The DOI matches its DataCite record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 16 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Query2box: Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs in Vector Space using Box Embeddings
Open accessAbstract
Answering complex logical queries on large-scale incomplete knowledge graphs (KGs) is a fundamental yet challenging task. Recently, a promising approach to this problem has been to embed KG entities as well as the query into a vector space such that entities that answer the query are embedded close to the query. However, prior work models queries as single points in the vector space, which is problematic because a complex query represents a potentially large set of its answer entities, but it is unclear how such a set can be represented as a single point. Furthermore, prior work can only handle queries that use conjunctions ($\wedge$) and existential quantifiers ($\exists$). Handling queries with logical disjunctions ($\vee$) remains an open problem. Here we propose query2box, an embedding-based framework for reasoning over arbitrary queries with $\wedge$, $\vee$, and $\exists$ operators in massive and incomplete KGs. Our main insight is that queries can be embedded as boxes (i.e., hyper-rectangles), where a set of points inside the box corresponds to a set of answer entities of the query. We show that conjunctions can be naturally represented as intersections of boxes and also prove a negative result that handling disjunctions would require embedding with dimension proportional to the number of KG entities. However, we show that by transforming queries into a Disjunctive Normal Form, query2box is capable of handling arbitrary logical queries with $\wedge$, $\vee$, $\exists$ in a scalable manner. We demonstrate the effectiveness of query2box on three large KGs and show that query2box achieves up to 25% relative improvement over the state of the art.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Query2Box embeds logical queries as boxes (axis-aligned hyper-rectangles) in vector space, so a query represents a set of answer entities rather than a single point. It handles conjunctive and disjunctive existential positive first-order (EPFO) queries by transforming them into disjunctive normal form and reports up to 25% relative improvement over the state of the art.
Key findings
- Box embeddings naturally model sets: projection translates and expands a box, intersection produces a smaller box inside the inputs, and entity-to-box distance downweights points inside the box via a fixed scalar \(0<\alpha<1\).
- The paper proves a negative result: handling disjunction with single-point or box embeddings requires embedding dimension/VC dimension proportional to the number of KG entities; on FB15k it finds \(M=13{,}365\) disjoint conjunctive queries while \(|V|=14{,}951\).
- DNF rewriting makes EPFO queries tractable by answering \(N\) conjunctive queries and taking the minimum distance to any resulting box; this extends any conjunctive-query method to union.
- On H@3, Q2B averages 0.484 on FB15k, 0.268 on FB15k-237, and 0.306 on NELL995, versus GQE at 0.386, 0.228, and 0.247; the paper reports 9.8% (25% relative), 3.8% (15% relative), and 5.9% (24% relative) higher H@3 than the best baselines, respectively.
Methods
- Experiments use three KG benchmarks: FB15k, FB15k-237, and NELL995. Models are trained on the first 5 of 9 query structures and evaluated on all 9; evaluation focuses on answers requiring missing edges, i.e. \(J_qK_{\text{test}} \setminus J_qK_{\text{val}}\).
- Entities are embedded as points and queries as boxes. Projection is \(p+r\) (sum centers and offsets); intersection uses attention over box centers plus a sigmoid-shrunk offset; union is handled by DNF transformation and aggregation via minimum box distance.
- Training uses negative sampling loss with embedding dimension \(d=400\), margin \(\gamma=24\), \(\alpha=0.2\), Adam with learning rate 0.0001, 250 epochs, minibatch size 512 queries per query structure, and 1 positive plus 128 negative entities per query. Baselines are GQE and GQE-DOUBLE, with ablations Q2B-AVG, Q2B-DEEPSETS, Q2B-AVG-1P, and Q2B-SHAREDOFFSET.
Limitations
- The paper states a negative result: exactly modeling arbitrary EPFO queries with low-dimensional embeddings is impossible; DNF rewriting may require \(N=\prod_{v\in V_{\text{union}}}|P_v|\) conjunctive queries, though it argues \(N\) may not be large and computations can be parallelized.
- The paper focuses on EPFO queries whose computation graphs are DAGs, with union as an additional edge type; it does not claim to handle all first-order logic beyond this class.
