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 101–200 of 1,414
How Does Knowledge Graph Embedding Extrapolate to Unseen Data: A Semantic Evidence View
Li, R., Cao, Y., Zhu, Q., Bi, G., Fang, F., Liu, Y., & Li, Q. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20521 · Cited by 92
Machine learning approaches to predict drug efficacy and toxicity in oncology
Badwan, B. A., Liaropoulos, G., Kyrodimos, E., Skaltsas, D., Tsirigos, A., & Gorgoulis, V. G. (2023) · Cell Reports Methods · doi:10.1016/j.crmeth.2023.100413 · Cited by 92
Few-shot Relation Extraction via Bayesian Meta-learning on Relation GraphsPreprint
Qu, M., Gao, T., Xhonneux, L.-P., & Tang, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.02387 · Cited by 88
Self-citationCai, L., Yan, B., Mai, G., Janowicz, K., & Zhu, R. (2019) · International Conference on Knowledge Capture · doi:10.1145/3360901.3364441 · Cited by 85
Personalized Ranking with Importance Sampling
Lian, D., Liu, Q., & Chen, E. (2020) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3366423.3380187 · Cited by 88
MoSE: Modality Split and Ensemble for Multimodal Knowledge Graph Completion
Zhao, Y. Q., Cai, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Zhao, G., & Jiang, N. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.719 · Cited by 100
DyERNIE: Dynamic Evolution of Riemannian Manifold Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Han, Z., Chen, P., Ma, Y., & Volker Tresp, C. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.593 · Cited by 98
Efficiently embedding dynamic knowledge graphs
Wu, T., Khan, A., Yong, M., Qi, G., & Wang, M. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109124 · Cited by 91
Representation Learning for Natural Language Processing
Liu, Z., Lin, Y., & Sun, M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5573-2 · Cited by 103
Continuous Graph Neural NetworksPreprint
Xhonneux, L.-P., Qu, M., & Tang, J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.00967 · Cited by 86
Self-citationJointE: Jointly utilizing 1D and 2D convolution for knowledge graph embedding
Zhou, Z., Wang, C., Feng, Y., & Chen, D. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.108100 · Cited by 82
Efficient Probabilistic Logic Reasoning with Graph Neural NetworksPreprint
Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Yang, Y., Ramamurthy, A., Li, B., Qi, Y., & Song, L. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.11850 · Cited by 102
RAGAT: Relation Aware Graph Attention Network for Knowledge Graph Completion
Liu, X., Tan, H., Chen, Q., & Lin, G. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3055529 · Cited by 78
Dynamic Anticipation and Completion for Multi-Hop Reasoning over Sparse Knowledge Graph
Lv, X., Han, X., Hou, L., Li, J., Liu, Z., Zhang, W., Zhang, Y., Kong, H., & Wu, S. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.459 · Cited by 81
Fusing topology contexts and logical rules in language models for knowledge graph completion
Lin, Q., Mao, R., Liu, J., Xu, F., & Cambria, E. (2022) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2022.09.020 · Cited by 76
Dai, Y., Guo, C., Guo, W., & Eickhoff, C. (2020) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa256 · Cited by 77
Ontology-enhanced Prompt-tuning for Few-shot Learning
Ye, H., Zhang, N., Deng, S., Chen, X., Chen, H., Xiong, F., Chen, X., & Chen, H. (2022) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3485447.3511921 · Cited by 80
Language Models as Knowledge Embeddings
Wang, X., He, Q., Liang, J., & Xiao, Y. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/318 · Cited by 97
Bazmi, P., Asadpour, M., & Shakery, A. (2022) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103146 · Cited by 75
BoxE: A Box Embedding Model for Knowledge Base Completion
Abboud, R., Ceylan, İ. İ., Lukasiewicz, T., & Salvatori, T. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.06267 · Cited by 74
Next POI Recommendation with Dynamic Graph and Explicit Dependency
Yin, F., Liu, Y., Shen, Z., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25608 · Cited by 73
CoKE: Contextualized Knowledge Graph EmbeddingPreprint
Wang, Q., Huang, P., Wang, H., Dai, S., Jiang, W., Liu, J., Lyu, Y., Zhu, Y. T., & Wu, H. R. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.02168 · Cited by 116
Xie, Z., Zhou, G., Liu, J., & Huang, J. X. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.526 · Cited by 72
OntoZSL: Ontology-enhanced Zero-shot Learning
Geng, Y., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Pan, J. Z., Ye, Z., Yuan, Z., Jia, Y., & Chen, H. (2021) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3442381.3450042 · Cited by 76
Complex graph convolutional network for link prediction in knowledge graphs
Zeb, A., Saif, S., Chen, J., Haq, A. U., Gong, Z., & Zhang, D. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116796 · Cited by 74
Graph attention network with dynamic representation of relations for knowledge graph completion
Zhang, X., Zhang, C., Guo, J., Peng, C., Niu, Z., & Wu, X. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119616 · Cited by 73
