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 801–900 of 1,414
Temporal knowledge completion with context-aware embeddings
Liu, Y., Hua, W., Qu, J., Xin, K., & Zhou, X. (2021) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-021-00867-6 · Cited by 6
An Adversarial Transfer Network for Knowledge Representation Learning
Wang, H., Li, S., & Pan, R. (2021) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3442381.3450064 · Cited by 6
An Improved Knowledge Representation Model Based on TransH
Jin, R., & Zhou, L. (2021) · doi:10.1145/3469213.3470282 · Cited by 5
Knowledgebra: An Algebraic Learning Framework for Knowledge Graph
Yang, T., Wang, Y., Sha, L., Engelbrecht, J. R., & Hong, P. (2022) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make4020019 · Cited by 6
Knowledge Graph Embedding by Adaptive Limit Scoring Loss Using Dynamic Weighting Strategy
Yang, J., Ying, X., Shi, Y., Tong, X., Wang, R., Chen, T., & Xing, B. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.91 · Cited by 5
RNNCTPs: A neural symbolic reasoning method using dynamic knowledge partitioning technology
Wu, Y.-H., & Li, H. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110481 · Cited by 5
CARE: Certifiably Robust Learning with Reasoning via Variational Inference
Zhang, J., Li, L., Zhang, C., & Li, B. (2023) · IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml54575.2023.00043 · Cited by 9
Simple Augmentations of Logical Rules for Neuro-Symbolic Knowledge Graph Completion
Nandi, A., Kaur, N., Singla, P., & Mausam, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.23 · Cited by 5
KSGAN: Knowledge-aware subgraph attention network for scholarly community recommendation
Lu, Q., Du, W., Xu, W. X., & Ma, J. (2023) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2023.102282 · Cited by 5
Separate-and-Aggregate: A Transformer-Based Patch Refinement Model for Knowledge Graph Completion
Chen, C., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Sheng, Q. Z., & Lam, K. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46664-9_5 · Cited by 5
Training Recommenders Over Large Item Corpus With Importance Sampling
Lian, D., Gao, Z., Song, X., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2023.3344657 · Cited by 5
Billion-scale pre-trained knowledge graph model for conversational chatbot
Wong, C.-M., Feng, F., Zhang, W., Chen, H., Vong, C., & Chen, C. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128353 · Cited by 5
Fully-inductive link prediction with path-based graph neural network: A comparative analysis
Liang, X., Si, G., Li, J., et al. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128484 · Cited by 5
Peng, H., Zeng, W., Tang, J., Wang, M., Huang, H., & Zhao, X. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102729 · Cited by 6
Self-citationKou, X., Luo, B., Hu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3340531.3412104 · Cited by 7
KGRN: Knowledge Graph Relational Path Network for Target Prediction of TCM Prescriptions
Gong, Z., Zhang, N., & He, J. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84532-2_14 · Cited by 5
Yang, J., Shi, Y., Tong, X., Wang, R., Chen, T., & Ying, X. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.46 · Cited by 5
Relation and Entropy Weight-Aware Knowledge Graph Embedding for Cloud Manufacturing
Zhao, F., Jin, L., Yang, L. T., & Jin, H. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2022.3178414 · Cited by 5
Implicit Relation Linking for Question Answering over Knowledge Graph
Zhao, Y., Huang, J., Hu, W., Chen, Q., Qiu, X., Huo, C., & Ren, W. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.312 · Cited by 5
GGAT: Knowledge Graph Embedding Model via Global Information
Wang, Z., & Guo, Z. (2022) · Asia Conference on Algorithms, Computing and Machine Learning (CACML) · doi:10.1109/cacml55074.2022.00077 · Cited by 5
Wang, L., Lu, J., & Sun, Y.-P. (2023) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.03.008 · Cited by 5
Householder Transformation-Based Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Zhao, X., Li, A., Jiang, R., Chen, K., & Peng, Z. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12092001 · Cited by 5
Modeling Knowledge Graphs with Composite Reasoning
Cui, W., & Zhang, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i8.28675 · Cited by 5
Hamel, O., & Fareh, M. (2024) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108689 · Cited by 5
Propagation Model Search for Graph Neural Networks.
