CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 31Advanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic ModelingSemantic Web and Ontologies

Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones

Open access
Bai, Yushi, Ying, Rex, Ren, Hongyu, Leskovec, Jure·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2110.14923arXiv 2110.14923
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Hierarchical relations are prevalent and indispensable for organizing human knowledge captured by a knowledge graph (KG). The key property of hierarchical relations is that they induce a partial ordering over the entities, which needs to be modeled in order to allow for hierarchical reasoning. However, current KG embeddings can model only a single global hierarchy (single global partial ordering) and fail to model multiple heterogeneous hierarchies that exist in a single KG. Here we present ConE (Cone Embedding), a KG embedding model that is able to simultaneously model multiple hierarchical as well as non-hierarchical relations in a knowledge graph. ConE embeds entities into hyperbolic cones and models relations as transformations between the cones. In particular, ConE uses cone containment constraints in different subspaces of the hyperbolic embedding space to capture multiple heterogeneous hierarchies. Experiments on standard knowledge graph benchmarks show that ConE obtains state-of-the-art performance on hierarchical reasoning tasks as well as knowledge graph completion task on hierarchical graphs. In particular, our approach yields new state-of-the-art Hits@1 of 45.3% on WN18RR and 16.1% on DDB14 (0.231 MRR). As for hierarchical reasoning task, our approach outperforms previous best results by an average of 20% across the three datasets.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

ConE is a knowledge graph embedding model that represents entities as hyperbolic cones and uses relation-specific subspaces with restricted rotations to model multiple heterogeneous hierarchical relations alongside non-hierarchical ones. It reports state-of-the-art hierarchical reasoning and competitive KG completion results on WN18RR, DDB14, GO21, and FB15k-237.

Key findings

  • KG completion: ConE achieves new state-of-the-art Hits@1 of 45.3% on WN18RR and 16.1% on DDB14 (0.231 MRR); on GO21 it reaches MRR .211 / H@1 .140, and on FB15k-237 MRR .345 / H@1 .247.
  • Ancestor-descendant prediction: ConE outperforms previous best results by an average of 20% across three datasets; at the hardest 100% inferred-descendant setting, mAP is .679 on WN18RR, .818 on DDB14, and .693 on GO21, versus best baselines of .611, .594, and .564 respectively.
  • LCA prediction: ConE improves over previous methods by over 100% on Hits@3 and Hits@10; on WN18RR it reaches 1-Hop H@3 99.3%, 2-Hop H@3 89.6%, and 3-Hop H@3 55.6%.
  • Ablation: adding restricted rotation improves hierarchical-relation MRR on WN18RR from .209 to .231 (+10.5%), with up to 72.5% improvement on individual hierarchical relations; in low dimension (d=32), ConE obtains MRR .471 / H@1 .436 on WN18RR.

Methods

  • ConE embeds entities as 2D hyperbolic cones in a product space of d hyperbolic planes (total dimension 2d). It assigns each hierarchical relation a relation-specific subspace, enforces cone containment there via restricted rotation, and uses general rotation in the complement space for non-hierarchical properties; training combines a distance loss and an angle loss.
  • Datasets: WN18RR (40,943 entities, 11 relations, 86,385 training triples), DDB14 (9,203 entities, 14 relations, 38,233 training triples), GO21 (89,127 entities, 21 relations, 796,136 training triples), and FB15k-237 (14,541 entities, 237 relations, 272,115 training triples). Ancestor-descendant evaluation uses 50k ancestor-descendant pairs plus 50k negative pairs with the true descendant randomly replaced, scored by mAP and AUROC; KG completion uses filtered MRR and Hits@N; LCA prediction is evaluated on WN18RR.
  • Training uses Adam, self-adversarial temperature α = 0.5, and RotC pretraining; epochs are 500, 1000, 100, and 600 on WN18RR, DDB14, GO21, and FB15k-237 respectively, with hyperparameter search over batch size, embedding dimension, learning rate, angle-loss weight, and subspace dimension.