- Evident from the text: evaluation is restricted to answers that require missing edges (\(J_qK_{\text{test}} \setminus J_qK_{\text{val}}\)), not full answer sets; link prediction gains are minor, and the paper notes simple link prediction does not require modeling large answer sets.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
34 Own interpretation · 19 Own result · 8 No basis given · 7 Own method · 4 Supported · 2 Partly supported · 1 Mixed support · 1 Not supported · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, prior work models queries as single points in the vector space, which is problematic because a complex query represents a potentially large set of its answer entities, but it is unclear how such a set can be represented as a single point.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Guu et al., 2015 source
Section 3.1 (p. 2) describes representing the entities reached at each step of a path query with a single “set vector.” The Related Work section (p. 9) distinguishes the paper’s approach from prior path-query work by its modeling of intermediate denotations. This supports the attributed point that queries can be modeled as single points in vector space; the citing authors’ concern about whether that representation is adequate is their own framing. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 source
Section 4 (p. 4) says the framework maps any conjunctive graph query to an embedding q in a low-dimensional vector space. Section 4 (p. 5) further describes that embedding as implicitly representing the query’s set of answer nodes, supporting the attributed point that this prior work models a query as a single point. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Das et al., 2017
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, prior work can only handle queries that use conjunctions ( ∧ ) and existential quantifiers ( ∃ ).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 source
The Introduction (p. 1) defines the paper’s focus as queries using only conjunction and existential quantification. The Conclusion (p. 9) confirms that its framework cannot handle negation or disjunction. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- 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
“We observe that complex logical queries (especially 2p, 3p, ip, pi, up) indeed require modeling a much larger number of answer entities (often more than 10 times) than the simple 1p queries do.”
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
“On the simple link prediction (1p query) task, box embeddings provide minor empirical performance improvement over TransE, possibly because simple link prediction does not require modeling large sets of entities, as shown in Table 1.”
hedgeddirect- 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
“(2) QUERY2BOX can generalize to new logical query structures that it has never seen during training;”
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
“We demonstrate the effectiveness of QUERY2BOX on three large KGs and show that QUERY2BOX achieves up to 25% relative improvement over the state of the art.”
- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
“QUERY2BOX provides up to 25% relative improvement in accuracy of answering EPFO queries over state-of-the-art baselines.”
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 · plain
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
“Notice that naïvely increasing embedding dimensionality in GQE yields limited performance improvement.”
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“one-to-many relations tend to have larger offset embeddings”
- Also stated in: § H ANALYSIS OF LEARNED BOX OFFSET SIZE · p. 16 · boosted
“Specifically, we see that one-to-many relations tend to have larger offset embeddings”
boostedcorrelational- 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.
- Also stated in: § H ANALYSIS OF LEARNED BOX OFFSET SIZE · p. 16 · 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
“Second, we observe that explicitly training on complex logical queries beyond one-hop path queries (1p in Fig. 4) improves the reasoning performance.”
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.
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
“Q2B-SHAREDOFFSET does not work well on all types of queries.”
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. 17
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“When α = 1 , dist box reduces to the ordinary L 1 distance, i.e. , ‖ Cen ( q ) -v ‖ 1 , which is used by the conventional TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) as well as prior query embedding methods (Guu et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2018).”
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.
- Partly supportedcites Guu et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.4 (p. 3) describes a compositional TransE query model with the traversal operator Tᵣ(xₛ) = xₛ + wᵣ, supporting the citation as an example of a prior query-embedding method. In our copy, the scoring and membership formulas are not decoded, and no readable passage specifies an L1 distance. The paper therefore does not verify the L1-specific part of the citing sentence or its claim about dist_box at α = 1. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Disputedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation to Hamilton et al. is attached to the assertion that prior query-embedding methods used ordinary L1 distance, not to the citing paper’s α=1 calculation. In §4, p. 5, Hamilton et al. explicitly state that their method uses cosine distance instead. Their paper does not define dist_box or α. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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.
- Not matched
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The L 1 distance is used as the distance between query and entity vectors.”
