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 601–700 of 1,414
Wang, Z., Liu, X., Liu, Z., Weng, Y., & Chaomurilige, C. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107771 · Cited by 9
Multisource data-driven method for product innovation design based on knowledge graph
Lin, W., Wang, Y., & Xiao, R. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103696 · Cited by 9
Personalized knowledge point recommendation system based on course knowledge graph
Lang, Y., & Wang, G. (2020) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1634/1/012073 · Cited by 9
Constraint-based Multi-hop Question Answering with Knowledge Graph
Mitra, S., Ramnani, R., & Sengupta, S. (2022) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-industry.31 · Cited by 9
Towards the Web of Embeddings: Integrating multiple knowledge graph embedding spaces with FedCoder
Baumgartner, M., Dell’Aglio, D., Paulheim, H., & Bernstein, A. (2022) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2022.100741 · Cited by 11
Relational data embeddings for feature enrichment with background information
Cvetkov-Iliev, A., Allauzen, A., & Varoquaux, G. P. (2023) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-022-06277-7 · Cited by 10
DHGE: Dual-View Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction and Entity Typing
Luo, H., Haihong, E., Ling, T., Zhou, G., Yao, T., & Wan, K. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25795 · Cited by 13
Knowledge Graph Embedding by Normalizing Flows
Xiao, C., He, X., & Cao, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25600 · Cited by 9
SMiLE: Schema-augmented Multi-level Contrastive Learning for Knowledge Graph Link Prediction
Peng, M., Liu, B., Xie, Q., Xu, W., Wang, H., & Peng, M. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.307 · Cited by 14
Self-Distillation with Meta Learning for Knowledge Graph Completion
Li, Y., Liu, J., Yang, M., & Li, C. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.149 · Cited by 12
Reasoning beyond Triples: Recent Advances in Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Xiong, B., Nayyeri, M., Daza, D., & Cochez, M. (2023) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3583780.3615294 · Cited by 10
Shu, Y., & Dai, Y. (2023) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-023-05767-2 · Cited by 9
Relation-aware Ensemble Learning for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Yue, L., Zhang, Y., Yao, Q., Li, Y., Wu, X., Zhang, Z., Lin, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1034 · Cited by 12
CoPE: Composition-based Poincaré embeddings for link prediction in knowledge graphs
Zeb, A., Saif, S., Chen, J., Yu, J. J. Q., Jiang, Q., & Zhang, D. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.120197 · Cited by 10
KGCNA: Knowledge Graph Collaborative Neighbor Awareness Network for Recommendation
He, G.-L., Zhang, Z., Wu, H., et al. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tetci.2024.3369976 · Cited by 9
A differentiable first-order rule learner for inductive logic programming
Gao, K., Inoue, K., Cao, Y., & Wang, H. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2024.104108 · Cited by 14
Yang, J., Lu, G., He, S., Cao, Q., & Liu, Y. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-63279-2 · Cited by 9
A Literature Review of Recent Graph Embedding Techniques for Biomedical Data
Chen, Y., Wu, Y., Ma, S., & King, I. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63823-8_3 · Cited by 9
3DRTE: 3D Rotation Embedding in Temporal Knowledge Graph
Wang, J., Zhang, W., Chen, X., Lei, J., & Lai, X. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3036897 · Cited by 8
Neural-Symbolic Commonsense Reasoner with Relation Predictors
Moghimifar, F., Qu, L., Zhuo, T. Y., Haffari, G., & Baktashmotlagh, M. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-short.100 · Cited by 11
Ontological Concept Structure Aware Knowledge Transfer for Inductive Knowledge Graph Embedding
Ren, C., Zhang, L., Fang, L., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533852 · Cited by 9
Fuzzy entity alignment via knowledge embedding with awareness of uncertainty measure
Jiang, W. R., Liu, Y., & Deng, X. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.10.026 · Cited by 9
LiterallyWikidata - A Benchmark for Knowledge Graph Completion Using Literals
Gesese, G. A., Alam, M., & Sack, H. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88361-4_30 · Cited by 9
Kim, B., Choi, H.-W., Yu, H., & Ko, Y. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3459637.3482382 · Cited by 11
A Neighborhood Re-Ranking Model With Relation Constraint for Knowledge Graph Completion
Yu, L., Hu, B., Liu, J., Chen, Y., & Xu, J. (2022) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2022.3225537 · Cited by 9