Limitations

  • Stated: hyperbolic cones are hard to optimize with randomized initialization, so RotC pretraining is used; there is a trade-off where larger subspace dimension helps hierarchical tasks but limits KG completion; orthogonal subspaces are limited to at most d/n dimensions; fixed curvature c = −1 performed better than learned curvature in their test.
  • Stated/evident: the model assumes relation type is given a priori or inferred via modified Krackhardt scores; equal-dimensional subspaces are assigned to all hierarchical relations; GO21 is stated to be made public at publication; FB15k-237 relation labels are manually labeled and lack groundtruth.
  • Evident from text: ancestor-descendant evaluation constructs negatives by replacing only the true descendant while keeping the true ancestor fixed, which may not cover all negative-pair distributions.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2110.14923

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

26 of 36 cited sources checked · 13 supported · 4 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Existing works that consider hierarchical relations do not take into account existing non-hierarchical relations.

    “Existing works that consider hierarchical relations [13] do not take into account existing non-hierarchical relations [14].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [13] [13] M. Nickel and D. Kiela, 'Learning continuous hierarchies in the lorentz model of hyperbolic geometry,' in ICML , 2018. -

      The Introduction (p. 1) says the method infers hierarchies from pairwise similarity measurements and explicitly separates relatedness from generality. Section 3.3 (pp. 4–5) likewise uses similarity scores, including comparisons between concepts that are not hierarchically comparable. Thus the paper does take non-hierarchical similarity information into account, contrary to the claim's blanket assertion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [14] [14] I. Balaževi´ c, C. Allen, and T. M. Hospedales, 'Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion,' in EMNLP-IJCNLP , 2019. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Methods for reasoning over KGs that use hyperbolic space (MuRP, RotH) use relational transformations (rotation) that prevent them from faithfully capturing all properties of hierarchical relations.

    “While there are methods for reasoning over KGs that use hyperbolic space (MuRP [15], RotH [16]), which is suitable for modeling tree-like graphs, the choice of relational transformations used in these works (rotation) prevents them from faithfully capturing all the properties of hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [15] [15] I. Balazevic, C. S. Allen, and T. Hospedales, 'Multi-relational poincaré graph embeddings,' in NeurIPS , 2019. - source

      The Introduction (page unavailable) describes MuRP’s relation-specific transformations as Möbius matrix-vector multiplication and Möbius addition, not rotation. The results discussion (Effect of dimensionality, page unavailable) says MuRP generally outperforms its Euclidean counterpart on hierarchical relations—the opposite of the attributed limitation. This paper does not address RotH. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [16] [16] I. Chami, A. Wolf, D.-C. Juan, F. Sala, S. Ravi, and C. Ré, 'Low-dimensional hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings,' in ACL , 2020. - source

      The paper does not describe MuRP as a rotation model: its Complex embeddings section calls MuRP a translation model. Section 4.2 says rotations can model several logical patterns, and Section 5.6 reports that RotH preserves tree structure. These passages contradict the claim that rotation prevents these methods from faithfully capturing hierarchical relations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Hierarchical information is ubiquitous in real-world knowledge graphs.

    “Hierarchical relations are prevalent and indispensable for organizing human knowledge captured by a knowledge graph (KG).”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 1 · plain
      “Hierarchical information is ubiquitous in real-world KGs, such as WordNet [8] or Gene Ontology [9], since much human knowledge is organized hierarchically.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] [8] G. A. Miller, 'Wordnet: a lexical database for english,' Communications of the ACM , 1995. - source

      In “More Than 166,000 Word Form and Sense Pairs” (page unavailable), Miller says hyponymy and hypernymy organize noun meanings in WordNet into a hierarchical structure. This supports hierarchy as a way to organize lexical knowledge, but the paper does not establish that hierarchical relations are ubiquitous or indispensable across real-world knowledge graphs. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [9] [9] A. Michael, A. B. Catherine, A. B. Judith, B. David, B. Heather, C. J Michael, P. D. Allan, D. Kara, S. D. Selina, T. E. Janan, and et al, 'Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology,' Nature genetics , 2000. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Existing models treat all relations in a KG as part of one single hierarchy, limiting the ability to reason with different types of heterogeneous hierarchical relations.

    “However, existing models treat all relations in a KG as part of one single hierarchy, limiting the ability to reason with different types of heterogeneous hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] [13] M. Nickel and D. Kiela, 'Learning continuous hierarchies in the lorentz model of hyperbolic geometry,' in ICML , 2018. -

      Section 3.3 (p. 4) assumes one unobserved hierarchy for the paper’s own task of inferring concept relationships from pairwise similarities. The Introduction (p. 1) and Related Work (p. 2) do not say that existing knowledge-graph models place all relation types in one hierarchy or that this limits reasoning over heterogeneous hierarchical relations. Searches for those terms and paraphrases found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Preliminaries · p. 3

    Hyperbolic embeddings can naturally capture hierarchical structures.

