation in Dialogue
Wang, Q., & Li, P. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88480-2_21
A Statistical Relational Approach to Learning Distance-based GCNsPreprint
Dhami, D. S., Yan, S., & Natarajan, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.07007 · Cited by 3
A Probabilistic Framework for Knowledge Graph Data AugmentationPreprint
Chauhan, J., Gupta, P., & Minervini, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.13205
Low-dimensional Knowledge Graph Embedding based on Extended Poincaré Ball.
Zhou, X., Pan, Z., & Wang, P. (2021)
Wikidated 1.0: An Evolving Knowledge Graph Dataset of Wikidata's Revision HistoryPreprint
Schmelzeisen, L., Dima, C., & Staab, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.05003
Standing on the Shoulders of Predecessors: Meta-Knowledge Transfer for Knowledge Graphs.Preprint
Chen, M., Zhang, W., Zhu, Y., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Case-based Reasoning for Natural Language Queries over Knowledge BasesPreprint
Das, R., Zaheer, M., Thai, D., Godbole, A., Perez, E., Lee, J. Y., Tan, L., Polymenakos, L., & McCallum, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.08762 · Cited by 34
Benchmarking Commonsense Knowledge Base Population with an Effective Evaluation DatasetPreprint
Fang, T., Wang, W., Choi, S.-H., Hao, S., Zhang, H., Song, Y., & He, B. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.07679
Low Resource Quadratic Forms for Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Zhou, Z., Kline, J., Conathan, D., & Fung, G. (2021) · Workshop on Simple and Efficient Natural Language Processing (SustaiNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.sustainlp-1.1
Link Analysis meets Ontologies: Are Embeddings the Answer?Preprint
Mežnar, S., Bevec, M., Nada Lavrač, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.11710
Narrative Cartography with Knowledge GraphsPreprint
Mai, G., Huang, W., Cai, L., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.00970
Revisit Gaussian Embedding: An Effective Method for Scalable Knowledge Graph
He, W., Li, Q., & Zhao, W. (2021) · International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Disaster Management (ICT-DM) · doi:10.1109/ict-dm52643.2021.9664081
Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction ModelsPreprint
Rehman, E. U., Saeed, A., Minallah, N., et al. (2022) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202202.0212.v1
Learning Time and Type Aware Representations for Urban ZonesPreprint
Cai, L., Janowicz, K., Yan, B., & Mai, G. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4056772
Knowledge Graph Completion via Bidirectional Translation and Interaction
Zhang, Q., Jiang, D., Wang, X., & Wang, R. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence Systems (CCIS) · doi:10.1109/ccis53392.2021.9754641
Kamigaito, H., & Hayashi, K. (2021) · Journal of Natural Language Processing · doi:10.5715/jnlp.28.1336
GSDM: A Gated Semantic Discriminating Model for Knowledge Graph Completion
Guo, X., Gao, N., Mu, N., Dong, Y., Wang, L., & He, Y. (2022) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd54268.2022.9776215
A review of Knowledge graph link prediction using graph neural networksPreprint
Zamini, M., Reza, H., & Rabiei, M. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1762419/v1
Explaining automatic answers generated from knowledge base embedding models.
Ruschel, A. (2022) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/d.3.2022.tde-07072022-084934
Knowledge Inference and Knowledge Completion Methods using Neuro-Symbolic Inductive Rules
Shin, W.-C., Park, H., & Park, Y.-T. (2021) · International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) · doi:10.1109/csci54926.2021.00040
Embedding Knowledge Graphs with Semantic-Guided Walk
Tang, H., Liu, D., Xu, X., & Zhang, F. (2022) · Proceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.18293/seke2022-048
Cosine-Based Embedding for Completing Lightweight Schematic Knowledge in DL-Litecore
Li, W., Zheng, X., Gao, H., Ji, Q., & Qi, G. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122010690
DPB-NBFnet: Using neural Bellman-Ford networks to predict DNA-protein binding
Li, J., Zhuo, L., Lian, X., Pan, S., & Xu, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1018294
Intermediate Semantic Multi-view Recommender System Based on Multimodal Knowledge GraphPreprint
Mark, Joan, J., Joseph, et al. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2270768/v1
Ma, H., Jiang, X., Chai, H., & Wei, X. (2022) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc53654.2022.9945592
Knowledge Graph Embedding based on Line Graph Attention MechanismPreprint
Liu, B., Wu, J., & Wu, E. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2304993/v1
Attentive Flexible Translation Embedding in Top-N Sparse Sequential Recommendations.
