On the Evolution of Knowledge Graphs: A Survey and Perspective

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Most knowledge graphs reviewed in the paper suffer from incompleteness, and this severely limits the metric of KG application to downstream tasks.

“In addition, most KGs reviewed in this paper are suffering from the problem of incompleteness, and it severely limits the metric of KG application to downstream tasks.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Experimental results illustrate the effectiveness of LLM-based methods in DKGR.

“Experimental results illustrate the effectiveness of LLM-based methods in DKGR.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Early work on knowledge graph reasoning mainly focused on static knowledge graph reasoning.

“Early work on KGR mainly focus on SKGR.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Knowledge graph reasoning techniques have evolved from static learning methods to temporal learning methods.

“With the development of KGs, KGR techniques have also evolved from static learning methods to temporal learning methods.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Large language models incorporating knowledge graph information show promise for knowledge graph reasoning tasks, capturing rich semantic information and leveraging pre-trained knowledge.

“In conclusion, large language models incorporating knowledge graph information show promise for knowledge graph reasoning tasks, capturing rich semantic information and leveraging pre-trained knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

GNN-based methods for knowledge graph reasoning can effectively capture local graph structure and complex relationships, making them a suitable choice for various applications.

“In conclusion, GNN-based methods for knowledge graph reasoning can effectively capture local graph structure and complex relationships, making them a suitable choice for various applications.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Translation-based methods face difficulties in modeling complex relationships and handling noisy or incomplete data.

“However, they face difficulties in modeling complex relationships and handling noisy or incomplete data.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Multiple works have subsequently been proposed for dynamic knowledge graph reasoning and temporal knowledge graph reasoning.

“To this end, multiple works are subsequently proposed for DKGR and TKGR.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

GNN-based methods may face challenges related to scalability, over-smoothing, computational complexity, and parameter tuning.

“However, they may face challenges related to scalability, over-smoothing, computational complexity, and parameter tuning.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Translation-based methods for knowledge graph reasoning are simple, computationally efficient, and scalable, making them suitable for a wide range of applications.

“In conclusion, Translation-based methods for knowledge graph reasoning are simple, computationally efficient, and scalable, making them suitable for a wide range of applications.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Static knowledge graph reasoning methods based on neural network models suffer from interpretability and reliability problems and cannot be adopted in some real-world scenarios such as medical, finance, and military, which have high reliability demands.

“The above static knowledge graph reasoning method all based on neural network models, which suffer the interpretable and unreliable problems, and can not be adopted in some real-world scenarios such as medical, finance, and military which have high reliability demands.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Large language model-based methods may face challenges related to scalability, memory limitations, computational complexity, and prompt design.

“However, they may face challenges related to scalability, memory limitations, computational complexity, and prompt design.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Existing KGs face challenges in unifying different granularities and types of knowledge and modeling their interactions, with RDF/OWL-based knowledge modeling being overly complex and prone to redundancy in rapidly evolving scenarios.

“the demand for a representation that supports continuous business iteration while effectively avoiding combinatorial explosion and redundant construction, challenges the existing KGs in unifying different granularities and types of knowledge and modeling their interactions, with RDF/OWL-based knowledge modeling being overly complex and prone to redundancy in rapidly evolving scenarios”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Event-centric knowledge is updated very quickly, and it is difficult for LLMs to learn from constant addition of new event-centric knowledge.

“Moreover, event-centric knowledge is updated very quickly, and it is difficult for LLMs to learn from the constant addition of new event-centric knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Integration of financial KGs with LLMs enhances LLMs' ability to perform financial domain tasks and allows fact-consistency checks ensuring factual accuracy of LLM-generated content.

“This integration not only enhances the ability of LLMs to perform tasks in the financial domain but also allows for fact-consistency checks, ensuring the factual accuracy of the content generated by LLMs.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

KGs express semantic information of entities by recording their types, attributes, descriptions, and relations between them.

“KGs express the semantic information of entities by recording their types, attributes, and descriptions, as well as relations between them.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Current KGs cannot effectively handle and directly compute numerical knowledge.

“ineffective handling and direct computation of numerical knowledge through KGs”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

With formal evolution of KGs, knowledge reasoning techniques for DKGs and TKGs have received more attention but still remain to be improved.

“With the formal evolution of KGs, knowledge reasoning techniques for DKGs and TKGs have received more attention, but still remain to be improved.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Some follow-up works propose various automatic prompt generation methods to further improve probing performances of LLMs.

“Moreover, some follow-up works propose various automatic prompt generation methods to further improve probing performances of LLMs [189], [190], [191], [192], [193].”

• cites [189]Not matched

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

• cites [190]Not matched

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

• cites [191]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

TKGs tend to have longer time scopes and factual knowledge in TKGs is much more time-sensitive.

“Relatively, TKGs tend to have longer time scopes and the factual knowledge in TKGs is much more time-sensitive.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Lack of flexibility: storage structure and query method of a KG are relatively fixed, difficult to adapt to various data structures and query requirements.

“Lack of flexibility: The storage structure and query method of a KG are relatively fixed, and it is difficult to adapt to various data structures and query requirements.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Both KGs and LLMs can be used as knowledge sources for downstream applications, e.g., question answering.

“both of them can be used as knowledge sources for downstream applications, e.g., question answering.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In healthcare, KGs amalgamate patient records, medical literature, and drug information, enabling enhanced diagnosis, smart treatments, and drug discovery.

“Knowledge graphs amalgamate patient records, medical literature, and drug information, paving the way for enhanced diagnosis, smart treatments, and drug discovery by elucidating relationships between diseases, symptoms, medications, and patient histories.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Some LLMs and large-scale KGs use the same data sources.