OERL: Enhanced Representation Learning via Open Knowledge Graphs
Li, Q., Wang, D., Feng, S., Song, K., Zhang, Y., & Yu, G. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3218850 · Cited by 9
Feng, S., Tan, Z., Zhang, W., Lei, Z., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.118 · Cited by 10
TranSHER: Translating Knowledge Graph Embedding with Hyper-Ellipsoidal Restriction
Li, Y., Fan, W., Liu, C., Lin, C., & Qian, J. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.583 · Cited by 11
Decentralized Federated Learning-Enabled Relation Aggregation for Anomaly Detection
Shuai, S., Hu, Z., Zhang, B., Liaqat, H. B., & Kong, X. (2023) · Information · doi:10.3390/info14120647 · Cited by 10
LightCAKE: A Lightweight Framework for Context-Aware Knowledge Graph Embedding
Ning, Z., Qiao, Z., Dong, H., Du, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75768-7_15 · Cited by 9
Text-Guided Legal Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Li, L., Bi, Z., Ye, H., Deng, S., Chen, H., & Tou, H. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-6471-7_3 · Cited by 13
MDE: Multiple Distance Embeddings for Link Prediction in Knowledge GraphsPreprint
Sadeghi, A., Graux, D., Yazdi, H. S., & Lehmann, J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.10702 · Cited by 9
DensE: An Enhanced Non-Abelian Group Representation for Knowledge Graph Embedding.Preprint
Lu, H., & Hu, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 9
Path-Enhanced Multi-Relational Question Answering with Knowledge Graph EmbeddingsPreprint
Niu, G., Li, Y., Tang, C., Hu, Z., Yang, S., Li, P., Wang, C., Wang, H., & Sun, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.15622 · Cited by 9
NativE: Multi-modal Knowledge Graph Completion in the WildPreprint
Zhang, Y., Chen, Z., Guo, L., Xu, Y., Hu, B., Liu, Z., Zhang, W., & Chen, H. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.171259566.60211714/v1 · Cited by 9
Prabhakar, V., & Liu, K. (2023) · Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research · doi:10.26502/acbr.50170342 · Cited by 8
Time-aware structure matching for temporal knowledge graph alignment
Jia, W. P., Ma, R., Yan, L., Niu, W., & Ma, Z. (2024) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2024.102300 · Cited by 8
Cheng, X., Yang, X., Guan, Y., & Feng, Y. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109012 · Cited by 9
Multi-level Shared Knowledge Guided Learning for Knowledge Graph Completion
Shan, Y., Zhou, J., Peng, J., Zhou, X., Yin, J., & Wang, X. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00686 · Cited by 9
Xia, L., Fan, J., Parlikad, A. K., Huang, X. X., & Zheng, P. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2024.3522814 · Cited by 8
Chen, K., Zhao, X., Song, X., Wang, Y., Dong, Z., Xie, F., Li, A., Han, Y., & Li, C. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103080 · Cited by 8
PARK: Personalized academic retrieval with knowledge-graphs
Kasela, P., Pasi, G., & Perego, R. (2025) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2025.102574 · Cited by 10
Knowledge graph reasoning: Mainstream methods, applications and prospects
Liu, H., Yang, S., Shi, G., & Miao, Z. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111625 · Cited by 13
Fine-Grained Evaluation of Knowledge Graph Embedding Model in Knowledge Enhancement Downstream Tasks
Zhang, Y., Li, B., Gao, H., Ji, Y., Yang, H., Wang, M., & Chen, W. (2021) · Big Data Research · doi:10.1016/j.bdr.2021.100218 · Cited by 8
ToP: Time-dependent Zone-enhanced Points-of-interest Embedding-based Explainable Recommender system
Wang, E., Xu, Y., Yang, Y., Yang, F., Liu, C., & Jiang, Y. (2021) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) · doi:10.1109/infocom42981.2021.9488726 · Cited by 8
Learning Typed Rules over Knowledge Graphs
Wu, H. L., Wang, Z., Wang, K., & Shen, Y.-D. (2022) · Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning · doi:10.24963/kr.2022/51 · Cited by 11
Zero-Shot Scene Graph Generation with Knowledge Graph Completion
Yu, X., Chen, R., Li, J., Sun, J., Yuan, S., Ji, H., Lu, X., & Wu, C. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) · doi:10.1109/icme52920.2022.9859944 · Cited by 8
Missing-edge aware knowledge graph inductive inference through dual graph learning and traversing
Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Wei, X., & Luo, J. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118969 · Cited by 8
Theoretical Rule-based Knowledge Graph Reasoning by Connectivity Dependency Discovery
Zhang, C., Hsu, C., Katsis, Y., Kim, H., & Vázquez‐Baeza, Y. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9891938 · Cited by 8
Computable Access Control: Embedding Access Control Rules Into Euclidean Space
Dong, L., Wu, T., Wei, J., Jiang, B., & Li, X. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2023.3283527 · Cited by 8