Seo, M., & Kim, M. H. (2022) · International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.9781/ijimai.2022.10.007
Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning based on Graph Convolution Network
Mo, C., Wang, Y., Jia, Y., et al. (2022) · International Conference on Data Intelligence and Security (ICDIS) · doi:10.1109/icdis55630.2022.00055
Learning Knowledge Graph Embedding with Batch Circle Loss
Wu, Y., Huang, W., Hui, S., & Wang, J. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9892213
An Approach for Anticancer Drug Response Prediction Based on Knowledge Graph Embedding
Xie, X.-P., Wang, G., Zhu, W., et al. (2022) · Chinese Control Conference (CCC) · doi:10.23919/ccc55666.2022.9902550
The Method for Plausibility Evaluation of Knowledge Triple Based on QA
Jia, S., & Cao, J. (2022) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-8300-9_25
HTransE: Hybrid Translation-based Embedding for Knowledge Graphs
Shah, A., Molokwu, B. C., & Kobti, Z. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Graph (ICKG) · doi:10.1109/ickg55886.2022.00037
A Convolution Quaternion-Based Inverse Relational Rotation Embedding Knowledge Representation Method
Wu, D., Jing, Z., & Li, M. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa54385.2022.10032387
Bidirectional matching and aggregation network for few-shot relation extraction
Wei, Z., Guo, W., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., & Zhao, J. (2023) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1272
UnTiCk: Unsupervised Type-Aware Complex Logical Queries Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs
Chen, D., Li, Q., & Gu, J. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12061445
Can Pretrained Language Models Reason on Sparse Commonsense Knowledge Graph?
Hu, Y., Xu, W., Liu, Q., Wang, L., & Wu, S. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC) · doi:10.1109/iccc56324.2022.10065877
Multi-view Contrastive Multiple Knowledge Graph Embedding for Knowledge Completion
Kurokawa, M., Yonekawa, K., Haruta, S., Konishi, T., Asoh, H., Ono, C., & Hagiwara, M. (2022) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla55696.2022.00223
Can Incremental Learning help with KG Completion?
Osama, M., & Abu-Elkheir, M. (2023) · International Conference on Computer Science, Engineering and Applications (CSEA) · doi:10.5121/csit.2023.130510
Recommendation Algorithm Based on Object Feature Combination Embedded
Zhang, J., Lin, H., Cai, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1109/itme56794.2022.00139
Graph Neural Networks to Improve Knowledge Graph Embedding: A Survey
Chetoui, I., Bachari, E. E., Adnani, M. E., & Hassan, A. E. (2023) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-26384-2_2
Collaboration Mode: Characterizing Local Graph Structural Information for Temporal Knowledge GraphPreprint
Si, Y., Cheng, Q., Liu, S., Hu, X., & Huang, J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4494601
Subgraph Search over Neural-Symbolic Graphs
Yuan, Y., Ma, D., Wu, A., et al. (2023) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3539618.3591773
Relational Context Enhanced Dual Path Reasoning for Fact Prediction in Knowledge Graph
Wang, Y., Huang, Z., Hu, M., Li, D., Luo, W., & Yang, D. (2022) · IEEE Smart World Congress (SWC) · doi:10.1109/smartworld-uic-atc-scalcom-digitaltwin-pricomp-metaverse56740.2022.00207
Query-Specific Temporal Knowledge Graph Representation Learning Model
Zuo, Y., Liu, Z., Zhou, Y., Zhan, M., & Zhan, P. (2022) · IEEE Smart World Congress (SWC) · doi:10.1109/smartworld-uic-atc-scalcom-digitaltwin-pricomp-metaverse56740.2022.00190
Robust Hierarchical Symbolic Explanations in Hyperbolic Space for Image Classification
Santhirasekaram, A., Kori, A., Winkler, M. H., et al. (2023) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw59228.2023.00063
Zhang, H., She, J., Wang, Y., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Advanced Electronic Materials, Computers and Software Engineering (AEMCSE) · doi:10.1117/12.3004685
Few-Shot Link Prediction using Variational Heterogeneous Attention Networks
Tao, X., Wang, H., Luo, X., & Zhu, P. (2023) · Proceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.18293/seke2023-201
Combining Structure Embedding and Text Semantics for Efficient Knowledge Graph Completion
Sun, W. L., Li, Y., Yao, J., Wu, Q., & Liu, K. (2023) · Proceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.18293/seke2023-100
LGHAE: Local and Global Hyper-relation Aggregation Embedding for Link Prediction
Yuan, P., Qi, Z., Sun, H., & Liu, C. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-5971-6_26
Research on Individualized Teaching in Colleges and Universities Based on Knowledge Graph
Lin, W. (2023) · Advances in intelligent systems research/Advances in Intelligent Systems Research · doi:10.2991/978-94-6463-238-5_107
Deep Interactions-Boosted Embeddings for Link Prediction on Knowledge Graph
Yin, H., Zhong, J., & Dai, Q. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230602
A Study of Temporal Knowledge Graph Complementation Based on Convolutional Neural Network
王, 子. (2023) · Computer Science and Application · doi:10.12677/csa.2023.1310189
He, P., & Chen, J. (2023) · Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.3233/jifs-233915
Gu, Y., Jia, D., Lei, Y., & Li, B. (2023) · International Conference on Data-driven Optimization of Complex Systems (DOCS) · doi:10.1109/docs60977.2023.10294941
Metadata
- Authors
- Sun, Z., Deng, Z.-H., Nie, J.-Y., & Tang, J.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1902.10197
- OpenAlex
- W2909137510
- Semantic Scholar
- 8f096071a09701012c9c279aee2a88143a295935
- Cited by
- 1,414
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 248 · 2023: 279 · 2022: 244 · 2021: 287 · 2020: 168 · 2019: 39
- 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 › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Keywords
- knowledge graph embedding, RotatE, complex spaces, link prediction, relation composition
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