    “Hyperbolic embeddings can naturally capture hierarchical structures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] [10] M. Nickel and D. Kiela, 'Poincaré embeddings for learning hierarchical representations,' in NeurIPS , 2017. - source
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    Transformations used in MuRP and RotH cannot capture transitive relations, which hierarchical relations naturally are.

    “However, transformations used in MuRP and RotH cannot capture transitive relations which hierarchical relations naturally are.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [15] [15] I. Balazevic, C. S. Allen, and T. Hospedales, 'Multi-relational poincaré graph embeddings,' in NeurIPS , 2019. - source

      The Introduction says MuRP is designed to embed hierarchical multi-relational data, and §5.2 says its results demonstrate an ability to represent multiple hierarchies. The paper therefore makes a contrary point about MuRP rather than saying its transformations cannot capture hierarchical relations. Our copy does not discuss RotH or establish whether its transformations capture transitivity. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [16] [16] I. Chami, A. Wolf, D.-C. Juan, F. Sala, S. Ravi, and C. Ré, 'Low-dimensional hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings,' in ACL , 2020. - source

      The discussion of MuRP says it fails to encode some logical properties, but does not identify transitivity as one of them. Section 5.6 says RotH preserves tree structure, and the paper does not say that RotH cannot capture transitive relations. The specific claim about both models therefore exceeds what the source supports. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: Hierarchical relations are transitive.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Existing methods for hierarchical relations can only be applied to graphs with a single hierarchical relation type and are not suitable for real-world KGs that simultaneously encode multiple hierarchies using many different relations.

    “However, current KG embeddings can model only a single global hierarchy (single global partial ordering) and fail to model multiple heterogeneous hierarchies that exist in a single KG.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
      “These methods can only be applied to graphs with a single hierarchical relation type, and are thus not suitable to real-world knowledge graphs that simultaneously encode multiple hierarchies using many different relations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] [13] M. Nickel and D. Kiela, 'Learning continuous hierarchies in the lorentz model of hyperbolic geometry,' in ICML , 2018. -

      Section 3.3 (p. 4) models the concepts in this paper using one unobserved hierarchy and one partial order. It does not establish that current KG embeddings generally can model only a single hierarchy or fail on KGs with multiple relation types. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    The method in [23] builds upon box embedding and models joint (two) hierarchies using two boxes as entity embeddings.

    “Recently, [23] builds upon the box embedding and further models joint (two) hierarchies using two boxes as entity embeddings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] [23] S. S. Dasgupta, X. Li, M. Boratko, D. Zhang, and A. McCallum, 'Box-to-box transformation for modeling joint hierarchies,' 2021. - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    RotH uses rotation and reflection transformation in n-dimensional Poincaré space to model relational patterns, and achieves state-of-the-art for the KG completion task, especially under low-dimensionality.

    “RotH [16] uses rotation and reflection transformation in n -dimensional Poincaré space to model relational patterns, and achieves state-of-the-art for the KG completion task, especially under low-dimensionality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] [16] I. Chami, A. Wolf, D.-C. Juan, F. Sala, S. Ravi, and C. Ré, 'Low-dimensional hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings,' in ACL , 2020. - source

      The Ablations passage (WN18RR section; page unavailable) defines RotH as a variant using only rotations, while §4.4 assigns the combination of rotations and reflections to AttH. Figure 5(a) reports improved low-dimensional performance for RotH, but §5.2 attributes the low-dimensional improvements over prior methods to AttH. Thus the claim identifies a relevant hyperbolic KG model but incorrectly assigns reflections and the broad state-of-the-art result to RotH. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    MuRP learns relation-specific parameters in the Poincaré ball model.

    “MuRP [15] learns relation-specific parameters in the Poincaré ball model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] [15] I. Balazevic, C. S. Allen, and T. Hospedales, 'Multi-relational poincaré graph embeddings,' in NeurIPS , 2019. - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § D Dataset details and GO21 dataset · p. 17

    WN18RR is a subset of WordNet, which features lexical relationships between word senses.

