CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 9Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSemantic Web and Ontologies

Leveraging Abstract Meaning Representation for Knowledge Base Question Answering

Open access
Kapanipathi, Pavan, Abdelaziz, Ibrahim, Ravishankar, Srinivas, Roukos, Salim, Gray, Alexander, Astudillo, Ramon, Chang, Maria, Cornelio, Cristina +22 more·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2012.01707arXiv 2012.01707
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Knowledge base question answering (KBQA)is an important task in Natural Language Processing. Existing approaches face significant challenges including complex question understanding, necessity for reasoning, and lack of large end-to-end training datasets. In this work, we propose Neuro-Symbolic Question Answering (NSQA), a modular KBQA system, that leverages (1) Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parses for task-independent question understanding; (2) a simple yet effective graph transformation approach to convert AMR parses into candidate logical queries that are aligned to the KB; (3) a pipeline-based approach which integrates multiple, reusable modules that are trained specifically for their individual tasks (semantic parser, entity andrelationship linkers, and neuro-symbolic reasoner) and do not require end-to-end training data. NSQA achieves state-of-the-art performance on two prominent KBQA datasets based on DBpedia (QALD-9 and LC-QuAD1.0). Furthermore, our analysis emphasizes that AMR is a powerful tool for KBQA systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2012.01707

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Verification requirements vary by domain: coding requires thorough test coverage, QA demands certified data checks, and reasoning benefits from symbolic validation.

    “Verification varies by domain: coding requires thorough test coverage, QA demands certified data checks [70], and reasoning benefits from symbolic validation [71].”