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 (p. 4) says GQE scores a query–node pair using the distance between their embeddings. Its footnote in Section 4 (p. 5) specifies cosine distance, not L1 distance. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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.
- Disputed
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Different from the generic deep sets to model the intersection (Hamilton et al., 2018), our geometric intersection operator effectively constrains the center position and models the shrinking set size.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 source
Section 4 (p. 5) describes Hamilton et al.’s intersection operator as a neural-network function over a set of query embeddings, motivated by deep learning on sets. The citation supports the comparison to a generic set-based intersection operator; the claims about the citing authors’ own operator are not attributed to Hamilton et al. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Note that our DNF-query rewriting scheme is general and is able to extend any method that works for conjunctive queries ( e.g. , (Hamilton et al., 2018)) to handle more general class of EPFO queries.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 source
The citation identifies Hamilton et al. as an example of a method for conjunctive queries, not as the source of the citing authors’ DNF rewriting scheme. The Introduction (p. 1) says conjunctive queries are the paper’s focus, and the Conclusion (p. 9) says it proposes a framework to embed them. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Such approach robustly handles missing relations (Hamilton et al., 2018) and is also orders of magnitude faster, as answering an arbitrary logical query is reduced to simply identifying entities nearest to the embedding of the query in the vector space.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 source
The citation is attached to the claim that the approach handles missing relations. The Introduction (p. 2) says it can predict answers to conjunctive queries involving unobserved edges, and §3.1 (p. 4) explicitly describes generalizing to query answers that rely on missing edges. The subsequent speed comparison is not attached to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.91)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“GQE embeds a query to a single vector, and models projection and intersection operators as translation and deep sets (Zaheer et al., 2017), respectively.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hamilton et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 (pp. 5–6) says GQE generates a single query embedding and implements intersection with a permutation-invariant neural network operating on sets. But its base projection operator uses a trainable matrix (p. 5); translation is a TransE variant described in Section 4.3 (p. 7), not the general GQE projection operator. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Zaheer et al., 2017
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.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For a real-world KG, there are M ≈ |V| conjunctive queries with non-overlapping answers.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3 TRACTABLE HANDLING OF DISJUNCTION USING DISJUNCTIVE NORMAL FORM · p. 6 · plain
“For example, in the commonly-used FB15k dataset (Bordes et al., 2013), derived from the Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008), we find M = 13,365, while |V| is 14,951 (see Appendix B for the details).”
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.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bollacker et al., 2008 source
plaincorrelationalSingle case- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.3 TRACTABLE HANDLING OF DISJUNCTION USING DISJUNCTIVE NORMAL FORM · p. 6 · plain
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
“(1) QUERY2BOX provides strong generalization as it can answer complex queries;”
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.
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
“As listed in Tables 2, our method significantly and consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline across all the query structures, including those not seen during training as well as those with union operations.”
- Also stated in: § 5 CONCLUSION · p. 10 · boosted
“Experimental results on standard KGs demonstrate that QUERY2BOX significantly outperforms the existing work in answering diverse logical queries.”
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5 CONCLUSION · p. 10 · boosted
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
“(3) QUERY2BOX is able to implicitly impute missing relations as it can answer any EPFO query with high accuracy even when relations involving answering the query are missing in the KG;”
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Out of all the queries in S 1p , 129,717 queries have more than one answer entities”
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.
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
“On average, we obtain 9.8% (25% relative), 3.8% (15% relative), and 5.9% (24% relative) higher H@3 than the best baselines on FB15k, FB15k-237, and NELL995, respectively.”
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
“Specifically, on FB15k-237, Q2B obtains more than 4% and 2% absolute gain in H@3 compared to Q2B-AVG and Q2B-DEEPSETS, respectively.”
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
“Also notice that Q2B performs well on new queries with the same structure as the training queries as well as on new query structures never seen during training”
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.
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
“On the FB15k, we instantiate 308,006 queries of type '1p', which we denote by S 1p .”
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.
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
“Furthermore, as all the union operators are removed from G q (1) , . . . , G q ( N ) , all of these computation graphs represent conjunctive queries, which we denote as q (1) , . . . , q ( N ) .”
