CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

TwiRGCN: Temporally Weighted Graph Convolution for Question Answering over Temporal Knowledge Graphs

Sharma, Aditya, Saxena, Apoorv, Gupta, Chitrank, Kazemi, Seyed Mehran, Talukdar, Partha, Chakrabarti, Soumen·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2210.06281arXiv 2210.06281
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed much interest in temporal reasoning over knowledge graphs (KG) for complex question answering (QA), but there remains a substantial gap in human capabilities. We explore how to generalize relational graph convolutional networks (RGCN) for temporal KGQA. Specifically, we propose a novel, intuitive and interpretable scheme to modulate the messages passed through a KG edge during convolution, based on the relevance of its associated time period to the question. We also introduce a gating device to predict if the answer to a complex temporal question is likely to be a KG entity or time and use this prediction to guide our scoring mechanism. We evaluate the resulting system, which we call TwiRGCN, on TimeQuestions, a recently released, challenging dataset for multi-hop complex temporal QA. We show that TwiRGCN significantly outperforms state-of-the-art systems on this dataset across diverse question types. Notably, TwiRGCN improves accuracy by 9--10 percentage points for the most difficult ordinal and implicit question types.

Overview

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.2210.06281

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 An illustrative example of how our temporal gating described in Section 4.2 modulated the incoming graph convolution messages for one node depending on the time period of interest for the question. The thickness of an edge here is proportional to the value of the temporal edge weight m ( e ) tq for that edge. In this example, the entities Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman , who were presidents during WW2 [1939 , 1945] get the top two highest weights, while Woodrow Wilson , who was president during WW1 [1914 , 1918] gets a smaller edge weight. In contrast, Bill Clinton , whose time period is unrelated to the question, gets a much lower edge weight. Thus, contributing very little to the convolution update of the 'President of the US' node.
Figure 1 An illustrative example of how our temporal gating described in Section 4.2 modulated the incoming graph convolution messages for one node depending on the time period of interest for the question. The thickness of an edge here is proportional to the value of the temporal edge weight m ( e ) tq for that edge. In this example, the entities Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman , who were presidents during WW2 [1939 , 1945] get the top two highest weights, while Woodrow Wilson , who was president during WW1 [1914 , 1918] gets a smaller edge weight. In contrast, Bill Clinton , whose time period is unrelated to the question, gets a much lower edge weight. Thus, contributing very little to the convolution update of the 'President of the US' node.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Left: Shows temporally weighted convolutional message passing described in Section 4.2 happening across a subgraph G q for one layer. For the same, we get question-dependent temporal edge weights m ( e ) tq using question time , q t (described in 4.3). Right: As discussed in Section 4.2, embeddings are propagated in the subgraph G q for a fixed number of layers ( L ) and hidden units of the final layer are pooled to get entity prediction, h vq . We get time prediction, h tq , by pooling the updated embeddings for all unique times in G q .
Figure 2 Left: Shows temporally weighted convolutional message passing described in Section 4.2 happening across a subgraph G q for one layer. For the same, we get question-dependent temporal edge weights m ( e ) tq using question time , q t (described in 4.3). Right: As discussed in Section 4.2, embeddings are propagated in the subgraph G q for a fixed number of layers ( L ) and hidden units of the final layer are pooled to get entity prediction, h vq . We get time prediction, h tq , by pooling the updated embeddings for all unique times in G q .CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Predicting the answer based on gating entity prediction ( h vq ) and time prediction ( h tq ) of a subgraph G q based on the likelihood that the answer is either an entity ( p vq ) or time ( p tq ) given question q , respectively. Details in Section 4.4.
Figure 3 Predicting the answer based on gating entity prediction ( h vq ) and time prediction ( h tq ) of a subgraph G q based on the likelihood that the answer is either an entity ( p vq ) or time ( p tq ) given question q , respectively. Details in Section 4.4.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Venn diagrams for the prediction overlap of EXAQT, ground truth and our best model for each category. As described in Section 5.4, for Explicit, Implicit, and Ordinal question types TwiRGCN gives the right answers for most questions that EXAQT answers correctly, while correctly answering a much larger set that EXAQT gets wrong.
Figure 4 Venn diagrams for the prediction overlap of EXAQT, ground truth and our best model for each category. As described in Section 5.4, for Explicit, Implicit, and Ordinal question types TwiRGCN gives the right answers for most questions that EXAQT answers correctly, while correctly answering a much larger set that EXAQT gets wrong.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Venn diagrams for the prediction overlap of EXAQT, ground truth, and our two models TwiRGCN (average) in (a) and TwiRGCN (interval) in (b), as discussed in Appendix A.1.
