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 1,301–1,400 of 1,414
Neuro-Logic Learning for Relation Reasoning over Event Knowledge Graph
Tang, W., Kong, Q., Luo, Y., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI) · doi:10.1109/isi58743.2023.10297212
Enhancing recommendation systems with hybrid manifold regularized knowledge graph
Ngo, G. H., & Vo, N. N. Y. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa60987.2023.10302462
A Review in Knowledge Extraction from Knowledge Bases
Yáñez-Romero, F., Montoyo, A., Muñoz, R., Gutiérrez, Y., & Suárez, A. (2023) · International conference Recent advances in natural language processing · doi:10.26615/978-954-452-092-2_012
Recurrent Event Networks Based on Subgraph and Attention Enhancement
Hong-xi, L., Meng, J., & Sun, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3333365
Is Averaging Always the Best? Improving Aggregation Method for Federated Knowledge Graph Embedding
Liu, Y., Zhang, R., & Chen, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC) · doi:10.1109/icnsc58704.2023.10318978
Feng, J., Zhang, R., Chen, D., & Shi, L. (2023) · Biomimetics · doi:10.3390/biomimetics8080560
Short-Term Sequential Pattern for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Li, H., Zhu, C., Zhu, W., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230878
AGKE: Improve Knowledge Graph Embedding by Adaptively Generating Kernel
Yuan, Q., & Su, H. (2023) · Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC) · doi:10.1109/ccdc58219.2023.10326583
Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage
Becquin, G., & Esmeir, S. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.668
Link Prediction Based on Relationally Encoded Aware Attention
Zhang, R., Ding, Y. C., Yin, L., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering · doi:10.1109/icacte59887.2023.10335397
Knowledge Representation Learning with Hyperboloid Models
Li, Y., Gan, J., Wang, J., Han, X., & Wang, M. (2023) · International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering · doi:10.1109/icacte59887.2023.10335207
RarKGQA: Multi-hop Question and Answering Method Based on Knowledge Graph Embedding
Fangri, R., Altenbek, G., Ma, Y., & Haisa, G. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (PRML) · doi:10.1109/prml59573.2023.10348187
A Deep Learning-Based Model for Relation Discovery in the Knowledge Graph of the Power Industry
Luo, X., Wu, J., Nan, Z., Liu, Z., & Wang, J. (2023) · Advances in transdisciplinary engineering · doi:10.3233/atde230978
Domain Information Learning For Multi-Domain Knowledge Graph Link Prediction
Zhao, Y., Chao, K., & Li, Y. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE) · doi:10.1109/icebe59045.2023.00023
Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, T., Zhang, X., Liu, C., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc59305.2023.00047
Knowledge Graph Embedding via Adaptive Negative Subsampling
Zhu, D., Tan, H., Wang, L., Feng, Y., Lin, Y., & Gu, Z. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc59305.2023.00016
Qiu, Y., Wang, S., Yang, X., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm58861.2023.10385638
Towards Bi-Level Out-of-Distribution Logical Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs
Alotaibi, F., & Zhou, D. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata59044.2023.10386470
Gao, S., Li, M., Jing, Z., & Shi, J. (2023) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc53992.2023.10394430
Ma, Y., Altenbek, G., & Yu, Y. (2024) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2023.045486
Pre-training and diagnosing knowledge base completion models
Kocijan, V., Jang, M., & Lukasiewicz, T. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2024.104081
CrsKGC-RSAN: Conflict Resolution Strategy for Knowledge Graph Completion
Chen, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, W., et al. (2023) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw60847.2023.00070
Zhang, J., Yan, S., Sun, C., Luo, Y., Ruan, C., & Yao, W. (2023) · International Conference on Information Systems and Computing Technology (ISCTech) · doi:10.1109/isctech60480.2023.00017
Domain-Specific Dictionary between Human and Machine Languages
Islam, M. S., & Liu, F. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15030144
A Graph-Based Fusion Model Propagating Multimodal Information for RecommendationPreprint
Cormac, T., Fontaine, E., Roy, K. B., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4011312/v1
Graph-Enriched Biomedical Language Models: A Research Proposal