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
“This means that to answer any EPFO query we first answer individual conjunctive queries and then take the union of the answer entities.”
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
“(3) Executing logical operators over boxes results in new boxes, which means that the operations are closed;”
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
“(1) Boxes naturally model sets of entities they enclose;”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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. It may be too vague to check against evidence. 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
“The benefit is that unlike a single point, the box has the interior ; thus, if an entity is in a set, it is natural to model the entity embedding to be a point inside the box.”
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. 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
“This modeling aligns well with the union operation; an entity is inside the union of sets as long as the entity is in one of the sets.”
boostedcorrelational- 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
“In other words, the dimensionality of the logical query embeddings needs to be Θ( |V| ) , which is not low-dimensional; thus not scalable to large KGs and not generalizable in the presence of unobserved KG edges.”
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
“Furthermore, for these queries, traditional graph traversal techniques would not be able to find the answers (due to missing relations).”
hedgeddirect- 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.
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
“However, prior work models queries as single points in the vector space, which is problematic because a complex query represents a potentially large set of its answer entities, but it is unclear how such a set can be represented as a single point.”
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.
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
“Since q is logically equivalent to q (1) ∨ · · · ∨ q ( N ) , we can naturally define the aggregated distance function using the box distance dist box :”
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means we always evaluate on queries/entities that were not part of the training set and the method has not seen them before.”
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.
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 adaptive box size effectively models a different number of entities/vectors in the set.”
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.
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 intuition behind our geometric intersection is to generate a smaller box that lies inside a set of boxes, as illustrated in Fig. 2(B).”
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.
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
“In this paper we proposed a reasoning framework called QUERY2BOX that can effectively model and reason over sets of entities as well as handle EPFO queries in a vector space.”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that during the entity and relation assignment, we specifically filter out all the degenerated queries, as shown in Fig. D.”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that we filter out all the entities that only appear in the validation and test sets but not in the training set.”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a fair comparison, we also compare with GQE-DOUBLE (GQE with doubled embedding dimensionality) so that QUERY2BOX and GQE-DOUBLE have the same amount of parameters.”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, to treat queries equally regardless of the number of answers they have, we take average over queries .”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When generating validation/test queries, we explicitly filter out trivial queries that can be fully answered by subgraph matching on G train / G valid .”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the original GQE cannot handle EPFO queries, we apply our DNF-query rewriting strategy and in our evaluation extend GQE to handle general EPFO queries as 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.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“This is most likely because different queries have different numbers of answer entities, and the adaptive box size enables us to better model it.”
hedgeddirect- 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 relies on this without support.
Handling queries with logical disjunctions remains an open problem.
“Handling queries with logical disjunctions ( ∨ ) remains an open problem.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Computational complexity of subgraph matching is exponential in query size, and thus cannot scale to modern KGs.
“(1) Computational complexity of subgraph matching is exponential in the query size, and thus cannot scale to modern KGs;”
The paper relies on this without support.
Subgraph matching is very sensitive as it cannot correctly answer queries with missing relations.
“(2) Subgraph matching is very sensitive as it cannot correctly answer queries with missing relations.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For the proof, assigning a single entity embedding to all entities in a query's denotation set is without loss of generality.
“For the sake of modeling Q , without loss of generality, we consider assigning a single entity embedding v q i to all v ∈ J q i K , so there are M kinds of entity vectors, v q 1 , . . . , v q M .”
The paper relies on this without support.
Simple link prediction does not involve logical reasoning nor handling a large set of answer entities.
“Note that in the case of simple link prediction, we do not expect a huge performance gain by using box embeddings as link prediction does not involve logical reasoning nor handling a large set of answer entities.”
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
“Query2Box (Ren et al., 2020) and BoxE (Abboud et al., 2020) make use of boxes in the loss function of their models, however entities themselves are represented as vectors, and thus these models do not benefit from the probabilistic semantics of box embeddings, which we rely on heavily for modeling UKGs.”