    From Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? (2025) · cites this paper as [71]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Ram´ on Fernandez Astudillo, Miguel Ballesteros, Tahira Naseem, Austin Blodgett, and Radu Florian. 2020. Transition-based parsing with stacktransformers. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 , page 1001-1007.
  2. Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffitt, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th linguistic annotation workshop and interoperability with discourse , pages 178-186.
  3. Hannah Bast and Elmar Haussmann. 2015. More accurate question answering on freebase. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages 1431-1440.
  4. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages 1533-1544.
  5. Michele Bevilacqua, Rexhina Blloshmi, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. One SPRING to rule them both: Symmetric AMR semantic parsing and generation without a complex pipeline. In Proceedings of AAAI .
  6. Nikita Bhutani, Xinyi Zheng, and H V Jagadish. 2019. Learning to answer complex questions over knowledge bases with query composition. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , CIKM '19, page 739-748, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  7. Shu Cai and Kevin Knight. 2013. Smatch: an evaluation metric for semantic feature structures. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) , pages 748-752.
  8. Yongrui Chen, Huiying Li, Yuncheng Hua, and Guilin Qi. 2020. Formal query building with query structure prediction for complex question answering over knowledge base. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) .
  9. William W Cohen, Haitian Sun, R Alex Hofer, and Matthew Siegler. 2020. Scalable neural methods for reasoning with a symbolic knowledge base. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06115 . · arXiv
  10. Dennis Diefenbach, Andreas Both, Kamal Singh, and Pierre Maret. 2020. Towards a question answering system over the semantic web. Semantic Web , (Preprint):1-19.
  11. Dennis Diefenbach, Kamal Singh, and Pierre Maret. 2017. Wdaqua-core0: A question answering component for the research community. In Semantic Web Evaluation Challenge , pages 84-89. Springer.
  12. Bonnie Dorr, Nizar Habash, and David Traum. 1998. A thematic hierarchy for efficient generation from lexical-conceptual structure. In Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas , pages 333-343. Springer.
  13. Paul R Kingsbury and Martha Palmer. 2002. From treebank to propbank. In LREC , pages 1989-1993. Citeseer.
  14. Young-Suk Lee, Ram´ on Fernandez Astuillo, Tahira Naseem, Revanth Reddy, Radu Florian, and Salim Roukos. 2020. Pushing the limits of amr parsing with self-learning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 , page 3208-3214.
  15. Shiqi Liang, Kurt Stockinger, Tarcisio Mendes de Farias, Maria Anisimova, and Manuel Gil. 2021. Querying knowledge graphs in natural language. Journal of Big Data , 8(1):1-23.
  16. Gaurav Maheshwari, Priyansh Trivedi, Denis Lukovnikov, Nilesh Chakraborty, Asja Fischer, and Jens Lehmann. 2019. Learning to rank query graphs for complex question answering over knowledge graphs. In International semantic web conference , pages 487-504. Springer.
  17. Giuseppe M Mazzeo and Carlo Zaniolo. 2016. Answering controlled natural language questions on rdf knowledge bases. In EDBT , pages 608-611.
  18. Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Gaetano Rossiello, Pavan Kapanipathi, Ibrahim Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Mo Yu, Alfio Gliozzo, Salim Roukos, and Alexander Gray. 2020. Leveraging Semantic Parsing for Relation Linking over Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the 19th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2020) .
  19. Tahira Naseem, Srinivas Ravishankar, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Ibrahim Abdelaziz, Young-Suk Lee, Pavan Kapanipathi, Salim Roukos, Alfio Gliozzo, and Alexander Gray. 2021. A semantics-aware transformer model of relation linking for knowledge base question answering. In ACL 2021 .
  20. Tahira Naseem, Abhishek Shah, Hui Wan, Radu Florian, Salim Roukos, and Miguel Ballesteros. 2019. Rewarding smatch: Transition-based amr parsing with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13370 . · arXiv
  21. Hongyu Ren and Jure Leskovec. 2020. Beta embeddings for multi-hop logical reasoning in knowledge graphs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33.
  22. Ryan Riegel, Alexander Gray, Francois Luus, Naweed Khan, Ndivhuwo Makondo, Ismail Yunus Akhalwaya, Haifeng Qian, Ronald Fagin, Francisco Barahona, Udit Sharma, Shajith Ikbal, Hima Karanam, Sumit Neelam, Ankita Likhyani, and Santosh Srivastava. 2020. Logical neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13155 . · arXiv
  23. Ahmad Sakor, Isaiah Onando Mulang', Kuldeep Singh, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Maria Esther Vidal, Jens Lehmann, and S¨ oren Auer. 2019. Old is gold: Linguistic driven approach for entity and relation linking of short text. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , pages 2336-2346, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  24. Kuldeep Singh, Andreas Both, Arun Sethupat, and Saeedeh Shekarpour. 2018. Frankenstein: a platform enabling reuse of question answering components. In European Semantic Web Conference , pages 624-638. Springer.
  25. Haitian Sun, Andrew O Arnold, Tania Bedrax-Weiss, Fernando Pereira, and William W Cohen. 2020. Faithful embeddings for knowledge base queries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33.
  26. Priyansh Trivedi, Gaurav Maheshwari, Mohnish Dubey, and Jens Lehmann. 2017. Lc-quad: A corpus for complex question answering over knowledge graphs. In ISWC 2017 , pages 210-218.
  27. Ricardo Usbeck, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Bastian Haarmann, Anastasia Krithara, Michael R¨ oder, and Giulio Napolitano. 2017. 7th open challenge on question answering over linked data (qald-7). In Semantic Web Evaluation Challenge , pages 59-69. Springer.
  28. Svitlana Vakulenko, Javier David Fernandez Garcia, Axel Polleres, Maarten de Rijke, and Michael Cochez. 2019. Message passing for complex question answering over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages 1431-1440.
  29. Dekun Wu, Nana Nosirova, Hui Jiang, and Mingbin Xu. 2019a. A general fofe-net framework for simple and effective question answering over knowledge bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12356 . · arXiv
  30. Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019b. Zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. ArXiv , abs/1911.03814. · arXiv
  31. Kun Xu, Yuxuan Lai, Yansong Feng, and Zhiguo Wang. 2019. Enhancing key-value memory neural networks for knowledge based question answering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , pages 29372947.
  32. Kun Xu, Lingfei Wu, Zhiguo Wang, Mo Yu, Liwei Chen, and Vadim Sheinin. 2018. Exploiting rich syntactic information for semantic parsing with graph-to-sequence model. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 918-924.
  33. Xuchen Yao and Benjamin Van Durme. 2014. Information extraction over structured data: Question answering with freebase. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 956-966.
  34. Mo Yu, Wenpeng Yin, Kazi Saidul Hasan, Cicero dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Bowen Zhou. 2017. Improved neural relation detection for knowledge base question answering. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 571581.
  35. Luke Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2007. Online learning of relaxed ccg grammars for parsing to logical form. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL) , pages 678-687.
  36. Weiguo Zheng and Mei Zhang. 2019. Question answering over knowledge graphs via structural query patterns. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09760 . · arXiv
  37. Lei Zou, Ruizhe Huang, Haixun Wang, Jeffrey Xu Yu, Wenqiang He, and Dongyan Zhao. 2014. Natural language question answering over rdf: a graph data driven approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data , pages 313-324.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kapanipathi, P., Abdelaziz, I., Ravishankar, S., Roukos, S., Gray, A., Astudillo, R., Chang, M., Cornelio, C., Dana, S., Fokoue, A., Garg, D., Gliozzo, A., Gurajada, S., Karanam, H., Khan, N., Khandelwal, D., Lee, Y.-S., Li, Y., Luus, F., Makondo, N., Mihindukulasooriya, N., Naseem, T., Neelam, S., Popa, L., Reddy, R., Riegel, R., Rossiello, G., Sharma, U., Bhargav, G. P. S., & Yu, M.
Affiliations
IBM (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2012.01707
arXiv
2012.01707
OpenAlex
W3167590414
Cited by
9
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
Keywords
knowledge base question answering, Abstract Meaning Representation, question comprehension, graph transformation, entity linking, neuro-symbolic reasoning, semantic parsing, DBpedia, LC-QuAD

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.

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