“Some LLMs and large-scale KGs even use the same data sources.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Event-driven quantitative investment formulates investment strategies based on relationships and patterns identified within KGs.

“One practical application of this is event-driven quantitative investment, where investment strategies are formulated based on the relationships and patterns identified within the KGs.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

KGs and LLMs have different representation forms to store knowledge and different ways of performing knowledge reasoning.

“In addition to their respective limitations, KGs and LLMs have different representation forms to store knowledge and different ways of performing knowledge reasoning.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Training LLMs requires large amounts of textual data, often obtained from publicly available Internet websites.

“The training of LLMs requires large amounts of textual data, which are often obtained from publicly available Internet websites.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

One of the main advantages of KGs is their explainability; it is easier to know how answers are inferred over a KG.

“Meanwhile, one of the main advantages of KGs is their explainability.It would be easier to know how the answers are inferred over a KG.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs are black-box models in nature; it is difficult to know the basis of answers and reasoning process.

“LLM vs SKG: LLMs are black-box models in nature.It is difficult to know the basis of the answers given by an LLM and the corresponding reasoning process.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

An SKG will give a consistent answer to a query no matter how many times this query is performed.

“Moreover, regardless of knowledge updating and revision, an SKG will give a consistent answer to a query no matter how many times this query is performed.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The largest GPT3 model has a parametric count of 175B and costs 10 million dollars for a single training session.

“For example, the largest GPT3 model [196] has a parametric count of 175B and costs 10 million dollars for a single training session.”

• cites [196]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Recent advances have prompted a shift from SKGs to more dynamic structures like DKGs and TKGs.

“Recent advances have prompted a shift from SKGs to more dynamic structures like DKGs and TKGs, aiming to accurately represent and reason over the dynamic nature of real-world knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The application of static and temporal logical rules to KG reasoning tasks remains an open avenue for exploration.

“Yet, the application of static and temporal logical rules to KG reasoning tasks remains an open avenue for exploration.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Some LLMs can further improve their performances on open-domain QA after fine-tuning.

“Some literature shows that such LLMs can further improve their performances on opendomain QA after fine-tuning [194].”

• cites [194]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Financial information extraction targets financial entities, relatively stable concepts, dynamically evolving knowledge, temporal information, and financial events.

“In this context, information extraction targets various elements, including financial entities (e.g., stocks, bonds, corporations), relatively stable concepts (e.g., market indices, financial instruments), dynamically evolving knowledge (e.g., stock prices, economic indicators), temporal information (e.g., trade dates), and financial events (e.g., mergers, acquisitions, dividends announcements).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Reasoning techniques for DKGs and TKGs are still nascent, with temporal knowledge completion and extrapolation emerging as notable endeavors.

“However, reasoning techniques for DKGs and TKGs are still nascent, with temporal knowledge completion and extrapolation emerging as notable endeavors.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Dynamically updated financial KGs can keep LLMs current with real-time financial knowledge.

“Through dynamically updated financial knowledge graphs, LLMs can be kept current with real-time financial knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Wikipedia is the most important training corpus for many LLMs like BERT and also the main data source for general KGs, e.g., DBpedia and YAGO.

“For example, Wikipedia is the most important training corpus for a lot of LLMs like BERT, and also the main data source for general KGs, e.g., DBpedia, and YAGO.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In legal domain, KGs consolidate statutes, case law, and legal doctrines, aiding legal research, case preparation, and regulatory compliance.

“In the legal domain, knowledge graphs consolidate statutes, case law, and legal doctrines, aiding in legal research, case preparation, and regulatory compliance by structuring and analyzing the relationships between different legal entities and concepts.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs are trained on large text corpora via self-supervised learning and may not have access to structured data that can help them learn about event temporal relations.

“This is because LLMs are trained on large text corpora via self-supervised learning methods and may not have access to structured data that can help them learn about event temporal relations [198].”

• cites [198]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Some existing works have demonstrated substantial improvements in static knowledge graph reasoning tasks by applying first-order logical rules.

“Some existing works have demonstrated substantial improvements in static knowledge graph reasoning tasks by applying first-order logical rules.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs are trained on text data to obtain character-level or word-level embeddings of entities, which can represent semantics of entities.

“On the other hand, LLMs are trained on text data to obtain character-level embeddings or word-level embeddings of entities, which can also represent the semantics of entities.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Current KGs cannot directly and accurately model higher-order logic knowledge or apply it in higher-order knowledge reasoning.

“the inability to directly and accurately model higher-order logic knowledge and apply it in higher-order knowledge reasoning”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Both KGs and LLMs have data sources from massive amounts of unstructured data.

“both of their data sources come from massive amounts of unstructured data”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Research on knowledge reasoning in SKGs, DKGs, and TKGs has attracted widespread interest.

“In recent years, research on knowledge reasoning in SKGs, DKGs, and TKGs has attracted widespread interest.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

KGs have widespread applications beyond finance, notably in healthcare, transportation, retail, manufacturing, legal, and personalized services.

“Knowledge graphs have widespread applications beyond finance, notably in healthcare, transportation, retail, manufacturing, legal, and personalized services.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Existing knowledge reasoning techniques mainly focus on SKGs.

“The existing knowledge reasoning techniques mainly focus on SKGs.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Neural-symbolic knowledge reasoning remains to be explored.

“Besides, neural-symbolic knowledge reasoning also remains to be explored.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Financial KGs integrated with LLMs enable intelligent QA systems tailored for finance.