    “WN18RR is a subset of WordNet [8], which features lexical relationships between word senses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] [8] G. A. Miller, 'Wordnet: a lexical database for english,' Communications of the ACM , 1995. - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § B.3 Space curvature · p. 16

    The reason RotH needs learning space curvature while ConE does not lies in the choice of embedding space: RotH uses a 2d-dimensional hyperbolic space while ConE uses product space of d hyperbolic planes.

    “The reason why RotH [16] needs learning space curvature while ConE does not lie in the choice of embedding space: RotH uses a 2 d -dimensional hyperbolic space while ConE uses product space of d hyperbolic planes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] [16] I. Chami, A. Wolf, D.-C. Juan, F. Sala, S. Ravi, and C. Ré, 'Low-dimensional hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings,' in ACL , 2020. - source

      Section 4.1 says the model learns relation-specific curvature, and Section 5.5 reports that fixed curvature degrades RotH's performance in high dimensions. Section 3.2 describes a single d-dimensional Poincaré ball, but the paper does not discuss ConE or establish that the difference in embedding spaces explains why one model learns curvature and the other does not. Pages are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § G Training details · p. 18

    Self-adversarial training is effective.

    “Self-adversarial training has been proven to be effective in [7]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] [7] Z. Sun, Z.-H. Deng, J.-Y. Nie, and J. Tang, 'Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space,' in ICLR , 2019. - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § D Dataset details and GO21 dataset · p. 17

    GO21 is a biological knowledge graph containing genes, proteins, drugs and diseases as entities, created based on several widely used biological databases.

    “GO21 is a biological knowledge graph containing genes, proteins, drugs and diseases as entities, created based on several widely used biological databases, including Gene Ontology [9], Disgenet [34], CTD [35], UMLS [36], DrugBank [37], ClassyFire [38], MeSH [39] and PPI [40].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [9] [9] A. Michael, A. B. Catherine, A. B. Judith, B. David, B. Heather, C. J Michael, P. D. Allan, D. Kara, S. D. Selina, T. E. Janan, and et al, 'Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology,' Nature genetics , 2000. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [34] [34] J. Piñero, J. M. Ramírez-Anguita, J. Saüch-Pitarch, F. Ronzano, E. Centeno, F. Sanz, and L. I. Furlong, 'The DisGeNET knowledge platform for disease genomics: 2019 update,' Nucleic Acids Research , 2019. - source
    • cites [35] [35] A. P. Davis, C. J. Grondin, R. J. Johnson, D. Sciaky, J. Wiegers, T. C. Wiegers, and C. J. Mattingly, 'Comparative toxicogenomics database (ctd): update 2021,' Nucleic acids research , 2021. - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 3

    ConE performs well on the lowest common ancestor (LCA) prediction task, improving over previous methods by 100% in Hits@3 metric.

    “Moreover, ConE performs well on the lowest common ancestor (LCA) prediction task, improving over previous methods by 100% in Hits@3 metric.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Experiments on standard knowledge graph benchmarks show that ConE obtains state-of-the-art performance on hierarchical reasoning tasks as well as knowledge graph completion task on hierarchical graphs.

    “Experiments on standard knowledge graph benchmarks show that ConE obtains state-of-the-art performance on hierarchical reasoning tasks as well as knowledge graph completion task on hierarchical graphs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    ConE achieves new state-of-the-art results on WN18RR and DDB14, outperforming by 0.9% and 4.5% on Hits@1 metric.

    “On KG completion task, ConE achieves new state-of-the-art results on two benchmark knowledge graph datasets including WN18RR [5, 17], DDB14 [18] (outperforming by 0.9% and 4.5% on Hits@1 metric).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 5 Conclusion · p. 10

    ConE achieves state-of-the-art results on both knowledge graph completion and hierarchical tasks across three hierarchical knowledge graph datasets.

    “and achieves state-of-the-art results on both tasks across three hierarchical knowledge graph datasets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § C Knowledge graph completion results in low dimensions · p. 17

    ConE's performance in low-dimensional setting (d=32) on WN18RR is comparable to other hyperbolic embedding models (MuRP and RotH), while being superior to Euclidean embedding models (RotatE).

    “Our performance is comparable to other hyperbolic embedding models (MuRP and RotH), while being superior to Euclidean embedding models (RotatE).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Learning embeddings in hyperbolic space can model well even in low embedding dimensionalities.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.1 Hierarchical Reasoning: Ancestor-descendant Prediction · p. 9

    ConE can precisely predict lowest common ancestor (LCA), outperforming previous methods by over 100% on Hits@3 and Hits@10 metrics.