Knowledge graph representation learning with simplifying hierarchical feature propagation
Li, Z., Zhang, Q., Zhu, F., Li, D., Zheng, C., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103348 · Cited by 75
DiffMG: Differentiable Meta Graph Search for Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks
Ding, Y., Yao, Q., Zhao, H., & Zhang, T. (2021) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3447548.3467447 · Cited by 70
Fuzzy Logic Based Logical Query Answering on Knowledge Graphs
Chen, X., Hu, Z., & Sun, Y. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i4.20310 · Cited by 83
Relational Message Passing for Fully Inductive Knowledge Graph Completion
Geng, Y., Chen, J., Pan, J. Z., Chen, M., Jiang, S., Zhang, W., & Chen, H. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde55515.2023.00098 · Cited by 82
LibKGE - A knowledge graph embedding library for reproducible research
Broscheit, S., Ruffinelli, D., Kochsiek, A., Betz, P., & Gemulla, R. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.22 · Cited by 76
Fully Hyperbolic Neural Networks
Chen, W., Han, X., Lin, Y., Zhao, H., Liu, Z., Li, P., Sun, M., & Zhou, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.389 · Cited by 79
Graph Lifelong Learning: A Survey
Febrinanto, F. G., Xia, F., Moore, K., Thapa, C., & Aggarwal, C. C. (2023) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2022.3222049 · Cited by 73
RETIA: Relation-Entity Twin-Interact Aggregation for Temporal Knowledge Graph Extrapolation
Liu, K., Zhao, F., Xu, G., Wang, X., & Jin, H. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde55515.2023.00138 · Cited by 72
Knowledge Graphs for Multi-modal Learning: Survey and Perspective
Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Geng, Y., Guo, L., Chen, J., Liu, X., Pan, J. Z., Zhang, N., Chen, H., et al. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103124 · Cited by 79
Learning Collaborative Agents with Rule Guidance for Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Lei, D., Jiang, G., Gu, X., Sun, K., Mao, Y., & Ren, X. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.688 · Cited by 65
Relphormer: Relational Graph Transformer for Knowledge Graph Representations
Bi, Z., Cheng, S., Chen, J., Liang, X., Xiong, F., Guo, W., Chen, H., & Zhang, N. (2023) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127044 · Cited by 75
Collaborative Policy Learning for Open Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Fu, C., Chen, T., Qu, M., Jin, W., & Ren, X. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1269 · Cited by 63
Inductive Relation Prediction by BERT
Zha, H., Chen, Z., & Yan, X. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20537 · Cited by 67
Understanding the performance of knowledge graph embeddings in drug discovery
Bonner, S., Barrett, I. P., Ye, C., Swiers, R., Engkvist, O., Hoyt, C. T., & Hamilton, W. L. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ailsci.2022.100036 · Cited by 74
MRNDR: Multihead Attention-Based Recommendation Network for Drug Repurposing
Feng, X., Ma, Z., Yu, C., & Xin, R. (2024) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01726 · Cited by 67
Inductive Relation Prediction by Subgraph ReasoningPreprint
Teru, K. K., Denis, E., & Hamilton, W. L. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.06962 · Cited by 62
CAKE: A Scalable Commonsense-Aware Framework For Multi-View Knowledge Graph Completion
Niu, G., Li, B., Zhang, Y., & Pu, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.205 · Cited by 67
Chen, C., Wang, Y., Sun, A., Li, B., & Lam, K. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.729 · Cited by 83
Trans4E: Link prediction on scholarly knowledge graphs
Nayyeri, M., Cil, G. M., Vahdati, S., Osborne, F., Rahman, M., Angioni, S., Salatino, A. A., Recupero, D. R., Vassilyeva, N., Motta, E., et al. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.02.100 · Cited by 68
DRGI: Deep Relational Graph Infomax for Knowledge Graph Completion
Liang, S., Shao, J., Zhang, D., Zhang, J., & Cui, B. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2021.3110898 · Cited by 63
Entity alignment based on relational semantics augmentation for multilingual knowledge graphs
Akhtar, M. U., Liu, J., Xie, Z., Liu, X., Ahmed, S., & Huang, B. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109494 · Cited by 63
KEPT: Knowledge Enhanced Prompt Tuning for event causality identification
Liu, J., Zhang, Z., Guo, Z. M., Jin, L., Li, X., Wei, K., & Sun, X. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110064 · Cited by 60
TGformer: A Graph Transformer Framework for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Shi, F., Li, D., Wang, X., Li, B., & Wu, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3486747 · Cited by 63
Actionable Cyber Threat Intelligence Using Knowledge Graphs and Large Language Models
Fieblinger, R., Alam, T., & Rastogi, N. (2024) · IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) · doi:10.1109/eurospw61312.2024.00018 · Cited by 88