“Financial knowledge graphs can also be integrated with large language models to enable intelligent QA systems tailored for the finance sector.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Previous studies have shown that masking/natural language generation probing paradigms can perform well on some knowledge probing benchmarks like LAMA.

“Previous studies have shown that such paradigms can perform well on some knowledge probing benchmarks like LAMA [188].”

• cites [188]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

Although LLMs obtain decent knowledge probing performances on LAMA, some follow-up works propose more difficult and domain-specific probing datasets for LLMs and demonstrate that current LLMs are not reliable in factual knowledge extraction, contrary to the perspective that LLMs can be seen as knowledge bases.

“And although LLMs obtain decent knowledge probing performances on LAMA, some follow-up works propose more difficult and domain-specific probing datasets [199], [200] for LLMs and demonstrate that current LLMs are not reliable in factual knowledge extraction [201], [202], which is contrary to the perspective that LLMs can be seen as knowledge bases.”

• cites [199]Not matched

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

• cites [200]Not matched

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

• cites [201]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs have limited editability; it is difficult for LLMs to frequently learn new knowledge and information due to unaffordable training cost.

“And LLMs have limited editability, that is to say it is difficult for LLMs to frequently learn new knowledge and information due to their unaffordable training cost.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Reasoning over EKGs is largely unexplored.

“It is also worth noting that reasoning over EKGs is largely unexplored.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

A considerable amount of logical knowledge is implied in KGs, encompassing first-order or temporal logical rules between relations and events.

“Besides factual knowledge, a considerable amount of logical knowledge is implied in KGs, encompassing a vast number of first-order or temporal logical rules between relations and events.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

KG-related techniques, like knowledge extraction and reasoning, have evolved with the change in form of KGs.

“KG-related techniques, like knowledge extraction and reasoning, have also evolved with the change in the form of KGs.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Construction of large-scale KGs relies on information extraction from unstructured open data.

“The construction of large-scale KGs also relies on information extraction from unstructured open data.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Since emergence of KG technology, form of KGs is gradually changing.

“Since the emergence of the technology of KG, the form of KGs is gradually changing.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In transportation, KGs structure data on routes, traffic conditions, and vehicle statuses, enabling intelligent systems to optimize route planning, manage traffic efficiently, and predict maintenance needs.

“In transportation, knowledge graphs structure data encompassing routes, traffic conditions, and vehicle statuses, empowering intelligent systems to optimize route planning, manage traffic efficiently, and predict maintenance needs.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Social KGs modeling users' cognition and preferences have enabled personalized services across education, psychotherapy, and personalized recommendations.

“Through social knowledge graphs modeling users' cognition and preferences, personalized services have burgeoned across sectors like education, psychotherapy, and personalized recommendations.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Extracted financial knowledge is organized into a KG, transforming unstructured financial data into high-quality structured financial knowledge.

“This process transforms massive amounts of unstructured financial data into high-quality, structured financial knowledge, which is then effectively represented and made easily accessible through the KG.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In manufacturing, KGs assimilate data on product components, manufacturing processes, and supply chains, supporting predictive maintenance, quality control, and optimized production planning.

“Within manufacturing, knowledge graphs assimilate data on product components, manufacturing processes, and supply chains, supporting predictive maintenance, quality control, and optimized production planning by analyzing relationships between machine performances, material availability, and production schedules.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

How to develop an EKG embedding model to model events has never been discussed in previous research.

“However, how to develop an EKG embedding model to model events, a new kind of knowledge element, has never been discussed in previous research.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Large-scale KGs are often the main knowledge sources of some downstream applications, e.g., a KBQA system.

“Large-scale KGs are often the main knowledge sources of some downstream applications, e.g., a knowledge base question answering (KBQA) system.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Both KGs and LLMs can represent entity semantics and store correlations between entities.

“both of them can represent entity semantics, and store correlations between entities”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The reliability of knowledge is ensured by quality assessment for a KG, especially for small-scale domain-specific KGs.

“while the reliability of knowledge is ensured by quality assessment for a KG, especially for small-scale domain-specific KGs.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

BERT has been proven to do remarkably well on open-domain QA.

“For instance, BERT has been proven to do remarkably well on open-domain QA [188].”

• cites [188]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs have achieved noticeable success on many NLP tasks, but they still struggle with event-centric tasks.

“LLMs have achieved noticeable success on many NLP tasks, but they still struggle with event-centric tasks.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

When the core tensor is a hyper-diagonal matrix, Tucker decomposition is a special case of CP decomposition.

“When the core tensor is a hyper-diagonal matrix, Tucker decomposition is a special case of CP decomposition.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Rule mining uses observed co-occurrences of frequent patterns in KGs to determine logical rules, which can transfer reasoning to unseen facts.

“Rule mining uses observed co-occurrences of frequent patterns in KGs to determine logical rules, which can transfer reasoning to unseen facts.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In LLM-based dynamic knowledge graph reasoning methods, entities and relations of edges in KGs are usually converted into natural language as input to LLMs, and the understanding ability of LLMs benefits these models.

“In the LLMbased methods, the entities and relations of the edges in KGs are usually converted into natural language, serving as the input of LLMs, and the powerful understanding ability of LLMs benefits these models.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Previous methods usually represent relations and entities based on a large amount of training data, whereas few-shot knowledge graph reasoning mainly relies on transferring and adapting learned knowledge.

“To learn the representation of the components in KGs, previous methods usually represent relations and entities based on a large amount of training data.In contrast, few-shot knowledge graph reasoning mainly relies on transferring and adapting learned knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Definition 4 subsumes Definition 3.