    “Results show that ConE can precisely predict LCA, outperforming over 100% on Hits@3 and Hits@10 metrics compared to previous methods”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 Knowledge Graph Completion · p. 10

    Both cone restricted rotation and rotation transformations are critical in predicting missing hierarchical relations.

    “Ablation results suggest that both transformations, i.e., cone restricted rotation and rotation, are critical in predicting missing hierarchical relations (Appendix A.2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § A.2 Ablation studies on transformations in ConE · p. 14

    Both restricted rotation transformation in the relation-specific subspace and rotation transformation in the complement space are indispensable to the performance of ConE on knowledge graph completion task.

    “Empirically, we show that our design of transformations in ConE is effective: both restricted rotation transformation in the relation-specific subspace and the rotation transformation in the complement space are indispensable to the performance of our model on knowledge graph completion task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 Knowledge Graph Completion · p. 10

    ConE performs better than other hierarchical KG embedding models (RotH and MuRP) on FB15k-237 and is comparable to TuckER.

    “We can see that our ConE model still performs better than other hierarchical KG embedding models (RotH and MuRP) on FB15k-237 and is comparable to SOTA model (TuckER).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § B.3 Space curvature · p. 16

    With learning curvature, ConE has (MRR, H@1, H@3, H@10) = (0.485, 0.441, 0.501, 0.570) on WN18RR, lower than original ConE with fixed curvature with (0.496, 0.453, 0.515, 0.579).

    “With learning curvature, ConE has (MRR, H@1, H@3, H@10) = (0.485, 0.441, 0.501, 0.570), on WN18RR benchmark, lower than original ConE with fixed curvature with (MRR, H@1, H@3, H@10) = (0.496, 0.453, 0.515, 0.579).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § B.2 Subspace dimension and angle loss weight · p. 16

    A larger subspace dimension contributes to better performance on hierarchical task, while limiting performance on knowledge graph completion task.

    “We notice a trade-off between two tasks for subspace dimension, where a larger dimension contributes to better performance on hierarchical task, while limiting the performance on knowledge graph completion task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § B.2 Subspace dimension and angle loss weight · p. 16

    With larger angle loss weight w, cone containment constraint is enforced more strictly, and thus performance of ConE on hierarchical task improves.

    “With larger angle loss weight w , cone containment constraint is enforced more strictly, and thus the performance of ConE on hierarchical task improves as shown in Figure 5(a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 Knowledge Graph Completion · p. 10

    ConE performs similar to previous hyperbolic KG embedding baselines in low dimensions but outperforms them in high-dimensional regimes.

    “ConE performs similar to previous hyperbolic KG embedding baselines in low dimensions, but outperforms them in high-dimensional regimes (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § H.2 Hierarchical-ness scores for each relation · p. 21

    All relations are correctly predicted on GO21 dataset.

    “All relations are correctly predicted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § E AUROC results and hierarchy gap studies on ancestor-descendant prediction · p. 17

    The performance trend with AUROC metric is similar to that in Table 2 with mAP metric.

    “It can be seen that the performance trend with AUROC metric is similar to that in Table 2 with mAP metric.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § H.2 Hierarchical-ness scores for each relation · p. 21

    Predictions on DDB14 are correct except three non-hierarchical relations are inferred to be hierarchical relations, while these relations do have soft-hierarchical property.

    “Predictions are correct except three non-hierarchical relations are inferred to be hierarchical relations, while these relations do have soft-hierarchical property.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § D Dataset details and GO21 dataset · p. 17

    More than 60% of all triples in WN18RR characterize hierarchical relationships.

    “More than 60% of all triples characterize hierarchical relationships.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § D Dataset details and GO21 dataset · p. 17

    Among all triples in DDB14, 30% include hierarchical relations.

    “Among all triples in DDB14, 30% include hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § D Dataset details and GO21 dataset · p. 17

    GO21 contains 80k triples, while nearly 35% of which include hierarchical relations.

    “It contains 80k triples, while nearly 35% of which include hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    ConE is the first model that can faithfully model multiple hierarchical as well as non-hierarchical relations in a single embedding framework.