Sivangi, K. B., Amilpur, S., & Dasari, C. M. (2023) · Computational Biology and Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2023.107927 · Cited by 8
Multilingual Knowledge Graph Completion with Language-Sensitive Multi-Graph Attention
Tang, R., Zhao, Y., Zong, C., & Yu, Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.586 · Cited by 9
PAR: Political Actor Representation Learning with Social Context and Expert Knowledge
Feng, S., Tan, Z., Chen, Z., Wang, N., Yu, P., Zheng, Q., Chang, X., & Luo, M. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.824 · Cited by 14
Federated Knowledge Graph Completion via Latent Embedding Sharing and Tensor Factorization
Wang, M., Zeng, D., Xu, Z., Guo, R., & Zhao, X. (2023) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm58522.2023.00175 · Cited by 9
Progressive Distillation Based on Masked Generation Feature Method for Knowledge Graph Completion
Fan, C., Chen, Y., Xue, J., Kong, Y., Tao, J., & Lv, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i8.28680 · Cited by 9
Knowledge-Enhanced Prompt Learning for Few-Shot Text Classification
Liu, J., & Yang, L. (2024) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc8040043 · Cited by 9
Yuan, Y., Hu, R., Chen, S., Zhang, X. H., Liu, Z., & Zhou, G. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108612 · Cited by 8
Fine-grained relation contrast enhancement of knowledge graph for recommendation
Zhang, J., Wang, T., Wu, S., et al. (2024) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10844-024-00900-w · Cited by 8
Recurrent Translation-Based Network for Top-N Sparse Sequential Recommendation
Chairatanakul, N., Murata, T., & Liu, X. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2941083 · Cited by 9
Fantastic Knowledge Graph Embeddings and How to Find the Right Space for Them
Nayyeri, M., Xu, C., Vahdati, S., Vassilyeva, N., Sallinger, E., Yazdi, H. S., & Lehmann, J. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62419-4_25 · Cited by 8
Hu, K., Liu, H., Zhan, C., et al. (2021) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-020-05654-4 · Cited by 8
Knowledge Router: Learning Disentangled Representations for Knowledge Graphs
Zhang, S., Rao, S. X., Tay, Y., & Zhang, C. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.1 · Cited by 8
Neighborhood Intervention Consistency: Measuring Confidence for Knowledge Graph Link Prediction
Wang, K., Liu, Y., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/288 · Cited by 8
Le, T., Huynh, N., & Le, B. H. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88081-1_3 · Cited by 8
Knowledge Representation Learning with Contrastive Completion Coding
Ouyang, B., Huang, W., Chen, R., Tan, Z., Liu, Y., Sun, M., & Zhu, J. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.263 · Cited by 8
Data Collection vs. Knowledge Graph Completion: What is Needed to Improve Coverage?
Church, K., & Bian, Y. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.501 · Cited by 8
Link Prediction based on Tensor Decomposition for the Knowledge Graph of COVID-19 Antiviral Drug
Jia, T., Yang, Y., Lu, X., Zhu, Q., Yang, K., & Zhou, X. (2022) · Data Intelligence · doi:10.1162/dint_a_00117 · Cited by 9
Translational relation embeddings for multi-hop knowledge base question answering
Li, Z., Wang, H., & Zhang, W. (2022) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2022.100723 · Cited by 9
Knowledge graph embedding with self adaptive double-limited loss
Zou, X., Wang, X., Cen, S., Dai, G., & Liu, C. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109310 · Cited by 9
GFCNet: Utilizing graph feature collection networks for coronavirus knowledge graph embeddings
Xie, Z., Zhu, R., Liu, J., Zhou, G., Huang, J. X., & Cui, X. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.07.031 · Cited by 8
CP Tensor Factorization for Knowledge Graph Completion
Luo, Y., Yang, C., Li, B., Zhao, X., & Zhang, H. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-10983-6_19 · Cited by 7
METransE: Manifold-like mechanism enhanced embedding for reasoning over knowledge graphs
Wang, Y., Wang, H., Lu, W., & Yan, Y. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118288 · Cited by 8
Multi-Task Learning and Improved TextRank for Knowledge Graph Completion
Tian, H., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., & Zeng, D. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24101495 · Cited by 8
ROLE: Rotated Lorentzian Graph Embedding Model for Asymmetric Proximity
Feng, S., Chen, L., Zhao, K., Wei, W., Song, X., Shang, S., Kalnis, P., & Shao, L. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3221929 · Cited by 8
Differentiable learning of rules with constants in knowledge graph