Figure 5 Venn diagrams for the prediction overlap of EXAQT, ground truth, and our two models TwiRGCN (average) in (a) and TwiRGCN (interval) in (b), as discussed in Appendix A.1.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Mohamed Yahya, and Gerhard Weikum. 2019. ComQA: A community-sourced dataset for complex factoid ques- tion answering with paraphrase clusters. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 307-317, Min- neapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  2. Junwei Bao, Nan Duan, Zhao Yan, Ming Zhou, and Tiejun Zhao. 2016. Constraint-based question an- swering with knowledge graph. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 2503-2514, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Orga- nizing Committee.
  3. 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 Lan- guage Processing, pages 1533-1544, Seattle, Wash- ington, USA. Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  4. Nikita Bhutani, Xinyi Zheng, and HV Jagadish. 2019. Learning to answer complex questions over knowl- edge bases with query composition. In CIKM.
  5. Qingqing Cai and Alexander Yates. 2013. Large-scale semantic parsing via schema matching and lexicon extension. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 423-433.
  6. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  7. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Mohnish Dubey, Debayan Banerjee, Abdelrahman Ab- delkawi, and Jens Lehmann. 2019. Lc-quad 2.0: A large dataset for complex question answering over wikidata and dbpedia. In The Semantic Web-ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, October 26-30, 2019, Pro- ceedings, Part II, pages 69-78.
  9. Prachi Jain, Sushant Rathi, Soumen Chakrabarti, et al. 2020. Temporal knowledge base completion: New algorithms and evaluation protocols. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.05035. · arXiv
  10. Zhen Jia, Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Jan- nik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018a. Tem- pquestions: A benchmark for temporal question an- swering. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, WWW '18, page 1057-1062, Re- public and Canton of Geneva, CHE. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. · DOI
  11. Zhen Jia, Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Jan- nik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018b. Tequila: Temporal question answering over knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Con- ference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '18, page 1807-1810, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI
  12. Zhen Jia, Soumajit Pramanik, Rishiraj Saha Roy, and Gerhard Weikum. 2021. Complex temporal question answering on knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Informa- tion & Knowledge Management, pages 792-802.
  13. Kangqi Luo, Fengli Lin, Xusheng Luo, and Kenny Zhu. 2018. Knowledge base question answering via encod- ing of complex query graphs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2185-2194, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  14. Soumajit Pramanik, Jesujoba Alabi, Rishiraj Saha Roy, and Gerhard Weikum. 2021. UNIQORN: Unified Question Answering over RDF Knowledge Graphs and Natural Language Text. In arXiv.
  15. Apoorv Saxena, Soumen Chakrabarti, and Partha Taluk- dar. 2021. Question answering over temporal knowl- edge graphs. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6663-6676, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Apoorv Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, pages 4498- 4507, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  17. Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolu- tional networks. In European semantic web confer- ence, pages 593-607. Springer.
  18. Chao Shang, Guangtao Wang, Peng Qi, and Jing Huang. 2022. Improving time sensitivity for question answer- ing over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8017-8026, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  19. Yu Su, Huan Sun, Brian Sadler, Mudhakar Srivatsa, Izzeddin Gür, Zenghui Yan, and Xifeng Yan. 2016. On generating characteristic-rich question sets for qa evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 562-572.
  20. Haitian Sun, Tania Bedrax-Weiss, and William Cohen. 2019. PullNet: Open domain question answering with iterative retrieval on knowledge bases and text. In EMNLP-IJCNLP.
  21. Haitian Sun, Bhuwan Dhingra, Manzil Zaheer, Kathryn Mazaitis, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and William Cohen. 2018. Open domain question answering using early fusion of knowledge bases and text. In EMNLP.
  22. Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 641-651, New Or- leans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Komal Teru, Etienne Denis, and Will Hamilton. 2020. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 9448-9457.
  24. PMLR.
  25. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Sharma, A., Saxena, A., Gupta, C., Kazemi, S. M., Talukdar, P., & Chakrabarti, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2210.06281
arXiv
2210.06281
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: TwiRGCN: Temporally Weighted Graph Convolution for Question Answering over Temporal Knowledge Graphs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2210.06281
The paper
Sharma, A., Saxena, A., Gupta, C., Kazemi, S. M., Talukdar, P., & Chakrabarti, S. (2022). TwiRGCN: Temporally Weighted Graph Convolution for Question Answering over Temporal Knowledge Graphs. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2210.06281