ConE: Cone Embeddings for Multi-Hop Reasoning over Knowledge GraphsPreprint
Zhang, Z., Wang, J., Chen, J., Ji, S., & Wu, F. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.13715 · Cited by 61
ParamE: Regarding Neural Network Parameters as Relation Embeddings for Knowledge Graph Completion
Che, F., Zhang, D., Tao, J., Niu, M., & Zhao, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i03.5665 · Cited by 59
Mining user interest based on personality-aware hybrid filtering in social networks
Dhelim, S., Aung, N., & Ning, H. (2020) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106227 · Cited by 58
MECCH: Metapath Context Convolution-based Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks
Fu, X., & King, I. (2023) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2023.11.030 · Cited by 57
VISTA: Visual-Textual Knowledge Graph Representation Learning
Lee, J., Chung, C., Lee, H., Jo, S., & Whang, J. J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.488 · Cited by 64
Structure Aware Negative Sampling in Knowledge Graphs
Ahrabian, K., Feizi, A., Salehi, Y., Hamilton, W. L., & Bose, A. J. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.492 · Cited by 72
An overview of embedding models of entities and relationships for knowledge base completion.Preprint
Nguyen, D. Q. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 61
Prototypical Representation Learning for Relation ExtractionPreprint
Ding, N., Wang, X., Fu, Y., Xu, G., Wang, R., Xie, P., Shen, Y., Huang, F., Zheng, H.-T., & Zhang, R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.11647 · Cited by 64
Learning knowledge graph embedding with multi-granularity relational augmentation network
Xue, Z., Zhang, Z., Liu, H., Yang, S., & Han, S. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120953 · Cited by 56
HiSMatch: Historical Structure Matching based Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Li, Z., Hou, Z., Guan, S., Jin, X., Peng, W., Bai, L., Lyu, Y., Li, W., Guo, J., & Cheng, X. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.542 · Cited by 56
GaussianPath:A Bayesian Multi-Hop Reasoning Framework for Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Wan, G., & Du, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i5.16565 · Cited by 55
He, Y., Zhang, P., Liu, L., Liang, Q., Zhang, W., & Zhang, C. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/264 · Cited by 63
Application and evaluation of knowledge graph embeddings in biomedical data
Alshahrani, M., Thafar, M. A., & Essack, M. (2021) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.341 · Cited by 58
RANEDDI: Relation-aware network embedding for drug-drug interaction prediction
Yu, H., Dong, W., & Shi, J. (2021) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.09.008 · Cited by 55
Wang, J., Zhang, Q., Shi, F., Li, D., Cai, Y., Wang, J., Li, B., Wang, X., Zhang, Z., & Zheng, C. (2023) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103350 · Cited by 55
Pre-trained Language Model with Prompts for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion
Xu, W., Liu, B., Peng, M., Xu, J., & Peng, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.493 · Cited by 64
Knowledge Graphs for drug repurposing: a review of databases and methods
Perdomo-Quinteiro, P., & Belmonte-Hernández, A. (2024) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae461 · Cited by 66
Knowledge-Guided Article Embedding Refinement for Session-Based News Recommendation
Sheu, H.-S., Chu, Z., Qi, D., & Li, S. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2021.3084958 · Cited by 55
Pretrain-KGE: Learning Knowledge Representation from Pretrained Language Models
Zhang, Z., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Su, Q., Sun, X., & He, B. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.25 · Cited by 52
Federated knowledge graph completion via embedding-contrastive learning
Chen, M., Zhang, W., Yuan, Z., Jia, Y., & Chen, H. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109459 · Cited by 59
Temporal knowledge graph embedding via sparse transfer matrix
Wang, X., Lyu, S., Wang, X., Wu, X., & Chen, H. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.12.019 · Cited by 54
Medical knowledge-based network for Patient-oriented Visual Question Answering
Huang, J., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Yang, Z., Gong, X., Wang, F. L., Xu, X., & Liu, W. (2022) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103241 · Cited by 56
Learning to Extrapolate Knowledge: Transductive Few-shot Out-of-Graph Link PredictionPreprint
Baek, J., Lee, D. B., & Hwang, S. J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.06648 · Cited by 51
LEGO: Latent Execution-Guided Reasoning for Multi-Hop Question Answering on Knowledge Graphs
Ren, H., Dai, H., Dai, B., Chen, X., Yasunaga, M., Sun, H., Schuurmans, D., Leskovec, J., & Zhou, D. (2021) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 50
Learning knowledge graph embedding with a dual-attention embedding network
