PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rethinking Language Models as Symbolic Knowledge Graphs

Mruthyunjaya, Vishwas, Pezeshkpour, Pouya, Hruschka, Estevam, Bhutani, Nikita·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Symbolic knowledge graphs (KGs) play a pivotal role in knowledge-centric applications such as search, question answering and recommendation. As contemporary language models (LMs) trained on extensive textual data have gained prominence, researchers have extensively explored whether the parametric knowledge within these models can match up to that present in knowledge graphs. Various methodologies have indicated that enhancing the size of the model or the volume of training data enhances its capacity to retrieve symbolic knowledge, often with minimal or no human supervision. Despite these advancements, there is a void in comprehensively evaluating whether LMs can encompass the intricate topological and semantic attributes of KGs, attributes crucial for reasoning processes. In this work, we provide an exhaustive evaluation of language models of varying sizes and capabilities. We construct nine qualitative benchmarks that encompass a spectrum of attributes including symmetry, asymmetry, hierarchy, bidirectionality, compositionality, paths, entity-centricity, bias and ambiguity. Additionally, we propose novel evaluation metrics tailored for each of these attributes. Our extensive evaluation of various LMs shows that while these models exhibit considerable potential in recalling factual information, their ability to capture intricate topological and semantic traits of KGs remains significantly constrained. We note that our proposed evaluation metrics are more reliable in evaluating these abilities than the existing metrics. Lastly, some of our benchmarks challenge the common notion that larger LMs (e.g., GPT-4) universally outshine their smaller counterparts (e.g., BERT).

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.2308.13676

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Dimitrios Alivanistos, Selene Báez Santamaría, Michael Cochez, Jan-Christoph Kalo, Emile van Krieken, and Thiviyan Thanapalasingam. 2022. Prompting as probing: Using language models for knowledge base construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11057 (2022). · arXiv
  2. S. Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary G. Ives. 2007. DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. In Proc. ISWC/ASWC 2007. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7278297
  3. Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proc. SIGMOD 2008. 1247-1250.
  4. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877-1901.
  5. Anthony Chen, Pallavi Gudipati, Shayne Longpre, Xiao Ling, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Evaluating Entity Disambiguation and the Role of Popularity in Retrieval- Based NLP. In Proc. ACL-IJCNLP 2021. 4472-4485.
  6. Roi Cohen, Mor Geva, Jonathan Berant, and Amir Globerson. 2023. Crawling The Internal Knowledge-Base of Language Models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023. 1811-1824.
  7. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mor- datch. 2023. Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325 (2023). · arXiv
  8. Hady Elsahar, Pavlos Vougiouklis, Arslen Remaci, Christophe Gravier, Jonathon Hare, Frederique Laforest, and Elena Simperl. 2018. T-rex: A large scale alignment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In Proc. LREC 2018.
  9. Deep Ganguli, Liane Lovitt, Jackson Kernion, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Ben Mann, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Kamal Ndousse, et al. 2022. Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07858 (2022). · arXiv
  10. Shibo Hao, Bowen Tan, Kaiwen Tang, Bin Ni, Xiyan Shao, Hengzhe Zhang, Eric Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2023. BertNet: Harvesting Knowledge Graphs with Arbitrary Relations from Pretrained Language Models. In Findings of ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto, Canada, 5000-5015. https: //doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.309 · DOI
  11. Benjamin Heinzerling and Kentaro Inui. 2021. Language Models as Knowledge Bases: On Entity Representations, Storage Capacity, and Paraphrased Queries. In Proc. EACL 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 1772-1791. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.153 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. Comput. Surveys 55, 12 (2023), 1-38.
  13. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning. In Proc. EMNLP 2021. 3045-3059.
  14. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation. In Proc. ACL-IJCNLP 2021. 4582-4597.
  15. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. GPT understands, too. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385 (2021). · arXiv
  16. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019). · arXiv
  17. Rahul Nadkarni, David Wadden, Iz Beltagy, Noah A Smith, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Tom Hope. 2021. Scientific language models for biomedical knowledge base completion: an empirical study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09700 (2021). · arXiv
  18. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023). · arXiv
  19. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 27730-27744.
  20. Guanghui Qin and Jason Eisner. 2021. Learning How to Ask: Querying LMs with Mixtures of Soft Prompts. In Proc. NAACL 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 5203-5212. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.410 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 21, 1 (2020), 5485-5551.
  22. Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How Much Knowledge Can You Pack Into the Parameters of a Language Model?. In Proc. EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 5418-5426. https://doi.org/ 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.437 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Tara Safavi and Danai Koutra. 2021. Relational world knowledge representation in contextual language models: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05837 (2021). · arXiv
  24. Bahareh Sarrafzadeh and Edward Lank. 2017. Improving Exploratory Search Experience through Hierarchical Knowledge Graphs. Proc. ACM SIGIR 2017 (2017). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:24547416
  25. Apoorv Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proc. ACL 2020. 4498-4507.
  26. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Prompts. In Proc. EMNLP 2020. 4222-4235.
  27. Priyansh Trivedi, Gaurav Maheshwari, Mohnish Dubey, and Jens Lehmann. 2017. Lc-quad: A corpus for complex question answering over knowledge graphs. In Proc. ISWC 2017. Springer, 210-218.
  28. Blerta Veseli, Sneha Singhania, Simon Razniewski, and Gerhard Weikum. 2023. Evaluating Language Models for Knowledge Base Completion. In Proc. ESWC 2023. Springer, 227-243.
  29. Denny Vrandečić and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM 57, 10 (2014), 78-85.
  30. Ruobing Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, et al. 2016. Representation learning of knowledge graphs with hierarchical types.. In Proc. IJCAI 2016, Vol. 2016. 2965-2971.
  31. Wenhan Xiong, Thien Hoang, and William Yang Wang. 2017. Deeppath: A reinforcement learning method for knowledge graph reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06690 (2017). · arXiv
  32. Zhanqiu Zhang, Jianyu Cai, Yongdong Zhang, and Jie Wang. 2020. Learning hierarchy-aware knowledge graph embeddings for link prediction. In Proc. AAAI 2020, Vol. 34. 3065-3072.
  33. Zexuan Zhong, Dan Friedman, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Factual Probing Is [MASK]: Learning vs. Learning to Recall. In Proc. NAACL 2021. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Online, 5017-5033. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl- main.398 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Zhaocheng Zhu, Mikhail Galkin, Zuobai Zhang, and Jian Tang. 2022. Neural- symbolic models for logical queries on knowledge graphs. In Proc. ICML 2022. PMLR, 27454-27478.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Mruthyunjaya, V., Pezeshkpour, P., Hruschka, E., & Bhutani, N.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
References
1
Type
Preprint

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