“Thus, Definition 4 subsumes Definition 3.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

GNN-based DKGR methods capture transferable knowledge in DKGs through rich structure information and transfer it to new entities and relations, obtaining trusted representations for reasoning tasks over DKGs, such as inductive link prediction.

“Because of the advantages above, GNN-based DKGR methods capture the transferable knowledge in DKGs through rich structure information and transfer it to new entities and relations, obtaining trusted representations for reasoning tasks over DKGs, such as inductive link prediction.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In GNN-based dynamic knowledge graph reasoning methods, the source of inductive ability can be divided into four categories: the structure of graphs, relation rules, embedding aggregators, and meta-learning.

“In the GNN-based methods, they use GNN or its variants to model emerging entities and relations and the source of the inductive ability can be further divided into four categories: the structure of graphs, relation rules, embedding aggregators and meta-learning.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

GNN-based methods may face challenges related to computational complexity and over-smoothing, and they are restricted by the original framework of GNN.

“However, GNN-based methods may face challenges related to computational complexity and over-smoothing, and they are restricted by the original framework of GNN.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

A separate version of a dynamic knowledge graph can be viewed as a static knowledge graph.

“It is worth noting that a separate version of a DKG can be viewed as an SKG.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Once the types and relations in KGs are fixed, the dimension of nodes in INDIGO's node-annotated graph does not depend on the input KG, making the inductive capabilities of GNN fully exploited.

“Once the types and relations in KGs are fixed, the dimension of nodes in the node-annotated graph does not depend on the input KG, making the inductive capabilities of GNN fully exploited.”

• cites [116]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Neural-symbolic methods for knowledge graph reasoning offer a more interpretable and explainable way of reasoning, making them suitable for applications that require transparency and understanding.

“In conclusion, neural-symbolic methods for knowledge graph reasoning offer a more interpretable and explainable way of reasoning, making them suitable for various applications that require transparency and understanding.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Current LLM-based works research how to integrate KG-specific knowledge into the inductive ability of LLMs and attempt to convert from a data-driven way to a knowledge-driven way.

“Current LLM-based works research how to integrate KG-specific knowledge into the inductive ability of LLMs and attempt to convert from a data-driven way to a knowledge-driven way.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The pre-trained LLMs have shown that factual knowledge inside KGs can be recovered from PLMs, so LLM-based methods convert edges or relation paths connecting subject and object into natural language form.

“In conclusion, the pre-trained LLMs have shown that factual knowledge inside KGs can be recovered from PLMs, so LLM-based methods convert edges or relation paths connecting subject and object into natural language form.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

KEPLER encodes textual entity descriptions with BERT as their embeddings and aligns them to the symbol space of KGs, then jointly optimizes the knowledge embedding objective and the masked language modeling objective.

“For example, KEPLER [129] encodes textual entity descriptions with BERT as their embeddings and aligns them to the symbol space of KGs, then KEPLER jointly optimizes the knowledge embedding objective and the masked language modeling (MLM) objective.”

• cites [129]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim.

The formal evolution of knowledge graphs can be divided into four stages: static KGs, dynamic KGs, temporal KGs, and event KGs.

“Based on this observation, we divide the formal evolution of KGs into four stages, corresponding to the emergence of static KGs (SKGs), dynamic KGs (DKGs), the temporal KGs (KGs) stage, and event KGs (EKGs), respectively.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

GMUC leverages Gaussian metric learning to capture uncertain semantic information and to complete few-shot uncertain knowledge graphs.

“GMUC [144] leverages Gaussian metric learning to capture uncertain semantic information and to complete few-shot uncertain knowledge graphs.”

• cites [144]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

Meta-KGR proposes a meta-based RL framework, where the learned meta-knowledge on normal relations provides well-initialized parameters of new models for few-shot relations and the multi-hop reasoning offers interpretability for the results.

“Meta-KGR [137] proposes a meta-based RL framework, where the learned meta-knowledge on normal relations provides well-initialized parameters of new models for fewshot relations and the multi-hop reasoning offers interpretability for the results.”

• cites [137]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Translation-based reasoning methods can be divided into two types: reasoning with explicitly represented time information and implicitly represented time information.

“Translation-based reasoning methods can be divided into two types: reasoning with explicitly represented time information and implicitly represented time information.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Tensor decomposition-based completion methods can be divided into CP decomposition methods and Tucker decomposition methods.

“The tensor decomposition-based completion methods can be divided into CP decomposition methods [147] and Tucker decomposition methods [148].”

• cites [147]Not matched

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

• cites [148]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The BERT in BERTRL is used as a score function to score the probability that the candidate relational triple is true.

“The BERT in BERTRL is used as a score function to score the probability that the candidate relational triple is true.”

• cites [130]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Temporal knowledge graph completion methods aim to understand the time information and integrate it into the semantic and structural information in the knowledge graph.

“The temporal knowledge graph completion methods aim to understand the time information and integrate it into the semantic and structural information in the knowledge graph.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Some temporal knowledge graphs are extracted from event news but do not effectively represent event information due to their entity-centric representations.

“On the other hand, some TKGs are extracted from event news, but do not effectively represent event information due to their entity-centric representations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Entity-centric knowledge graphs are unable to elegantly represent the event information that appears in news texts.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

LLM-based DKGR methods are classified into two categories: triple-level methods and path-level methods.

“In Figure 11, LLM-based DKGR methods are classified into two categories: triple-level methods and path-level methods.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Bi-Link searches for relational prompts according to learned syntactical patterns via BERT and comes up with probabilistic syntax prompts for link predictions, and uses contrastive learning for bidirectional linking between forward prediction and backward prediction to express symmetric relations.