Sakhovskiy, A., Panchenko, A., & Tutubalina, E. V. (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-srw.11
Model-based Subsampling for Knowledge Graph Completion
Feng, X. (2024) · Journal of Natural Language Processing · doi:10.5715/jnlp.31.287
Revisiting Knowledge Graph Embedding: An Alternative Solution to Biased Visual Scene Graphs
Jia, S., & Fashandi, H. (2023) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00293
Semantic Propagation Method Enhanced by Structure for Link Prediction
Zhang, H., Xing, C., & Luo, T. (2023) · International Conference on Electronic Information Engineering and Computer Communication (EIECC) · doi:10.1109/eiecc60864.2023.10456739
Liu, X., Jiang, X., & Yi, F. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) · doi:10.1109/icpads60453.2023.00175
Zhen, C., Niu, J., Mo, S., & Chen, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) · doi:10.1109/icpads60453.2023.00166
Sequence-to-Sequence Knowledge Graph Completion Based On Gated Attention Unit
Yi, F., Wei, X., Liu, X., & Jiang, X. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) · doi:10.1109/icpads60453.2023.00195
Fast knowledge graph completion using graphics processing units
Lee, C.-H., Kang, D., & Song, H. J. (2024) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2024.104885 · Cited by 1
Why Not Look One Step Ahead in Reinforcement Learning Based Knowledge Graph Reasoning?Preprint
Wang, H., Song, D., Wu, Z., et al. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4782235
Semantic Enhancement Based Knowledge Graph Completion for Graph Convolutional Neural Networks
Rao, Q., & Wang, T. (2023) · International Conference on Electrical, Mechanical and Computer Engineering (ICEMCE) · doi:10.1109/icemce60359.2023.10490589
Knowledge Graph Embedding Based Graph Convolutional Network for Link Prediction
Wu, Q., & He, Q. (2023) · International Conference on Advanced Cloud and Big Data · doi:10.1109/cbd63341.2023.00050
A multi-view representation learning framework for commonsense knowledge bases
Zhang, W., Chen, C., Chen, T., Liu, J., Ye, Q., & Ruan, T. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.120704
Peng, K. (2023) · International Conference on Information Education and Artificial Intelligence (ICIEAI) · doi:10.1145/3660043.3660142
He, S., & Lu, Z. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4446588/v1
Structure-Augment based Long-Tailed Knowledge Graph Completion Model
Wang, J., Tang, Y., Hou, D., Wang, J., Meng, Z., & Xu, T. (2024) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd61410.2024.10580212 · Cited by 1
Taming the Low-Quality Path for Reinforcement Learning-Based Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Wang, R., & Zhang, W. (2024) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd61410.2024.10580625
Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., Cao, H., et al. (2024) · Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC) · doi:10.1109/ccdc62350.2024.10587969
Weighted Ensemble Approach for Knowledge Graph completion improves performancePreprint
Sinha, M., Tu, R., Gonzalez-Cavazos, A. C., & Su, A. I. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.07.16.603664
Kg-Lad: A Knowledge Graph-Augmented Approach for Effective Log Anomaly DetectionPreprint
Chen, C. C., Yang, T.-J., & Chen, G.-F. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4900197
Capturing Knowledge Graphs and Rules with Octagon Embeddings
Charpenay, V., & Schockaert, S. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/364
Yang, F., Zhang, Y., Zhao, X., et al. (2024) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym16091166
Xiao, M., Liu, B., Peng, M., Xu, W., & Peng, M. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650892
Zero-shot Heterogeneous Graph Embedding via Aggregating Metapath Semantically
Luo, Z., & Wang, Z. (2024) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650430
Representing Knowledge Graph Triples through Siamese Line Graph Sampling
Kalinowski, A., & An, Y. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10651186
Confidence Prediction Based on Uncertain Knowledge Graph Structure Embedding
Li, T., Li, X., Wang, F., Wang, W., & Wang, T. (2024) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2833/1/012001
Knowledge Graph Completion Based on Contrastive Learning for Diet Therapy
Yang, K., Lin, Y., Mi, X., Li, D., Xiao, L., & Li, D. (2024) · ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD) · doi:10.1109/snpd61259.2024.10673963