From Probabilistic Box Embeddings for Uncertain Knowledge Graph Reasoning (2021) · cites this paper as Ren et al., 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Similarly to Ren et al. (2020) and Dasgupta et al. (2021), we also make use of a learned transform for each relation, however we differ from Ren et al. (2020) in that entities themselves are boxes, and differ from both in the structure of the learned transform.”
From Probabilistic Box Embeddings for Uncertain Knowledge Graph Reasoning (2021) · cites this paper as Ren et al., 2020
Citations
Cites
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory
Vapnik, V. N. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 · Cited by 39,138
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate
Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.0473 · Cited by 16,213
(2013) · Cited by 5,726
Introduction to Lattices and Order
Davey, B., & Priestley, H. A. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809088 · Cited by 4,975
Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge
Bollacker, K., Evans, C., Paritosh, P., Sturge, T., & Taylor, J. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/1376616.1376746 · Cited by 4,852
Approximate nearest neighbors: towards removing the curse of dimensionality
Indyk, P., & Motwani, R. (1998) · Proceedings of the thirtieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '98 · doi:10.1145/276698.276876 · Cited by 4,188
A Review of Relational Machine Learning for Knowledge Graphs
Nickel, M., Murphy, K. P., Volker Tresp, C., & Gabrilovich, E. (2015) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2015.2483592 · Cited by 1,780
RotatE: Knowledge Graph Embedding by Relational Rotation in Complex Space
Sun, Z., Deng, Z.-H., Nie, J.-Y., & Tang, J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.10197 · Cited by 1,414
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- John Venn. I. on the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin philosophical magazine and journal of science , 10(59):1-18, 1880.
- Manzil Zaheer, Satwik Kottur, Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Barnabas Poczos, Ruslan R Salakhutdinov, and Alexander J Smola. Deep sets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pp. 3391-3401, 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–134 of 134
Box-To-Box Transformations for Modeling Joint Hierarchies
Dasgupta, S. S., Li, X. L., Boratko, M., Zhang, D., & McCallum, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.repl4nlp-1.28 · Cited by 2
Wu, Y., & Zhou, J. (2022) · Proceedings - International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, TAI · doi:10.1109/ictai56018.2022.00057 · Cited by 2
Learning Syllogism with Euler Neural-NetworksPreprint
Dong, T., Li, C., Bauckhage, C., Li, J., Wrobel, S., & Cremers, A. B. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.07320 · Cited by 9
Modeling Fine-Grained Entity Types with Box EmbeddingsPreprint
Onoe, Y., Boratko, M., McCallum, A., & Durrett, G. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.00345 · Cited by 2
Probabilistic Box Embeddings for Uncertain Knowledge Graph ReasoningPreprint
Chen, X., Boratko, M., Chen, M., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.04597 · Cited by 2
A Generative Symbolic Model for More General Natural Language Understanding and ReasoningPreprint
Saparov, A., & Mitchell, T. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Large Language Model Empowered Logical Relations Mining for Personalized Recommendation
Tan, Y., Shao, W., Ma, G., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1145/3701716.3715574 · Cited by 1
Causal Coupled Mechanisms: A Control Method with Cooperation and Competition for Complex System
Yu, X., Guan, Y., Yu, X., Li, X., & Jiang, J. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm55620.2022.9995255 · Cited by 1
Yao, X., He, S., Cai, L., Liu, K., & Zhao, J. F. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.450 · Cited by 1
Liu, J., Mao, Q., Li, J., Fu, X., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230432 · Cited by 2
Optimizing Probabilistic Box Embeddings with Distance Measures
Mei, L., Mao, J., & Wen, J.-R. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde60146.2024.00106 · Cited by 1
Learn to Walk with Continuous-action for Knowledge-enhanced Recommendation System
Sun, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Xu, X., Hong, L. W., & Wang, K. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650282 · Cited by 1
Towards Utilizing Knowledge Graph Embedding Models for Conceptual Clustering