Xu, Z., Ye, P., Li, J., Chen, H., & Zhang, W. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110686 · Cited by 8
SAppKG: Mobile App Recommendation Using Knowledge Graph and Side Information-A Secure Framework
Dave, D., Sharma, A., Abdulhamid, S. M., et al. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3296466 · Cited by 8
Park, J., & Cho, S. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121021 · Cited by 8
Joint Completion and Alignment of Multilingual Knowledge Graphs
Chakrabarti, S., Singh, H., Lohiya, S., Jain, P., & Mausam, M. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.817 · Cited by 8
Meta-learning framework with updating information flow for enhancing inductive prediction
Zhang, X., Dang, J., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111720 · Cited by 8
Embedding-Based Entity Alignment Using Relation Structural Similarity
Peng, Y., Zhang, J., Zhou, C., & Xu, J. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Graph (ICKG) · doi:10.1109/icbk50248.2020.00027 · Cited by 8
Simple and automated negative sampling for knowledge graph embedding
Zhang, Y., Yao, Q., & Chen, L. (2021) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-020-00640-7 · Cited by 14
Knowledge Base Completion: Baseline strikes back (Again)Preprint
Jain, P., Rathi, S., Mausam, & Chakrabarti, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.00804 · Cited by 12
Towards Learning Instantiated Logical Rules from Knowledge GraphsPreprint
Gu, Y., Guan, Y., & Missier, P. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.06071 · Cited by 17
EAGER: Embedding-Assisted Entity Resolution for Knowledge GraphsPreprint
Obraczka, D., Schuchart, J., & Rahm, E. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.06126 · Cited by 8
Graph Neural Pre-training for Enhancing Recommendations using Side InformationPreprint
Meng, Z., Liu, S., Macdonald, C., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03936 · Cited by 8
On Addressing the Limitations of Graph Neural NetworksPreprint
Luan, S. (2023) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202307.0118.v1 · Cited by 8
Li, Y., Kong, C., Zhao, G., & Zhao, Z. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11337-0 · Cited by 7
HKA: A Hierarchical Knowledge Alignment Framework for Multimodal Knowledge Graph Completion
Xu, Y., Li, Y., Xu, M., Zhu, Z., & Zhao, Y. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing Communications and Applications · doi:10.1145/3664288 · Cited by 7
Chen, B., Li, H., Zhao, D., Yang, Y., & Pan, C. (2024) · Complex & Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s40747-024-01661-3 · Cited by 9
Pan, J., Wang, R., Liu, W., Wang, L., You, Z., Li, Y., Duan, Z., Huang, Q., Feng, J., Sun, Y., et al. (2024) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.111647 · Cited by 7
Improved paper recommendation model incorporating knowledge graph embedding with IRGAN model
Thierry, N., Chatelain, I. B. C., Ali, Z., & Kefalas, P. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3710898 · Cited by 9
Knowledge-Guided Semantically Consistent Contrastive Learning for sequential recommendation
Shi, C., Yan, S., Zhang, S., Wang, H., & Lin, K.-J. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107191 · Cited by 9
Li, X., Yuan, Y., Yang, Y., Guan, Y., Wang, H., Jiang, J., Shi, H., & Liu, X. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104148 · Cited by 8
ReranKGC: A cooperative retrieve-and-rerank framework for multi-modal knowledge graph completion
Gao, M., Xie, Y., Chen, W., Zhang, F., Ding, F., Wang, T., Yao, J., Zheng, J., & Wong, K. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107467 · Cited by 9
Make your choice for multimodal knowledge graph completion
Xue, Y., Ren, S., Cai, W., Ma, Y., Senhadji, L., Shu, H., & Wu, J. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113750 · Cited by 8
Purohit, D., Chudasama, Y., & Vidal, M.-E. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113939 · Cited by 8
LinkExplorer: predicting, explaining and exploring links in large biomedical knowledge graphs
Ott, S., Barbosa-Silva, A., & Matthias Samwald, A. (2022) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac068 · Cited by 7
Zhang, P., Chen, D., Fang, Y., Zhao, X. H., & Xiao, W. (2022) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math10173161 · Cited by 7
Event Prediction using Case-Based Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs
Shirai, S. S., Bhattacharjya, D., & Hassanzadeh, O. (2023) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3543507.3583201 · Cited by 12
AInvR: Adaptive Learning Rewards for Knowledge Graph Reasoning Using Agent Trajectories
Zhang, H., Lu, G., Qin, K., & Du, K. (2023) · Tsinghua Science & Technology · doi:10.26599/tst.2022.9010063 · Cited by 7
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