    “To the best of our knowledge, ConE is the first model that can faithfully model multiple hierarchical as well as non-hierarchical relations in a single embedding framework.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Hierarchical relations induce a partial ordering over entities, and modeling this partial ordering is necessary for hierarchical reasoning.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    KG embeddings based on hyperbolic space have shown success in modeling hierarchical knowledge graphs.

    “Recently KG embeddings based on hyperbolic space have shown success in modeling hierarchical knowledge graphs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 3.1 Preliminaries · p. 3

    There may exist multiple heterogeneous hierarchical relations in the same graph, which induce several different potentially incompatible hierarchies over the same set of entities.

    “Note that there may exist multiple (heterogeneous) hierarchical relations in the same graph, which induce several different potentially incompatible hierarchies (i.e., partial orderings) over the same set of entities (Figure 1(a)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    Various KG embedding methods often require high embedding dimensionality to model all the triples.

    “These methods often require high embedding dimensionality to model all the triples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 2 Related Work · p. 3

    Existing embedding-based methods for hierarchical reasoning can only model a single hierarchical relation, and it remains unexplored how to extend them to multiple hierarchical relations in heterogeneous knowledge graphs.

    “However, the limitation of the above works is that they can only model a single hierarchical relation, and it remains unexplored how to extend them to multiple hierarchical relations in heterogeneous knowledge graphs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.3 ConE Model of Heterogeneous Hierarchies · p. 6

    Cone containment constraint, while ensuring hierarchical structure by geometric entailment, limits the set of possible rotation transformations and thus limits the model's expressive power.

    “Cone containment constraint, while ensuring hierarchical structure by geometric entailment, limits the set of possible rotation transformations and thus limits the model's expressive power.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § A.2.1 Ablation study on restricted rotation transformation · p. 14

    Restricted rotation transformation is vital in enforcing cone containment constraint, and thus it is indispensable to ConE's performance on hierarchical tasks.

    “Restricted rotation transformation is vital in enforcing cone containment constraint, and thus it is indispensable to ConE's performance on hierarchical tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A Theoretical and empirical evidence for ConE's design choice · p. 13

    Both rotation transformation and restricted transformation play a crucial role in the expressiveness of ConE.

    “both rotation transformation and restricted transformation play a crucial role to the expressiveness of the model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § 4.2 Knowledge Graph Completion · p. 10

    The standard evaluation setting [5] was followed for knowledge graph completion.

    “We follow the standard evaluation setting [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] [5] A. Bordes, N. Usunier, A. Garcia-Duran, J. Weston, and O. Yakhnenko, 'Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data,' in NeurIPS , 2013. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 3.2 ConE Embedding Space and Transformations · p. 6

    The rotation transformation in Eq. 10 is expressive: It can model relation patterns including symmetry, anti-symmetry, inversion, and composition.

    “We also show that the rotation transformation in Eq. 10 is expressive: It can model relation patterns including symmetry, anti-symmetry, inversion, and composition (Appendix A.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § B.3 Space curvature · p. 16

    ConE's embedding space is less sensitive to its curvature because for every subspace, the hierarchical structure for the corresponding single relation is less complex than the entire hierarchy, and can thus be robust to choices of curvatures.

    “Our embedding space is less sensitive to its curvature, since for every subspace, the hierarchical structure for the corresponding single relation is less complex (than the entire hierarchy), and can thus be robust to choices of curvatures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 4.1 Hierarchical Reasoning: Ancestor-descendant Prediction · p. 9

    Comprehensive hyperparameter search was performed for all baselines.

    “We also perform comprehensive hyperparameter search for all baselines (Appendix G).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.4 ConE Loss Function · p. 8

    Different test sets were created that get harder as they contain more inferred descendant pairs (0%, 50%, 100%).

    “We create different test sets that get harder as they contain more and more test cases (0%, 50%, 100%) of inferred descendant pairs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The test setting with a higher fraction of inferred descendant pairs is harder.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4.2 Knowledge Graph Completion · p. 10

    ConE provides the most accurate predictions, as indicated by larger margins on Hits@1 and Hits@3 than Hits@10.

    “indicating that our model provides the most accurate predictions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 ConE Model of Heterogeneous Hierarchies · p. 7

    Overlapping subspaces allow the model to perform well and enable it to scale to knowledge graphs with a large number of relations.