Ding, Y., Yao, Q., & Zhang, T. (2020) · Cited by 5
RatE: Relation-Adaptive Translating Embedding for Knowledge Graph Completion
Huang, H., Long, G., Shen, T., et al. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.48 · Cited by 5
KACC: A Multi-task Benchmark for Knowledge Abstraction, Concretization and Completion
Zhou, J., Hu, S., Lv, X., Yang, C. H., Liu, Z., Xu, W. H., Jiang, J., Li, J., & Sun, M. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.153 · Cited by 6
EventKE: Event-Enhanced Knowledge Graph Embedding
Zhang, Z., Wang, H., Zhao, H., Tong, H., & Ji, H. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.120 · Cited by 5
Toward Understanding The Effect Of Loss function On Then Performance Of Knowledge Graph EmbeddingPreprint
Nayyeri, M., Xu, C., Yaghoobzadeh, Y., Yazdi, H. S., & Lehmann, J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.00519 · Cited by 12
Semantic Triple Encoder for Fast Open-Set Link Prediction.Preprint
Wang, B., Shen, T., Long, G., Zhou, T., & Chang, Y. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 5
Multi-Partition Embedding Interaction with Block Term Format for Knowledge Graph CompletionPreprint
Tran, H. N., & Takasu, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.16365 · Cited by 5
EchoEA: Echo Information between Entities and Relations for Entity AlignmentPreprint
Lin, X., Haihong, E., Song, W., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03054 · Cited by 5
SMORE: Knowledge Graph Completion and Multi-hop Reasoning in Massive Knowledge GraphsPreprint
Ren, H., Dai, H., Dai, B., Chen, X., Zhou, D., Leskovec, J., & Schuurmans, D. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14890 · Cited by 5
C-KGE: Curriculum learning-based Knowledge Graph Embedding
Zhou, D., Li, S., Dong, L., Chen, R., Peng, X., & Yao, H. L. (2024) · Computer Speech & Language · doi:10.1016/j.csl.2024.101689 · Cited by 5
Evaluating diabetes dataset for knowledge graph embedding based link prediction
Singh, S., & Siwach, M. (2025) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2025.102414 · Cited by 4
Mo, F., Rehman, H. U., Ugarte, M., Carrera-Rivera, A., Minango, N. R., Monetti, F. M., Maffei, A., & Chaplin, J. C. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113484 · Cited by 4
KGiA: Drug repurposing through disease-aware knowledge graph augmentation
Oğuztüzün, Ç., Gao, Z., Li, H., & Xu, R. (2025) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104857 · Cited by 4
SEMKR: Joint learning of semantic and topological representations for Knowledge Graph Completion
Liu, P., Zhang, W., Ding, Y., Jiang, J., & Yang, S. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130909 · Cited by 4
Li, Y., Yan, S., Zhao, F., et al. (2024) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi16080270 · Cited by 4
Zhou, J., Li, Y., Tang, K., Guo, W., & Yu, W. (2024) · IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) · doi:10.1109/igarss53475.2024.10641524 · Cited by 4
Concept-driven representation learning model for knowledge graph completion
Xiang, Y., He, H., Yu, Z., & Huang, Y. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.126297 · Cited by 5
Uncertainty modeling for inductive knowledge graph embedding
Liu, C., Kwong, S., & Wang, X. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2024.107103 · Cited by 5
Reliable imputation of incomplete crash data for predicting driver injury severity.
Gao, X., Jiang, X.-K., Zhuang, D.-Y., Haworth, J., Wang, S.-H., Ilyankou, I., & Chen, H. (2025) · Accident Analysis and Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2025.108020 · Cited by 5
LDM-KGC: A low-dimensional knowledge graph completion model based on multi-head attention mechanism
Zhang, C., Qiu, B., Tang, W., Liang, B., Cui, D., Luo, H., & Chen, Q. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130665 · Cited by 4
Graph-based query reformulation system for descriptive queries of jargon words using definitions
Kim, B., Choi, H.-W., Yu, H., & Ko, Y. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119149 · Cited by 4
Modeling Unseen Entities from a Semantic Evidence View in Temporal Knowledge Graphs
Guo, C., Wang, T., Yang, L., Chen, H., Yu, H., Zhu, C., & Qiu, J. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc55868.2022.00052 · Cited by 4
ZeroKBC: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Zero-Shot Knowledge Base Completion
Chen, P., Yao, W., Zhang, H., Pan, X., Yu, D., Yu, D., & Chen, J. (2022) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw58026.2022.00117 · Cited by 4
A Unification Framework for Euclidean and Hyperbolic Graph Neural Networks
Khatir, M., Choudhary, N., Choudhury, S., Agarwal, K., & Reddy, C. K. A. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/431 · Cited by 4
