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 701–800 of 1,414
A Good Neighbor, A Found Treasure: Mining Treasured Neighbors for Knowledge Graph Entity Typing
Jin, Z., Cao, P., Chen, Y., et al. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.31 · Cited by 7
Joint Multilingual Knowledge Graph Completion and Alignment
Tong, V. V., Nguyen, D. Q., Huynh, T. T., Nguyên, T. T., Nguyen, Q. V. H., & Niepert, M. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.341 · Cited by 8
A Canonicalization-Enhanced Known Fact-Aware Framework For Open Knowledge Graph Link Prediction
Wang, Y., Hu, M., Huang, Z., Li, D., Luo, W., Yang, D., & Lu, X. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/259 · Cited by 7
Gold: A Global and Local-aware Denoising Framework for Commonsense Knowledge Graph Noise Detection
Deng, Z., Wang, W., Wang, Z., Liu, X., & Song, Y. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.232 · Cited by 8
Self-citationCausal Reinforcement Learning for Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Li, D., Lu, Y., Wu, J., Zhou, W., & Zeng, G. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14062498 · Cited by 9
Structure-Information-Based Reasoning over the Knowledge Graph: A Survey of Methods and Applications
Meng, S., Zhou, J., Chen, X., Liu, Y., Lu, F., & Huang, X. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3671148 · Cited by 8
Yu, Q., & Vargas, D. V. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.129743 · Cited by 8
Bai, L., Xiao, Q., & Zhu, L. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113421 · Cited by 8
How did we get there? AI applications to biological networks and sequences
Anteghini, M., Gualdi, F., & Oliva, B. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110064 · Cited by 9
Quantifying Similarity between Relations with Fact Distribution
Chen, W., Zhu, H., Han, X., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1278 · Cited by 7
Modeling relation paths for knowledge base completion via joint adversarial training
Li, C., Peng, X., Zhang, S., Peng, H. M., Yu, P. S., He, M., Du, L., & Wang, L. (2020) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105865 · Cited by 8
TransP: A New Knowledge Graph Embedding Model by Translating on Positions
Ren, F., Li, J., Zhang, H., & Yang, X. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Graph (ICKG) · doi:10.1109/icbk50248.2020.00056 · Cited by 7
Exploring the Limits of Few-Shot Link Prediction in Knowledge Graphs
Jambor, D., Teru, K. K., Pineau, J., & Hamilton, W. L. (2021) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.245 · Cited by 10
Embedding Knowledge Graphs Attentive to Positional and Centrality Qualities
Sadeghi, A., Collarana, D., Graux, D., & Lehmann, J. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86520-7_34 · Cited by 9
Using Compositional Embeddings for Fact Checking
da Silva, A. A. M., Röder, M., & Ngomo, A.-C. N. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88361-4_16 · Cited by 7
Heterogeneous graph embedding with single-level aggregation and infomax encoding
Chairatanakul, N., Liu, X., Hoang, N. T., et al. (2022) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-022-06160-5 · Cited by 7
KGBoost: A classification-based knowledge base completion method with negative sampling
Wang, Y.-C., Ge, X., Wang, B., & Kuo, C. ‐. J. (2022) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2022.04.001 · Cited by 9
Yang, Y., Kerce, J. C., & Fekri, F. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i8.20865 · Cited by 7
GCKG: Novel Gated Convolutional embedding model for Knowledge Graphs
Yao, S., Pi, D., Chen, J., & Xu, Y. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118142 · Cited by 7
A Knowledge Graph Embedding Framework With Triple Semantics
Wang, Y., Liang, H., Zheng, K., Yang, J., Zeng, L., Gong, Q., Li, S., & Zhou, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3227714 · Cited by 7
A Holistic Approach for Answering Logical Queries on Knowledge Graphs
Wu, Y., Xu, Y., Lin, X., & Zhang, W. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde55515.2023.00181 · Cited by 9
Multilingual Knowledge Graph Completion from Pretrained Language Models with Knowledge Constraints
Song, R., He, S., Gao, S., Cai, L., Liu, K., Yu, Z., & Zhao, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.488 · Cited by 9
Few-shot Low-resource Knowledge Graph Completion with Reinforced Task Generation
Pei, S., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, X. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.455 · Cited by 7
Towards Enhancing Relational Rules for Knowledge Graph Link Prediction
Wu, S., Wan, H., Chen, W., Wu, Y., Shen, J., & Lin, Y. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.676 · Cited by 13
Using Pairwise Occurrence Information to Improve Knowledge Graph Completion on Large-Scale Datasets
Balkır, E., Naslidnyk, M., Palfrey, D., et al. (2019) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1368 · Cited by 7
Modeling of complex internal logic for knowledge base completion