“Bi-Link [131] searches for relational prompts according to learned syntactical patterns via BERT and comes up with probabilistic syntax prompts for link predictions.Bi-Link also uses contrastive learning for bidirectional linking between forward prediction and backward prediction to express symmetric relations.”

• cites [131]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

GNN-based methods are under an encoder-decoder framework and are able to take advantage of the connectivity structure to generate the representation of emerging entities and relations.

“In conclusion, GNN-based methods are under an encoder-decoder framework and are able to take advantage of the connectivity structure to generate the representation of emerging entities and relations.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Event knowledge graphs can facilitate downstream event-related applications such as financial quantitative investments and text generation.

“Furthermore, EKG can facilitate downstream event-related applications such as financial quantitative investments and text generation.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Before the proposal of LLMs, DKRL explores the continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) model to maximize the likelihood of predicting the description text of entities.

“Before the proposal of LLMs, DKRL [128] explores the continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) model to maximize the likelihood of predicting the description text of entities.”

• cites [128]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

RMPI conducts relational message passing over subgraphs for fully-inductive KGC and further proposes new techniques on graph transformation, graph pruning, relation-aware neighborhood attention, and addressing empty subgraphs.

“Combining GraIL and PathCon, RMPI [121] conducts relational message passing over subgraphs for fully-inductive KGC and further proposes new techniques on graph transformation, graph pruning, relation-aware neighborhood attention, addressing empty subgraphs, etc.”

• cites [121]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Temporal knowledge graphs offer a more comprehensive view of data over time, which is useful for a wide range of applications, including temporal query answering and predictive analysis.

“Overall, TKGs offer a more comprehensive view of data over time, which is useful for a wide range of applications, including temporal query answering, and predictive analysis.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Early static knowledge graph reasoning approaches are not applicable to other types of knowledge graphs.

“However, these approaches are not applicable to other types of KGs.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Based on Meta-KGR, FIRE further performs heterogeneous structure encoding and knowledge-aware search space pruning in the reinforcement learning process, outperforming Meta-KGR.

“Based on Meta-KGR, FIRE [138] further performs heterogeneous structure encoding and knowledge-aware search space pruning in the reinforcement learning process, outperforming Meta-KGR.”

• cites [138]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

A dynamic knowledge graph that is no longer updated will degenerate into a static knowledge graph.

“And a DKG that is no longer updated will also degenerate into an SKG.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

ADK-KG uses pre-trained entity and relation embeddings and the optimized parameters can be fast adapted for few-shot relations.

“ADK-KG [141] uses pre-trained entity and relation embeddings and the optimized parameters can be fast adapted for few-shot relations.”

• cites [141]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Dynamic knowledge graphs cannot be applied in some applications such as historical analysis, trend analysis, and forecasting, due to the loss of historical data.

“However, DKGs can not be applied in some applications such as historical analysis, trend analysis and forecasting, due to the loss of historical data.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

DRUM further attaches the found rules with confidence scores by bidirectional RNNs.

“DRUM [118] further attaches the found rules with confidence scores by bidirectional RNNs.”

• cites [118]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

Compared to CP decomposition, Tucker decomposition has better reasoning performance, but its decomposition efficiency is lower due to the operations involving the core tensor.

“Compared to CP decomposition, Tucker decomposition has better reasoning performance, but its decomposition efficiency is lower due to the operations involving the core tensor.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

P-INT leverages the paths that can expressively encode the relation of two few-shot entities and calculates the interactions of the paths.

“P-INT [140] leverages the paths that can expressively encode the relation of two few-shot entities and calculates the interactions of the paths.”

• cites [140]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

BERTRL concatenates the paths consisting of constructed triples into textual information and combines it with the pre-trained prior knowledge, forming rule-like reasoning evidence.

“BERTRL [130] concatenates the paths consisting of constructed triples into textual information and combines it with the pre-trained prior knowledge, forming rule-like reasoning evidence.”

• cites [130]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

TAE-ILP considers the valid time intervals of knowledge and uses the Integer Linear Programming technique to restrict the temporal knowledge of shared head entities to non-overlapping time intervals.

“TAE-ILP [155] considers the valid time intervals of knowledge and uses the Integer Linear Programming technique to restrict the temporal knowledge of shared head entities to non-overlapping time intervals.”

• cites [155]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

GraIL proposes to learn entity-independent relational semantics and aggregates the representation of nodes by GNN, so GraIL can be naturally generalized to unseen nodes.

“GraIL [114] proposes to learn entity-independent relational semantics and aggregates the representation of nodes by GNN, so GraIL can be naturally generalized to unseen nodes.”

• cites [114]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

GEN proposes an inductive learning module to extrapolate knowledge in the support set and then considers interrelationships between unseen entities in the transductive learning module.

“GEN [139] proposes an inductive learning module to extrapolate knowledge in the support set and then considers interrelationships between unseen entities in the transductive learning module.”

• cites [139]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Yao et al. proposes a data augmentation technique from inter-task view to generate new tasks for few-shot knowledge graph completion, and from intra-task view to enrich the support or query set for an individual task.

“Yao et al. [145] proposes a data augmentation technique from inter-task view to generate new tasks for few-shot knowledge graph completion, and from intra-task view to enrich the support or query set for an individual task.”

• cites [145]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Both static or dynamic knowledge graphs only record the knowledge graph at a certain time or the latest state, and cannot reflect the evolution process of the relations between entities at different times.