Multi-Aspect Enhanced Convolutional Neural Networks for Knowledge Graph Completion
Zhang, F., Qiu, P., Shen, T., & Cheng, J. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230615 · Cited by 4
Wang, Y., Wegner, P., Domingo‐Fernándéz, D., & Kodamullil, A. T. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21502 · Cited by 4
Random Entity Quantization for Parameter-Efficient Compositional Knowledge Graph Representation
Li, J., Wang, Q., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., & Mao, Z. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.177 · Cited by 4
Fair large kernel embedding with relation-specific features extraction for link prediction
Zhang, Q., Huang, S., Xie, Q., Zhao, F., & Wang, G. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.120533 · Cited by 5
Federated Learning FedLTailor: A Dynamic Weight Adjustment and Personalized Fusion Approach
Hong, Z., & Li, S. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3407669 · Cited by 4
SFTe: Temporal knowledge graphs embedding for future interaction prediction
Jia, W. P., Ma, R., Niu, W., Yan, L., & Ma, Z. (2024) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2024.102423 · Cited by 4
Wang, Y., Ma, M., Xie, Y., Peng, Q., Lyu, H., Sun, H., & Fu, L. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2024.3447110 · Cited by 4
Wu, G., Wang, M., & Wang, F. (2024) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.112163 · Cited by 4
Shi, L., Liu, W., Wu, Y., Dai, C., Ji, Z., & Ганчев, И. (2024) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math12182821 · Cited by 4
Uncovering multi-step attacks with threat knowledge graph reasoning
Xiang, X., Ma, C., Zeng, L., Feng, W., Xie, Y., & Gu, Z. (2024) · Security and Safety · doi:10.1051/sands/2024019 · Cited by 6
Zhao, X., Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., He, C., Yin, M., & Zhao, X. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2024.3500027 · Cited by 4
Sheng, Y., Zeng, W., Tang, J., Liu, L., & Zhao, X. H. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104060 · Cited by 4
Self-citationLeveraging LLM based Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Legal Knowledge Graph Completion
Jiang, L. W., Conghui, Z., Xiaohan, Z., Fuhui, S., Wang, X., & Pan, L. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace · doi:10.1109/dsc63484.2024.00033 · Cited by 6
Djeddi, W. E., Yahia, S. B., & Nguifo, E. M. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126755 · Cited by 4
An Overview of Utilizing Knowledge Bases in Neural Networks for Question Answering
Kafle, S., de Silva, N., & Dou, D. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) · doi:10.1109/iri.2019.00058 · Cited by 4
World Knowledge Representation
Liu, Z., Lin, Y., & Sun, M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5573-2_7 · Cited by 5
Enhancing Knowledge Graph Embedding with Relational Constraints
Li, M., Sun, Z., Zhang, S., & Zhang, W. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Graph (ICKG) · doi:10.1109/icbk50248.2020.00015 · Cited by 5
Self-citationPredicting affinity ties in a surname network
Mendoza, M., & Bro, N. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256603 · Cited by 4
Learning Context-based Embeddings for Knowledge Graph Completion
Pu, F., Zhang, Z., Feng, Y., & Yang, B. (2022) · Journal of Data and Information Science · doi:10.2478/jdis-2022-0009 · Cited by 4
KEMA: Knowledge-Graph Embedding Using Modular Arithmetic
Baalbaki, H., Hazimeh, H., Harb, H., & Angarita, R. (2022) · Proceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.18293/seke2022-036 · Cited by 5
ProtoE: Enhancing Knowledge Graph Completion Models with Unsupervised Type Representation Learning
Lu, Y., & Ichise, R. (2022) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13080354 · Cited by 4
Ni, R., Shibata, H., & Takama, Y. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata55660.2022.10020261 · Cited by 4
Convolutional Neural Network Knowledge Graph Link Prediction Model Based on Relational Memory
Shi, M., Jing, Z., & Wu, D. (2023) · Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience · doi:10.1155/2023/3909697 · Cited by 4
Abnormal Entity-Aware Knowledge Graph Completion
Sun, K., Yu, S., Peng, C., et al. (2022) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw58026.2022.00118 · Cited by 4
SparseMult: A Tensor Decomposition model based on Sparse Relation Matrix
Xie, Z., Zhu, R., Zhang, M., et al. (2022) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT) · doi:10.1109/wi-iat55865.2022.00124 · Cited by 4
TransD-based Multi-hop Meta Learning for Few-shot Knowledge Graph Completion
Li, J., Yu, K., Li, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn54540.2023.10191162 · Cited by 4