Enhancing Commonsense Reasoning through Entity Type Knowledge Graph Completion
Guo, Y., Mao, C., Yue, D., & Leng, T. (2024) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Electromechanical Automation (AIEA) · doi:10.1109/aiea62095.2024.10692845
Dan, Q., Cui, D., Peng, Z., Li, Q., He, J., & Qiu, J. (2024) · International Conference on Internet of Things, Automation and Artificial Intelligence (IoTAAI) · doi:10.1109/iotaai62601.2024.10692613
Gu, Y., Cao, J., Qian, S., Zhu, N., & Guan, W. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws62655.2024.00111
Improving Chinese knowledge enhancement models with unified representation space
Li, F., Chen, Z., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., & Duan, T. (2024) · International Conference on Automation and Intelligent Technology (ICAIT) · doi:10.1117/12.3047851
Entity Profiling with Graph Rules
Mai, Z., Wang, W., Liu, X., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-5562-2_25
Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning with Dual Guiding Constraints
Li, J., Jiao, S., Guo, S., & Luo, X. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C) · doi:10.1109/qrs-c63300.2024.00088
Universal Knowledge Graph Embedding Framework Based on High-Quality Negative Sampling and Weighting
Zhang, P., Peng, H., Fang, Y., Yang, Z., Hu, Y., Tan, Z., & Xiao, W. (2024) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math12223489
Embedding Hierarchical Tree Structure of Concepts in Knowledge Graph Embedding
Yu, J., Zhang, C., Hu, Z., & Ji, Y. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13224486
Cheng, K., & Sun, Y. (2024) · Synthesis lectures on data, semantics and knowledge · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72008-6_3
A Fused Deep Learning Approach to Transform Novel Drug RepositioningPreprint
Cao, D., Li, K., Yi, J., Ye, Q., Yang, X., Yu, L., Deng, Y., Wu, C., Hou, T., & Jiang, D. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5416722/v1
An original model for multi-target learning of logical rules for knowledge graph reasoning
Li, H., Wang, B., Wang, K., Zhang, R., & Wei, Y. (2024) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-024-05966-1 · Cited by 1
Time-enhanced Dynamic Graph Network for Next POI Recommendation
Liu, Z., Liu, W., & Chen, J. (2024) · doi:10.1109/isitsc64373.2024.00021
Unseen Relation Prediction Using BERT and Neighbour Encoder
Jain, N., & Mehta, K. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-74701-4_17
Searching to extrapolate embedding for out-of-graph node representation learning
Shen, Z., Guo, S., Wen, Y., Wei, L., Zhang, W., Luo, Y., Wu, C., & Yao, Q. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2024.107118
Xin, K., Wang, Q., Chen, J., Yu, P., Zhao, H., & Ji, H. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm62325.2024.10822779
Beyond expression: Comprehensive visualization of knowledge triplet facts
Liu, W., He, Y., Wang, C., Xie, S., & Li, W. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104062
INT: Integrating Neighborhood and Textual Information for Knowledge Graph Entity Typing
Zhang, Q., Zhang, H., Chen, C., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering · doi:10.1109/icste63875.2024.00031
A Multi-Level Location-Aware Approach for Session-Based News Recommendation
Xu, Y. K., Cui, S., Wang, X., et al. (2025) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics14030528
Spherical Hierarchical Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Cybersecurity Knowledge Graph Completion
Lin, Y., Dong, Z., Zhang, C., Zhang, Z., & Wang, L. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc63484.2024.00043
Cirl: Leveraging Causal Interventions in Reinforcement Learning to Advance Knowledge Graph ReasoningPreprint
Xia, N. L., Wang, Y., & Luo, X. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5135079
Liu, S., Song, X., Li, Y., Gong, K., & Tu, Y. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.129693
IF-NS: A New negative sampling framework for knowledge graph embedding using influence function
Cai, M., Deng, Z., & Chen, X. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113258
Self-citationEnhancing Knowledge Graphs Reasoning Through High-Order Structure Learning and Multi-View FusionPreprint
Wang, Q., GUO, Y., Wu, J., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5172692
Wang, J., Du, Z., & Sun, T. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10890317
Completing the Puzzle: Knowledge Graph Augmentation Using GANs