“Both static or dynamic knowledge graphs only record the knowledge graph at a certain time or the latest state, and cannot reflect the evolution process of the relations between entities at different times.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

TAE incorporates the temporal information of relationships using a temporal matrix to learn relationship representations that contain temporal information.

“The time-aware embedding (TAE) incorporates the temporal information of relationships using a temporal matrix to learn relationship representations that contain temporal information.”

• cites [154]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

LLM-based models like KG-BERT, StAR, and CKBC can also be used in DKGR since they are able to deal with unseen entities via the pre-trained prior knowledge in LLMs.

“LLM-based models mentioned in Section 4.1.4like KG-BERT, StAR, CKBC can also be used in DKGR since they are able to deal with unseen entities via the pre-trained prior knowledge in LLMs.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

CP decomposition decomposes high-dimensional tensors into a series of rank tensors, and Tucker decomposition considers the core tensor, which represents the main properties of the original tensor.

“The former decomposes high-dimensional tensors into a series of rank tensors, and the latter considers the core tensor, which represents the main properties of the original tensor.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Temporal knowledge graph reasoning includes two parts: temporal knowledge graph completion (explaining the TKG at some past time) and temporal knowledge graph prediction (predicting the state of TKG at a given future time).

“The temporal knowledge graph reasoning includes two parts as shown in Figure 12: The temporal knowledge graph completion(explaining the TKG at some past time), and the temporal knowledge graph prediction (predicting the state of TKG at a given future time) [146].”

• cites [146]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs enable LLM-based DKGs methods to have language comprehension skills and be able to deal with emerging entities and relations in the semantic space.

“LLMs enable LLM-based DKGs methods to have language comprehension skills and be able to deal with emerging entities and relations in the semantic space.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Different from static or dynamic knowledge graphs, the temporal knowledge graph records the valid time of knowledge.

“Different from them, the temporal knowledge graph records the valid time of knowledge.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Lacroix et al. represented the temporal knowledge graph as a four-dimensional tensor and extended ComplEX to temporal knowledge graph reasoning, proposing the CP decomposition method TComplEX.

“Lacroix et al. [149] represented the temporal knowledge graph as a four-dimensional tensor and extends the ComplEX [92] to the temporal knowledge graph reasoning, proposing the CP decomposition method TComplEX.”

• cites [149]Not matched

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

• cites [92]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

TACT categorizes topology-aware correlations between relations into seven topological patterns, and learns their importance in an entity-independent manner for inductive link prediction.

“TACT [119] categorizes topology-aware correlations between relations into seven topological patterns, and learns their importance in an entity-independent manner for inductive link prediction.”

• cites [119]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

TIMEPLEX considers the periodicity scores and temporal dependency scores of the relations in the reasoning procedure.

“Based on [150], TIMEPLEX [153] considers the periodicity scores and temporal dependency scores of the relations in the reasoning procedure.”

• cites [153]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Existing dynamic knowledge graph reasoning methods are categorized according to their modeling perspectives into GNN-based methods and LLM-based methods.

“We categorized the existing methods according to their modeling perspectives: GNN-based methods and LLMbased methods.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In KEPLER, knowledge embeddings provide factual knowledge for PLMs, while informative text data also benefit knowledge embeddings.

“In KEPLER, knowledge embeddings provide factual knowledge for PLMs, while informative text data also benefit knowledge embeddings.”

• cites [129]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

FSRL proposes to discover facts of new relations with few-shot references, which is more suitable for practical scenarios than one-shot and zero-shot learning.

“However, FSRL [134] thinks works of one-shot and zeroshot learning limit the generalizability of models and do not fully use the supervisory information, so FSRL proposes to discover facts of new relations with few-shot references which is more suitable for practical scenarios.”

• cites [134]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Methods for temporal knowledge graph reasoning are classified into two categories: completion methods and prediction methods.

“In this section, we classify the methods for temporal knowledge graph reasoning into two categories: completion methods and prediction methods.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The dynamic properties in few-shot learning have not been widely researched.

“However, the dynamic properties in few-shot learning have not been widely researched.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

LLM-based DKGR methods may face the shortcomings of high GPU memory and the static property of LLMs may not catch up with the dynamic property of DKGs for the rapid update of DKGs.

“However, LLMbased DKGR methods may face the shortcomings of high GPU memory and the static property of LLMs may not catch up with the dynamic property of DKGs for the rapid update of DKGs.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

GMatching is the first to propose the task of predicting long-tail relations and formulate it as one-shot relational learning.

“GMatching [132] is the first to propose the task of predicting longtail relations and formulate it as one-shot relational learning.”

• cites [132]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

PathCon leverages relational context and relational paths to directly pass relational messages among edges iteratively to aggregate neighborhood information, and is applicable to inductive settings since nodes temporarily store messages from their neighbor edges.

“PathCon [120] leverages relational context and relational paths to directly pass relational messages among edges iteratively to aggregate neighborhood information.PathCon is applicable to the inductive settings since nodes temporarily store the messages from their neighbor edges.”

• cites [120]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

Meta-learning for the few-shot setting aims to capture transferable relation-specific meta-information and is suitable and well-performing for dynamic knowledge graphs, since emerging relations usually have few links.

“Meta-learning for the few-shot setting aims to capture transferable relation-specific meta-information and is suitable and well-performing for dynamic knowledge graphs, since emerging relations usually have few links.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

GNN-based dynamic knowledge graph reasoning methods are categorized into four categories according to four sources of their inductive ability.

“In Figure 10, we categorize the GNN-based methods into four categories, according to four sources of their inductive ability.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

ROLAND views the node embeddings at different GNN layers as hierarchical node states and then recurrently updates them, easily repurposing any static GNN to dynamic graphs.