Salcedo, M. V., Gravel, N., Keshavarzi, A., Huang, L., Kochut, K., & Kannan, N. (2023) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.15815 · Cited by 4
Enhancing user and item representation with collaborative signals for KG-based recommendation
Zhang, Y., & Gu, X. (2024) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-024-09419-1 · Cited by 4
Adaptive Graph Neural Network with Incremental Learning Mechanism for Knowledge Graph Reasoning
Zhang, J., Zan, H., Wu, S., et al. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13142778 · Cited by 4
Joint embedding in hierarchical distance and semantic representation learning for link prediction
Liu, J., Chen, J., Fan, C., et al. (2024) · Big Data Research · doi:10.1016/j.bdr.2024.100495 · Cited by 4
RelWalk - A Latent Variable Model Approach to Knowledge Graph Embedding
Bollegala, D., Hakami, H., Yoshida, Y., & Kawarabayashi, K. (2021) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.133 · Cited by 4
Let the Margin SlidE±for Knowledge Graph Embeddings via a Correntropy Objective Function
Nayyeri, M., Zhou, X., Vahdati, S., et al. (2020) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn48605.2020.9207513 · Cited by 4
HRotatE: Hybrid Relational Rotation Embedding for Knowledge Graph
Shah, A., Molokwu, B. C., & Kobti, Z. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533416 · Cited by 4
A Novel Embedding Model for Knowledge Graph Completion Based on Quaternion
Gao, H., Yang, K., Yang, Y., & Qin, K. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Information, Communication and Networks (ICICN) · doi:10.1109/icicn52636.2021.9673862 · Cited by 4
COVID-19 Knowledge Graph for Drug and Vaccine Development
Huang, L., Guan, H., Liang, Y., Guan, R., & Feng, X. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm52615.2021.9669736 · Cited by 4
A Novel Embedding Model for Knowledge Graph Completion Based on Multi-Task Learning
Dou, J., Tian, B., Zhang, Y., & Xing, C. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-73194-6_17 · Cited by 5
Modeling path information for knowledge graph completion
Shen, Y., Li, D., & Du, N. (2021) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-021-06460-2 · Cited by 4
What Is Learned in Knowledge Graph Embeddings?
Douglas, M. R., Simkin, M., Ben‐Eliezer, O., et al. (2022) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-93413-2_49 · Cited by 4
Enterprise Modelling Assistance: Edge Prediction Improvement Using Textual Information
Othman, W., & Shilov, N. G. (2022) · Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT) · doi:10.23919/fruct56874.2022.9953859 · Cited by 4
Group Representation Theory for Knowledge Graph EmbeddingPreprint
Cai, C. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.05100 · Cited by 4
Decentralized Knowledge Graph Representation LearningPreprint
Guo, L., Wang, W., Sun, Z., Liu, C., & Hu, W. P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Self-citationEfficient, Simple and Automated Negative Sampling for Knowledge Graph EmbeddingPreprint
Zhang, Y., Yao, Q., & Chen, L. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.14227 · Cited by 4
Knowledge Graph Reasoning with Relational Directed GraphPreprint
Zhang, Y., & Yao, Q. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Semantic and Relational-Based Graph Neural Network for Knowledge Graph CompletionPreprint
Li, X., Tian, Y., & Ji, S. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4455564 · Cited by 4
Zhuo, H. H., Liu, J., Jin, K., Yuan, J., Yang, Z., & Yao, Z. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4230895/v1 · Cited by 4
A Survey of Task-Oriented Knowledge Graph Reasoning: Status, Applications, and ProspectsPreprint
Niu, G., Li, B., & Lin, Y. (2025) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.174961563.32605293/v1 · Cited by 8
Zhou, G., Haihong, E., Kuang, Z., Ling, T., Yao, T., & Song, M. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2024.3503061 · Cited by 4
Chen, Y., Li, X., Liu, Y., & Hu, T. (2025) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym17020173 · Cited by 3
Interleaving and cross-attention presents efficient knowledge graph embedding
Wu, J., Laili, Y., Qi, C., Li, Z., & Ren, L. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126930 · Cited by 4
Qiu, Q., Lu, S., Ma, K., et al. (2025) · Transactions in GIS · doi:10.1111/tgis.70042 · Cited by 3
Pair-wise or high-order? A self-adaptive graph framework for knowledge graph embedding
Zhang, D., Jiang, H., Li, X., et al. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107494 · Cited by 3
He, F., Fan, J., Deng, Y., et al. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.114016 · Cited by 3
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