Wang, H., Jiang, S., & Yu, Z. (2020) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-020-01734-z · Cited by 8
A Hybrid Model for Learning Embeddings and Logical Rules Simultaneously from Knowledge Graphs
Suresh, S., & Neville, J. (2020) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm50108.2020.00164 · Cited by 7
Knowledge Base Embedding By Cooperative Knowledge Distillation
Sourty, R., Moreno, J. G., Servant, F.-P., & Tamine, L. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.489 · Cited by 9
Jing, Y., Wang, H., Shao, K., et al. (2021) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym13010115 · Cited by 7
A Semantic Filter Based on Relations for Knowledge Graph Completion
Liang, Z., Yang, J., Liu, H., & Huang, K. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.625 · Cited by 7
One-Shot Relation Learning for Knowledge Graphs via Neighborhood Aggregation and Paths Encoding
Sun, J., Zhou, Y. P., & Zong, C. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing · doi:10.1145/3484729 · Cited by 7
Relational Structure-Aware Knowledge Graph Representation in Complex Space
Sun, K., Yu, S., Peng, C., Wang, Y., Alfarraj, O., Tolba, A. K. R., & Xia, F. (2022) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math10111930 · Cited by 7
Biomedical Knowledge Graph Refinement with Embedding and Logic RulesPreprint
Zhao, S., Qin, B., Liu, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.01031 · Cited by 7
Seeing is Knowing! Fact-based Visual Question Answering using Knowledge Graph EmbeddingsPreprint
Ramnath, K., & Hasegawa‐Johnson, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.15484 · Cited by 10
Logic Embeddings for Complex Query AnsweringPreprint
Luus, F., Sen, P., Kapanipathi, P., Riegel, R. N., Makondo, N., Lebese, T., & Gray, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00418 · Cited by 35
Path-based reasoning for biomedical knowledge graphs with BioPathNetPreprint
Hu, Y., Oleshko, S., Firmani, S., Zhu, Z., Cheng, H., Wörheide, M. A., Arnold, M., Colomé‐Tatché, M., Tang, J., Xhonneux, S., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.06.17.599219 · Cited by 7
Self-citationTBicomR: Event Prediction in Temporal Knowledge Graphs with Bicomplex Rotation
Nguyen, N.-T., Tran, C., & Le, T. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112711 · Cited by 6
From grids to dendrites: Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in urban road networks
Zhang, L., Li, S., Liu, Y., Huang, H., & de Weghe, N. V. (2025) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2025.102309 · Cited by 6
Aamer, N., Asim, M. N., Bhatti, A. I., & Dengel, A. (2025) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-025-06789-5 · Cited by 6
Guo, X., Wang, P., Gao, N., Wang, X., & Feng, W. (2022) · International Conference on Information Communication and Software Engineering (ICICSE) · doi:10.1109/icicse55337.2022.9828905 · Cited by 6
Yu, R., Liu, T., Yu, J. F., Zhang, W., Zhao, Y., Yang, M., Zhao, M., & Guo, J. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn54540.2023.10191552 · Cited by 6
PALT: Parameter-Lite Transfer of Language Models for Knowledge Graph Completion
Shen, J., Wang, C., Yuan, Y., Han, J., Ji, H., Sen, K., Zhang, M., & Song, D. X. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.281 · Cited by 6
Hyperbolic hierarchical knowledge graph embeddings for biological entities
Li, N., Yang, Z., Yang, Y., Wang, J., & Lin, H. (2023) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104503 · Cited by 6
LATENTLOGIC: Learning Logic Rules in Latent Space over Knowledge Graphs
Liu, J., Mao, Q., Lin, C., Song, Y., & Li, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.304 · Cited by 6
Distance-Based Propagation for Efficient Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Shomer, H., Ma, Y., Li, J., Wu, B., Aggarwal, C. C., & Tang, J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.908 · Cited by 8
Self-citationNavigating Healthcare Insights: A Bird’s Eye View of Explainability with Knowledge Graphs
Garg, S., Parikh, S. B., & Garg, S. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering (AIKE) · doi:10.1109/aike59827.2023.00016 · Cited by 7
Open Knowledge Graph Link Prediction with Semantic-Aware Embedding
Wang, J., Huang, H., Wu, Y., Zhang, F., Zhang, S., & Guo, K. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123542 · Cited by 7
A Text-Enhanced Transformer Fusion Network for Multimodal Knowledge Graph Completion
Wang, J., Liu, X., Li, W., et al. (2024) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2024.3378921 · Cited by 6
Kim, M. J., Song, S., Lee, Y., Jang, H., & Lim, K. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29798 · Cited by 7
Inductive reasoning with type-constrained encoding for emerging entities
Mu, C., Zhang, L., Wang, Z., Yuan, Q., & Peng, C. (2024) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106468 · Cited by 6
Fully Hyperbolic Rotation for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Liang, Q., Wang, W., Bao, F., & Gao, G. (2024) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia240668 · Cited by 9