“ROLAND [123] views the node embeddings at different GNN layers as hierarchical node states and then recurrently updates them, easily repurposing any static GNN to dynamic graphs.”

• cites [123]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

REFORM points out that plenty of errors could be inevitably incorporated in most existing large-scale KGs and proposes an error mitigation module to study error-aware few-shot KG completion.

“REFORM [143] points out that plenty of errors could be inevitably incorporated in most existing large-scale KGs and proposes an error mitigation module to study error-aware few-shot KG completion.”

• cites [143]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

GMatching learns a matching metric to discover similar triples for target triples, and once trained can be adapted to any new relations without fine-tuning, achieving one-shot learning.

“GMatching learns a matching metric to discover similar triples for target triples.Once trained, GMatching can be adapted to any new relations without fine-tuning, achieving one-shot learning.”

• cites [132]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

MaKEr and MorsE propose a problem called inductive knowledge graph embedding and train knowledge graph embedding models based on meta-learning on a set of entities that can generalize to unseen entities for either in-KG (link prediction) or out-of-KG tasks (question answering).

“MaKEr [126] and MorsE [127] propose a problem called inductive knowledge graph embedding.They train knowledge graph embedding models based on metalearning on a set of entities that can generalize to unseen entities for either in-KG(i.e., link prediction) or out-of-KG tasks(i.e., question answering).”

• cites [126]Not matched

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

• cites [127]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

SE-GNN studies KGE extrapolation problems from a data-relevant and model-independent view and proposes a GNN-based KGE method modeling the semantic evidence.

“SE-GNN [124] studies KGE extrapolation problems from a data-relevant and model-independent view and proposes a GNN-based KGE method modeling the semantic evidence.”

• cites [124]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Niu et al. proposes a gated neighbor aggregator to filter the noise neighbors, capturing the most valuable contextual semantics of few-shot relations, and considers complex relations simultaneously.

“Niu et al. [142] proposes a gated neighbor aggregator to filter the noise neighbors, capturing the most valuable contextual semantics of few-shot relations, and considers complex relations simultaneously.”

• cites [142]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Few-shot DKG reasoning is a relatively new research area and the meta-learning approach fixes the challenges of data limitation, to a certain extent.

“In conclusion, few-shot DKG reasoning is a relatively new research area and the meta-learning approach fixes the challenges of data limitation, to a certain extent.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Tensor decomposition-based completion methods learn the evolution law of the entire graph.

“The tensor decomposition-based completion methods learn the evolution law of the entire graph.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

GNN and its variants have been widely used for dynamic knowledge reasoning in dynamic knowledge graphs because GNN can model entities and relations based on connecting structure and has the potential to handle knowledge out of distribution.

“GNN and its variants have been widely used for dynamic knowledge reasoning in dynamic knowledge graphs (DKGs), since GNN can model entities and relations based on the connecting structure and has the potential to handle knowledge out of distribution.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Neural-symbolic methods may face challenges related to scalability, computational complexity, implementation complexity, and sensitivity to data quality.

“However, they may face challenges related to scalability, computational complexity, implementation complexity, and sensitivity to data quality.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The temporal knowledge graph is represented as a sequence of static snapshots, which can be modeled as a sequence of matrices or high-dimensional tensors.

“As the temporal knowledge graph is represented as a sequence of static snapshots, which can be modeled as a sequence of matrices or high-dimensional tensors.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

LLM-based dynamic knowledge graph reasoning methods can be categorized into triple-level methods (depending on one single edge) and path-level methods (depending on paths composed of edges).

“They can be categorized into two groups: depending on one single edge (triple-level) and depending on paths composed of edges (path-level).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

For zero-shot (new-added) relations, ZS-GAN is able to generate text category representations from text descriptions by setting adversarial learning goals.

“For zero-shot(new-added) relations, ZS-GAN [133] is able to generate text category representations from text descriptions by setting adversarial learning goals.”

• cites [133]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

INDIGO constructs a node-annotated graph, where nodes represent pairs of constants and two nodes are connected only if their pairs share a constant, and the original KG is fully encoded into a GNN in a transparent way.

“INDIGO [116] constructs a node-annotated graph, where nodes represent pairs of constants and two nodes are connected only if their pairs share a constant, and the original KG is fully encoded into a GNN in a transparent way.”

• cites [116]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The proposal of Large Language Models indicates that general semantic knowledge which widely exists in open source corpus can be encoded into the parameters of LLMs via pre-training and fine-tuning.

“The proposal of Large Language Models (LLMs) indicates that general semantic knowledge which widely exists in open source corpus can be encoded into the parameters of LLMs via pre-training and fine-tuning.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Temporal knowledge graph completion methods can be divided into tensor decomposition-based completion methods and translation-based completion methods.

“The temporal knowledge graph completion methods can be divided into two parts: tensor decomposition-based completion methods and translation-based completion methods.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

FAAN formally proposes the notion of dynamic properties in few-shot KG completion for the first time and designs an adaptive attention network to adapt dynamic entity representations in different tasks.

“FAAN [135] formally proposes the notion of dynamic properties in few-shot KG completion for the first time and designs an adaptive attention network to adapt dynamic entity representations in different tasks.”

• cites [135]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

CoMPILE further considers the directed nature of the extracted subgraph structure to enable a sufficient flow of relation information, and can naturally handle asymmetric and anti-symmetric relations in subgraphs.