    “Overlapping subspaces (Appendix B) allow the model to perform well and enable it to scale to knowledge graphs with a large number of relations, since there are exponentially many possible overlapping subspaces that can potentially correspond to different hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 Hierarchical Reasoning: Ancestor-descendant Prediction · p. 9

    KG embedding models cannot perform well on the ancestor-descendant prediction task because they do not explicitly model the partial ordering property of hierarchical relations.

    “As we expected, KGembedding models cannot perform well on this task (in the range of 0 . 5 ∼ 0 . 6 across all settings), since they do not explicitly model the partial ordering property of the hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: KG embedding models do not explicitly model the partial ordering property of hierarchical relations.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 4 Experiments · p. 8

    A single trained model (without fine-tuning) was used for all evaluation tasks.

    “We use a single trained model (without fine-tuning) for all evaluation tasks”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 4.1 Hierarchical Reasoning: Ancestor-descendant Prediction · p. 9

    The experiment controls the model size by enforcing that in baselines, the sum of embedding dimensions of all relations equals the relation embedding dimension of ConE.

    “To ensure that the experiment controls the model size, we enforce that in baselines, the sum of embedding dimensions of all relations is equal to the relation embedding dimension of ConE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § B.1 Overlapping subspaces and orthogonal subspaces · p. 15

    Using overlapping subspaces does not suffer from the limitation of subspace dimension, whereas for orthogonal subspaces the subspace dimension can be at most d/n where n is the number of hierarchical relations.

    “The most significant advantage for using overlapping subspaces is that it does not suffer from limitation of subspace dimension, while for orthogonal subspaces the subspace dimension can be at most d/n where n is the number of hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4.2 Knowledge Graph Completion · p. 10

    ConE can scale to a large number of relations and has competitive performance even in non-hierarchical knowledge graphs.

    “Overall, this shows that ConE can scale to a large number of relations, and that it has competitive performance even in non-hierarchical knowledge graphs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 Hierarchical Reasoning: Ancestor-descendant Prediction · p. 9

    ConE simultaneously captures heterogeneous relation modeling and partial ordering.

    “As a result, ConE simultaneously captures the heterogeneous relation modeling and partial ordering, combining the best of both worlds.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 ConE Embedding Space and Transformations · p. 5

    ConE's embedding space is critical in modeling ancestor-descendant relationships for heterogeneous KGs, since it is more natural when allocating its subspaces to heterogeneous hierarchical relations.

    “ConE's embedding space is critical in modeling ancestor-descendant relationships for heterogeneous KGs, since it is more natural when allocating its subspaces (product space of multiple hyperbolic planes) to heterogeneous hierarchical relations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given
    § D Dataset details and GO21 dataset · p. 17

    DDB14 is collected from Disease Database, which contains terminologies including diseases, drugs, and their relationships.

    “DDB14 is collected from Disease Database, which contains terminologies including diseases, drugs, and their relationships.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § H.1 Krackhardt score for the whole graph · p. 19

    Each Krackhardt score ranges from 0 to 1, and higher scores mean more hierarchical.

    “Each score range from 0 to 1, and higher scores mean more hierarchical.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] [29] D. Krackhardt, 'Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations,' Computational organization theory , 1994. - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § G Training details · p. 19

    On ancestor-descendant classification task, ConE model has standard deviation less than 0.01 on mAP metric across all datasets.

    “On ancestor-descendant classification task, ConE model has standard deviation less than 0.01 on mAP metric across all datasets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § H.1 Krackhardt score for the whole graph · p. 19

    When all four Krackhardt scores equal 1, the digraph is a tree, normally considered as the most hierarchical structure.

    “When all four scores equal to 1, the digraph is a tree, normally considered as the most hierarchical structure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] [29] D. Krackhardt, 'Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations,' Computational organization theory , 1994. - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § G Training details · p. 18

    Standard evaluation metrics including MRR, Hits@N are calculated in the filtered setting where all true triples are filtered out during ranking.

    “Standard evaluation metrics including Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR), Hits at N (H@N) are calculated in the filtered setting where all true triples are filtered out during ranking.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § F Hierarchical analysis: LCA prediction · p. 18

    Only ConE model is able to do both (model partial ordering and have expressive embedding space for LCA).

    “Only our ConE model is able to do both.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § G Training details · p. 19

    On knowledge graph completion task, ConE model has standard deviation less than 0.001 on MRR metric across all datasets.