Dobreva, J., Simjanoska, M., Mishev, K., Trajanov, D., & Mishkovski, I. (2025) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci15050523 · Cited by 7
OntoGene: knowledge-enhanced BERT for promoter identification
Li, Y., Gao, M., Bian, J., Zhao, K., Li, D., & Wang, G. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4481-9 · Cited by 6
A Survey of Graph Curvature and Embedding in Non-Euclidean Spaces
Saxena, C., Liu, T., & King, I. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63833-7_11 · Cited by 6
Rule-Guided Graph Neural Networks for Recommender Systems
Lyu, X., Li, G., Huang, J., et al. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62419-4_22 · Cited by 6
Pattern-Aware and Noise-Resilient Embedding Models
Nayyeri, M., Vahdati, S., Sallinger, E., Alam, M. M., Yazdi, H. S., & Lehmann, J. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72113-8_32 · Cited by 8
Loss-Aware Pattern Inference: A Correction on the Wrongly Claimed Limitations of Embedding Models
Nayyeri, M., Xu, C., Yaghoobzadeh, Y., Vahdati, S., Alam, M. M., Yazdi, H. S., & Lehmann, J. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75768-7_7 · Cited by 6
Worldly Wise (WoW) - Cross-Lingual Knowledge Fusion for Fact-based Visual Spoken-Question Answering
Ramnath, K., Sarı, L., Hasegawa‐Johnson, M., & Yoo, C. D. (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.153 · Cited by 6
Learning Term Embeddings for Lexical Taxonomies
Liu, J., Wang, M., Wang, C., Liang, J., Chen, L., Jiang, H., Xiao, Y., & Chen, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i7.16795 · Cited by 7
KG4Vis: A Knowledge Graph-Based Approach for Visualization Recommendation
Li, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, S., Song, Y., & Qu, H. (2021) · PubMed · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.12548 · Cited by 6
Global Entity Alignment with Gated Latent Space Neighborhood Aggregation
Chen, W., Chen, X., & Xiong, S. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84186-7_25 · Cited by 6
Siamese Pre-Trained Transformer Encoder for Knowledge Base Completion
Li, M., Wang, B., & Jiang, J. B. (2021) · Neural Processing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11063-021-10586-8 · Cited by 6
Le, T., Huynh, N., & Le, B. H. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86365-4_14 · Cited by 7
Prix-LM: Pretraining for Multilingual Knowledge Base Construction
Zhou, W., Liu, F., Vulić, I., Collier, N., & Chen, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.371 · Cited by 9
Subgraph Representation Learning with Hard Negative Samples for Inductive Link Prediction
Kwak, H., & Jung, H. B. K. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747485 · Cited by 6
Lu, J., Yang, L. T., Guo, B., et al. (2022) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2022.3192259 · Cited by 6
Kim, M., & Baek, S. (2022) · Proceedings - International Conference on Pattern Recognition/Proceedings/International Conference on Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/icpr56361.2022.9956509 · Cited by 6
A Cybersecurity Knowledge Graph Completion Method for Penetration Testing
Wang, P., Liu, J., Zhong, X., & Zhou, S. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12081837 · Cited by 8
Heterogeneous Network Embedding: A Survey
Zhao, S., Peng, R., Hu, P., & Tan, L. (2023) · Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences · doi:10.32604/cmes.2023.024781 · Cited by 7
MLSFF: Multi-level structural features fusion for multi-modal knowledge graph completion
Zhai, H., Lv, X., Hou, Z., Tong, X., & Bu, F. (2023) · Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering · doi:10.3934/mbe.2023630 · Cited by 6
Noisy Positive-Unlabeled Learning with Self-Training for Speculative Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Wang, R., Li, B., Lu, Y., Sun, D., Li, J., Yan, Y., Liu, S., Tong, H., & Abdelzaher, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.153 · Cited by 9
Complex Representation Learning with Graph Convolutional Networks for Knowledge Graph Alignment
Sakong, D., Huynh, T. T., Nguyen, Q. V. H., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1155/2023/5494961 · Cited by 6
Inductive Relation Inference of Knowledge Graph Enhanced by Ontology Information
Zhou, W., Zhao, J., Gui, T., et al. (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.431 · Cited by 6
Relation-oriented few-shot knowledge graph prototype networks
Xue, Y., Song, A., Jin, J., Peng, H., Qiu, J., Fang, X., & Zhai, X. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127242 · Cited by 6
Liu, Y., Wang, P., Yang, D., & Qiu, N. (2024) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1808 · Cited by 7
MMR: A Multi-view Merge Representation model for Chemical-Disease relation extraction
Zhang, Y., Peng, J., Cheng, B., Liu, Y., & Jiang, C. (2024) · Computational Biology and Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2024.108063 · Cited by 7
SeSICL: Semantic and Structural Integrated Contrastive Learning for Knowledge Graph Error Detection