Gad-Elrab, M. H., Ho, V. T., Levinkov, E., et al. (2020) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 1
A Neural-symbolic Approach for Ontology-mediated Query Answering.Preprint
Andreşel, M., Domokos, C., Stepanova, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Word2Box: Learning Word Representation Using Box Embeddings.Preprint
Dasgupta, S. S., Boratko, M., Atmakuri, S., Li, X. L., Patel, D., & McCallum, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Fuzzy Logic based Logical Query Answering on Knowledge Graph.Preprint
Chen, X., Hu, Z., & Sun, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Top Ten Challenges Towards Agentic Neural Graph DatabasesPreprint
Bai, J., Wang, Z., Zhou, Y., Yin, H., Fei, W., Hu, Q., Deng, Z., Cheng, J., Zheng, T., Tsang, H. T., et al. (2025) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/v8qvha · Cited by 19
AutoSF+: Towards Automatic Scoring Function Design for Knowledge Graph Embedding.Preprint
Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Yao, Q. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
LNN-EL: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach to Short-text Entity LinkingPreprint
Jiang, H., Gurajada, S., Lu, Q., Neelam, S., Popa, L. C., Sen, P., Li, Y., & Gray, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.09795 · Cited by 4
On factuality in neural language models
Nadeem, M. (2021)
Knowledge Sheaves: A Sheaf-Theoretic Framework for Knowledge Graph EmbeddingPreprint
Gebhart, T., Hansen, J., & Schrater, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.03789
Towards Robust Reasoning over Knowledge GraphsPreprint
Xi, Z., Pang, R., Li, C., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14693
UnTiCk: Unsupervised Type-Aware Complex Logical Queries Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs
Chen, D., Li, Q., & Gu, J. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12061445
Graph Neural Networks to Improve Knowledge Graph Embedding: A Survey
Chetoui, I., Bachari, E. E., Adnani, M. E., & Hassan, A. E. (2023) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-26384-2_2
The Graph-Massivizer Approach Toward a European Sustainable Data Center Digital Twin
Molan, M., Khan, J. A., Bartolini, A., et al. (2023) · IEEE Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) · doi:10.1109/compsac57700.2023.00224
Deductive Additivity for Planning of Natural Language Proofs
Sprague, Z., Bostrom, K., Chaudhuri, S., & Durrett, G. (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.nlrse-1.11 · Cited by 1
Optimization Model of Knowledge Graph Reasoning Process Based on Generative Adversarial Network
Wang, Y., Han, Y., & Liao, J. (2023) · doi:10.1109/dsde58527.2023.00025
Complex Query Answering Over Knowledge Graphs Using Region Embeddings on a Lie GroupPreprint
Zhou, Z., Wan, G., Pan, S., Hu, W., & Du, B. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4632628
Self-citationLei, G., Yin, Z., Xiao, J., Qiu, X., Cao, Y., Zhang, Q., & Wu, M. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4158527/v1
Computer Network Information Retrieval Algorithm Integrating Data Structure Fusion Optimization
Guo-ming, J. (2024) · International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT) · doi:10.1109/icict60155.2024.10544673
Research on Knowledge Graph Algorithm Based on Hierarchical Semantic Perception
Wei, Z., & Esquivel, J. A. (2024) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things and Cloud Computing Technology (AIoTC) · doi:10.1109/aiotc63215.2024.10748281
Finding Associative Entities in Knowledge Graph by Incorporating User Behaviors
Li, J.-Y., Yang, P., Yue, K., et al. (2025) · Journal of Database Management · doi:10.4018/jdm.371751
Sangmyeong, L., Shinagawa, S., Yoshino, K., & Nakamura, S. (2025) · Journal of Natural Language Processing · doi:10.5715/jnlp.32.598
Faithful Embeddings for Knowledge Base Queries
Sun, H., Arnold, A. O., Bedrax-Weiss, T., Pereira, F., & Cohen, W. W. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.03658 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Ren, H., Hu, W., & Leskovec, J.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2002.05969
- OpenAlex
- W2994695355
- Cited by
- 135
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 16
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- TIB Data Manager
- International Conference on Learning Representations
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
- Keywords
- knowledge graph reasoning, box embeddings, vector space representation, disjunctive normal form, incomplete knowledge graphs, existential quantifier
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