Marali, A., Hegde, A., Annamalai, M., S, R. V., & Natarajan, S. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data, Decision and Systems (ICDDS) · doi:10.1109/icdds62937.2024.10910552
Jin, B., Li, Z., Li, H., & Zhu, H. (2025) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-2468-3_84
Enhancing Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction by Knowledge Graph Embedding
Liu, C., Wang, X., & Liu, Q. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icmlc63072.2024.10935249
JGURD: joint gradient update relational direction-enhanced method for knowledge graph completion
Ding, L., Li, M., Gao, S., Li, J., Yuan, R., & Yu, J. (2025) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2808
GMatchBERT: BERT-Enhanced Relation Learning for Knowledge Graphs
Jain, N., & Mehta, K. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT) · doi:10.1109/csnt64827.2025.10967989
Qian, S., Fu, Y., Li, K., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Computer Application and Information Security (ICCAIS) · doi:10.1117/12.3061788
HFKG-RFE: An algorithm for heterogeneous federated knowledge graph
Li, C., Hong, Z., & Liu, G. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315782
Multilingual knowledge graph completion based on structural features
He, J., & Yang, H. (2025) · The Computer Journal · doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxaf035
Bakheet, S., Zhapa-Camacho, F., & Hoehndorf, R. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.05.07.652682
Knowledge Graph Reasoning with Quantum-Inspired Reinforcement Learning
Chen, J., Zhang, X., Sun, F., & Lu, J. Y. (2025) · Chinese journal of information fusion. · doi:10.62762/cjif.2025.552445
GNN-FTuckER: A novel link prediction model for identifying suitable populations for tea varieties
Li, J., Yang, B., Liu, J., Wang, X., Wu, Z., Huang, Q., & He, P. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323315
Network medicine in precision cardio-oncology
Fang, M. Z., Rickards, J., & Cheng, F. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-29829-5.00031-1
Open-World Knowledge Graph Based on Text Knowledge Transformation and Alignment
Yang, Y., Du, L., Liu, M., et al. (2024) · Asian Conference on Artificial Intelligence Technology (ACAIT) · doi:10.1109/acait63902.2024.11021732
Research on the Construction of Knowledge Graph for Emergency Management of Social Security Events
Wang, X., Hu, X., Li, D., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Information Science and Education (ICISE-IE) · doi:10.1109/icise-ie64355.2024.11025395
A Novel Framework for Multi-hop Reasoning via Alternate Entity and Sequence Generation
Shang, Y., Zhang, W., Li, H., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-8180-8_36
Knowledge-Driven Prediction of Vulnerability Co-Exploitation
Yu, Y., Luo, K., Hu, X., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1109/ainit65432.2025.11035711
Defect Prediction for Electric Power Communication Equipment Based on Temporal Knowledge Graph
Li, X., Wang, Y., Ye, C., Wang, J., & Deng, W. (2025) · Asia Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering (ACPEE) · doi:10.1109/acpee64358.2025.11040573
Dual-context enhanced knowledge representation learning method in hyper-relational knowledge graphs
Li, J., Han, Q., Lu, D., & Li, L. (2025) · Complex & Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s40747-025-02003-7
A Hybrid Graph Contrastive Learning Approach with Negative Sampling for Knowledge Graph Completion
Pan, W., Hua, Q., Zhang, Y., Lu, Y., Chen, J., & Qin, J. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (ICAIBD) · doi:10.1109/icaibd64986.2025.11082092
Quantum-inspired complex spiking neural network for multi-source data joint classification
Liu, Y., Li, Y., Xu, H., & Lin, Y. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103526 · Cited by 2
Liu, H. (2025) · Computing Performance and Communication systems · doi:10.23977/cpcs.2025.090107
Enhancing Knowledge-Aware Recommender Systems with Multi-Level Cross-View Contrastive Learning
Wang, K., Yi, B., Zhang, H., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) · doi:10.1109/cste64638.2025.11092282
Time-enhanced compound geometric operations for temporal knowledge graph embedding
Li, W., Zhang, D., Li, G., & Zou, Y. L. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131182
Enhancing Knowledge Graphs Reasoning Through High-Order Structure Learning and Multi-View FusionPreprint
Wang, Q., GUO, Y., Jinging, W., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5397769
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