Liu, X., Tang, J., Li, M., Han, J., Xiao, G., & Jiang, J. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3384543 · Cited by 6
Self-citationA Survey on Approaches and Applications of Knowledge Representation Learning
Li, C., Li, A., Wang, Y., Tu, H., & Song, Y. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc50466.2020.00055 · Cited by 7
Multi-view Classification Model for Knowledge Graph Completion
Jiang, W., Guo, M., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Xu, J., Lyu, Y., & Zhu, Y. T. (2020) · Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (AACL-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.aacl-main.73 · Cited by 6
AprilE: Attention with Pseudo Residual Connection for Knowledge Graph Embedding
Liu, Y., Wang, P., Li, Y., Shao, Y., & Xu, Z. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.44 · Cited by 6
W-KG2Vec: a weighted text-enhanced meta-path-based knowledge graph embedding for similarity search
Do, P., & Pham, P. (2021) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-021-06252-8 · Cited by 6
Learning Embedding for Knowledge Graph Completion with Hypernetwork
Le, T., Nguyen, D. V. M., & Le, B. H. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88081-1_2 · Cited by 6
Knowledge Graph Representation via Hierarchical Hyperbolic Neural Graph Embedding
Wang, S., Wei, X., dos Santos, C. N., Wang, Z., Nallapati, R. M., Arnold, A. O., & Yu, P. S. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata52589.2021.9671651 · Cited by 6
PANC: Prototype Augmented Neighbor Constraint instance completion in knowledge graphs
Ma, R., Ma, Y., Zhang, H., Mei, B., Lv, G., & Zhao, L. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119013 · Cited by 6
Few-Shot Knowledge Graph Completion based on Data Enhancement
Li, Z., Geng, P., Cao, S., & Hu, B. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm55620.2022.9995024 · Cited by 7
Infer the missing facts of D3FEND using knowledge graph representation learning
Khobragade, A., Ghumbre, S. U., & Pachghare, V. (2023) · International Journal of Web Information Systems · doi:10.1108/ijwis-03-2023-0042 · Cited by 6
Relation-weighted Link Prediction for Disease Gene IdentificationPreprint
Pittala, S., Koehler, W. C., Deans, J., Salinas, D., Bringmann, M., Volz, K. S., & Kapicioglu, B. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.05138 · Cited by 6
Knowledge Graph Augmented Political Perspective Detection in News Media.Preprint
Feng, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., & Luo, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 6
Knowledge Graph Embeddings: Open Challenges and Opportunities
Biswas, R., Kaffee, L.-A., Cochez, M., Dumbrava, S., Jendal, T. E., Lissandrini, M., López, V., Mencía, E. L., Paulheim, H., Sack, H., et al. (2023) · VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) · doi:10.4230/tgdk.1.1.4 · Cited by 15
Guo, J., Yu, J. X., Zhao, M., Yu, M., Yu, R., Xu, L., Pan, Y., & Li, X. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112268 · Cited by 5
Coherence mode: Characterizing local graph structural information for temporal knowledge graph
Si, Y., Hu, X., Cheng, Q., Liu, X., Liu, S., & Huang, J. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.121357 · Cited by 5
Fault diagnosis of power grid equipment based on artificial intelligence with limited data
Petrova, S. Y. (2025) · International Journal of Energy and Water Resources · doi:10.1007/s42108-024-00315-x · Cited by 5
EiCoM: Multi-modal knowledge graph completion with enhanced information completeness
Ding, L., Li, M., Shi, P., Li, J., & Yuan, R. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130940 · Cited by 7
Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction
Xie, Z., Zhang, Y., Liu, J., et al. (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.882 · Cited by 5
Learning to walk with logical embedding for knowledge reasoning
Liu, R., Yin, G., & Liu, Z. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.120471 · Cited by 4
Link Prediction in Industrial Knowledge Graphs: A Case Study on Football Manufacturing
Yahya, M., Wahid, A., Yang, L., Breslin, J. G., Kharlamov, E., & Ali, M. I. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3419911 · Cited by 5
Yuan, X., Zhang, H., Li, T., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-5618-6_29 · Cited by 5
Co-occurrence Graph Convolutional Networks with Approximate Entailment for knowledge graph embedding
Zhang, D. H., Li, W., Qiu, T., & Li, G. (2024) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.112666 · Cited by 6
Temporal knowledge graph completion based on product space and contrastive learning of commonsense
Chen, Z., & Wu, J. (2025) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10844-024-00917-1 · Cited by 5
Structure-Aware Transformer for hyper-relational knowledge graph completion
Wang, J., Chen, H., & Zhang, W. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126992 · 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