    “On knowledge graph completion task, ConE model has standard deviation less than 0.001 on MRR metric across all datasets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § H.1 Krackhardt score for the whole graph · p. 19

    The paper [29] proposes a set of scores to measure how hierarchical a graph is, including four scores: connectedness, hierarchy, efficiency, LUBedness.

    “The paper [29] proposes a set of scores to measure how hierarchical a graph is. It includes four scores: (connectedness, hierarchy, efficiency, LUBedness) .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] [29] D. Krackhardt, 'Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations,' Computational organization theory , 1994. - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § F Hierarchical analysis: LCA prediction · p. 18

    The LCA task requires (1) the modeling of partial ordering for ancestor-descendant relation prediction and (2) an expressive embedding space for distinguishing the lowest ancestor.

    “the task requires (1) the modeling of partial ordering for ancestor-descendant relation prediction and (2) an expressive embedding space for distinguishing the lowest ancestor.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § G Training details · p. 19

    For all baselines, comprehensive hyperparameter search was performed.

    “For all baselines mentioned in our work, we also perform comprehensive hyperparameter search.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
60 of 60

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hierarchical relations induce a partial ordering over entities, and modeling this partial ordering is necessary for hierarchical reasoning.

    “The key property of hierarchical relations is that they induce a partial ordering over the entities, which needs to be modeled in order to allow for hierarchical reasoning.”
    “Each hierarchical relation induces a partial ordering over the entities.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hierarchical relations are transitive.

    “they cannot model transitivity of hierarchical relations: if there exist relations ( h 1 , r, h 2 ) and ( h 2 , r, h 3 ) , then ( h 1 , r, h 3 ) exists”
    “hierarchical relations naturally are.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The relation type is given a priori.

    “For ease of discussion let's assume that the relation type is given a priori .”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hierarchical structure in KGs is characterized by very few top-level nodes and a vast number of bottom-level nodes.

    “Such hierarchical structure is characterized by very few top-level nodes corresponding to general and abstract concepts and a vast number of bottom-level nodes corresponding to concrete instances or components of the concept.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    High-level nodes usually have more descendants presented in training data.

    “since high-level nodes usually have more descendants presented in training data.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The test setting with a higher fraction of inferred descendant pairs is harder.

    “the setting with a higher fraction is harder.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    KG embedding models do not explicitly model the partial ordering property of hierarchical relations.

    “since they do not explicitly model the partial ordering property of the hierarchical relations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A bias during learning is prevalent in baseline models.

    “the bias during learning that is prevalent in baseline models”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The effect of restricted rotation transformation on knowledge graph completion task was unknown.

    “However, its effect on knowledge graph completion task remains unknown.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Learning embeddings in hyperbolic space can model well even in low embedding dimensionalities.

    “One of the main benefits of learning embeddings in hyperbolic space is that it can model well even in low embedding dimensionalities.”
10 of 10

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.

  • GO21 triple count differs by nearly a factor of ten

    Minor

    The dataset description says GO21 contains 80k triples, whereas Table 1 lists 796,136 training triples alone.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [5][5] A. Bordes, N. Usunier, A. Garcia-Duran, J. Weston, and O. Yakhnenko, 'Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data,' in NeurIPS , 2013. -
  2. [21][21] X. Li, L. Vilnis, D. Zhang, M. Boratko, and A. McCallum, 'Smoothing the geometry of probabilistic box embeddings,' in ICLR , 2018. -
  3. [30][30] A. Gu, F. Sala, B. Gunel, and C. Ré, 'Learning mixed-curvature representations in product spaces,' in ICLR , 2018. -
  4. [39][39] E. L. Carolyn, 'Medical subject headings (mesh),' Bulletin of the Medical Library Association , 2000. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bai, Y., Ying, R., Ren, H., & Leskovec, J.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2110.14923
arXiv
2110.14923
OpenAlex
W3210423603
Cited by
31
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1934578, 1835598, 1918940, 2030477)
  • Nvidia
  • Masason Foundation
  • UnitedHealth Group
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR00112190039, N660011924033)
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R56LM013365)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-16-1-0342, W911NF-16-1-, W911NF)
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 embedding, hierarchical relations, partial ordering, hierarchical reasoning, knowledge graph completion, cones

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by 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