Fang, H., Wang, Y., Tian, Z., & Ye, Y. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118806 · Cited by 52
Deng, W., Zhang, Y., Yu, H. Z., & Li, H. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103642 · Cited by 52
A survey on temporal knowledge graph embedding: Models and applications
Zhang, Y., Kong, X., Shen, Z., Li, J., Yi, Q., Shen, G., & Dong, B. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112454 · Cited by 60
Link Prediction on N-ary Relational Facts: A Graph-based Approach
Wang, Q., Wang, H., Lyu, Y., & Zhu, Y. T. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.35 · Cited by 67
A survey of embedding models of entities and relationships for knowledge graph completion
Nguyen, D. Q. (2020) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.textgraphs-1.1 · Cited by 86
Improving Time Sensitivity for Question Answering over Temporal Knowledge Graphs
Shang, C., Wang, G., Qi, P., & Huang, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.552 · Cited by 49
Type-augmented Relation Prediction in Knowledge Graphs
Cui, Z., Kapanipathi, P., Talamadupula, K., Gao, T., & Ji, Q. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16879 · Cited by 48
TransRHS: A Representation Learning Method for Knowledge Graphs with Relation Hierarchical Structure
Zhang, F., Wang, X., Li, Z., & Li, J. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/413 · Cited by 51
Convolutional Complex Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Demir, C., & Ngomo, A.-C. N. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77385-4_24 · Cited by 50
Prediction of Anticancer Peptides Using a Low-Dimensional Feature Model
Li, Q., Zhou, W., Wang, D., Wang, S., & Li, Q. (2020) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.00892 · Cited by 48
Probabilistic Box Embeddings for Uncertain Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Chen, X., Boratko, M., Chen, M., Dasgupta, S. S., Li, X. L., & McCallum, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.68 · Cited by 47
“Deterministic KG embedding models TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), and TuckER (Balazevic et al., 2019) have demonstrated high performance on reasoning tasks for deterministic KGs, and we also include them as…”
BackgroundKnowledge graph embedding by relational and entity rotation
Huang, X., Tang, J., Tan, Z., Zeng, W., Wang, J., & Zhao, X. H. (2021) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107310 · Cited by 47
Self-citationHGNAS++: Efficient Architecture Search for Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks
Gao, Y., Zhang, P., Zhou, C. D., Yang, H. B., Li, Z., Hu, Y., & Yu, P. S. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2023.3239842 · Cited by 47
Contrastive Multi-Modal Knowledge Graph Representation Learning
Fang, Q., Zhang, X., Hu, J., Wu, X., & Xu, C. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3220625 · Cited by 48
A Survey on Graph Neural Networks for Knowledge Graph CompletionPreprint
Arora, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.12374 · Cited by 88
A knowledge graph completion model based on contrastive learning and relation enhancement method
Li, L., Zhang, X., Ma, Y., Gao, C., Wang, J., Yu, Y., Yuan, Z., & Ma, Q. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109889 · Cited by 44
Zhang, H., & Bai, L. (2023) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2023.01.043 · Cited by 45
Local-Global History-Aware Contrastive Learning for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Chen, W. R., Wan, H., Wu, Y., Zhao, S., Cheng, J., Li, Y., & Lin, Y. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde60146.2024.00062 · Cited by 55
Neural-Answering Logical Queries on Knowledge Graphs
Liu, L., Du, B., Ji, H., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1145/3447548.3467375 · Cited by 44
Structural context-based knowledge graph embedding for link prediction
Zhang, Q., Wang, R., Yang, J., & Xue, L. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.10.088 · Cited by 45
Debiasing knowledge graph embeddings
Fisher, J., Mittal, A., Palfrey, D., & Christodoulopoulos, C. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.595 · Cited by 47
Chen, L., Cui, J., Tang, X., Qian, Y., Li, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-021-02672-0 · Cited by 43
MEM-KGC: Masked Entity Model for Knowledge Graph Completion With Pre-Trained Language Model
Choi, B., Jang, D., & Ko, Y. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3113329 · Cited by 49
Learning Latent Relations for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Zhang, M., Xia, Y., Liu, Q., Wu, S., & Wang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.705 · Cited by 43
Zhu, Y., Lin, Q., Lü, H., Shi, K., Liu, D., Chambua, J., Wan, S., & Niu, Z. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2021.3125424 · Cited by 43
TeAST: Temporal Knowledge Graph Embedding via Archimedean Spiral Timeline
Li, J., Su, X., & Gao, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.862 · Cited by 45
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