“Following GraIL, CoMPILE [115] further considers the directed nature of the extracted subgraph structure to enable a sufficient flow of relation information.Therefore, CoMPILE can naturally handle asymmetric and anti-symmetric relations in subgraphs.”

• cites [115]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

xERTE collects temporal paths from the target entity and propagates attention scores along the paths while continuously expanding the query subgraph.

“xERTE [170] collects temporal paths from the target entity and propagates attention scores along the paths while continuously expanding the query subgraph.”

• cites [170]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

KGs serve as a repository containing both logical and factual knowledge, providing a richer source of information.

“From the perspective of knowledge-driven LLM reasoning, KGs serve as a repository containing both logical and factual knowledge, providing a richer source of information.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs are the most powerful parameter knowledge form, excelling in generativity and adaptability, handling diverse tasks, but can be opaque in decision-making.

“LLMs are the most powerful parameter knowledge form, which excels in generativity and adaptability, handling diverse tasks, but can be opaque in decision-making.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Sequence neural network-based prediction methods consist of snapshot encoders and temporal encoders: snapshot encoders extract representations of entities at different times from the snapshot sequence; temporal encoders integrate the snapshot representations to learn the entity evolution information from them.

“Sequence neural network-based prediction methods consist of snapshot encoders and temporal encoders: snapshot encoders extract representations of entities at different times from the snapshot sequence; temporal encoders integrate the snapshot representations to learn the entity evolution information from them.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The temporal Point Process (TPP) is a probabilistic method for predicting future events.

“The temporal Point Process (TPP) is a probabilistic method for predicting future events.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In TPP-based prediction methods, the expected existence probability of knowledge at time t is represented as the product of the conditional intensity function and the survival function, i.e., f(t) = S(t)λ(t).

“In TPP-based prediction methods, the expected existence probability of knowledge at time t is represented as the product of the conditional intensity function and the survival function, i.e., f (t) = S(t)λ(t).”

Probably not a substantial claim.

In an L-length temporal walk, the adjacent temporal edges should satisfy the temporal-ordered constraint t1 ≤ t2 ≤ ... ≤ tL, ensuring that the walk contains the temporal dependency information between entities.

“In an L-length temporal walk (v 1 , v 2 , t 1 ), (v 2 , v 3 , t 2 ), ..., (v L , v L+1 , t L ), the adjacent temporal edges should satisfy the temporal-ordered constraint t 1 ≤ t 2 ≤ ... ≤ t L , ensuring that the walk contains the temporal dependency information between entities.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

KGs significantly contribute to data organization and analysis across disparate sectors.

“In summation, KGs significantly contribute to data organization and analysis across disparate sectors.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Pattern induction capabilities of LLMs present new opportunities for neural-symbolic reasoning.

“In terms of knowledge inference, the pattern induction capabilities of LLMs present new opportunities for neural-symbolic reasoning.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Quality control and maintenance are crucial in knowledge engineering, affecting KG usability in real-world applications because it is hard to ensure completeness and correctness of extracted knowledge.

“Quality control and maintenance are crucial in knowledge engineering, affecting KG usability in real-world applications because it is hard to ensure the completeness and correctness of extracted knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

TOKEI designs the hierarchical temporal matrix that is adaptable to different time granularities (e.g., year-month-day or year-quarter-month-week-day).

“Considering time information in knowledge graphs can be represented at different granularities, TOKEI [159] designs the hierarchical temporal matrix that is adaptable to different time granularities (e.g., year-month-day or yearquarter-month-week-day).”

• cites [159]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

As forms of KGs evolve, corresponding techniques still face various challenges and open problems.

“However, as the forms of KGs have evolving, the corresponding techniques still face various challenges and open problems in the future.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

TLogic considers the temporal properties of multi-hop relation reasoning and proposes the Cyclic Temporal Logical Rule.

“TLogic [167] considers the temporal properties of multi-hop relation reasoning and proposes the Cyclic Temporal Logical Rule, represented as:”

• cites [167]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The TPP-based prediction methods treat the occurrences and disappearances of relations between entities as sequences of events, where the event probability depends on the historical evolution characteristics of relevant entities.

“The TPP-based prediction methods treat the occurrences and disappearances of relations between entities as sequences of events, where the event probability depends on the historical evolution characteristics of relevant entities.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

For effectively learning the evolution of temporal knowledge graphs in a data-driven approach rather than the pre-defined conditional intensity function, neural temporal point processes have become a popular research direction for TPP-based prediction methods.

“For effectively learning the evolution of temporal knowledge graphs in a data-driven approach rather than the pre-defined conditional intensity function, neural temporal point processes have become a popular research direction for TPP-based prediction methods.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

TA-TRANSE takes into account that time sequences at different granularities are of unequal lengths, such as [1989] and [1989, January, 16th], and uses the LSTM to encode the time sequences as the temporal information of knowledge.

“TA-TRANSE [160] takes into account that time sequences at different granularities are of unequal lengths, such as [1989] and [1989, January, 16th].It uses the LSTM to encode the time sequences as the temporal information of knowledge.”

• cites [160]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The aforementioned temporal knowledge graph completion methods ignore the correlation between temporal information.

“However, the aforementioned methods ignore the correlation between temporal information.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

RE_NET aggregates the representations of entity neighbors in historical time steps, concatenates them with the vector representations of the head entity s and relation r, encodes the evolving information through RNN to obtain the latest representation of the tail entity, which is used to predict the correct entity in the next time step.

“RE_NET [177] aggregates the representations of entity neighbors in historical time steps, concatenates them with the vector representations of the head entity s and relation r, encodes the evolving information through RNN to obtain the latest representation of the tail entity, which is used to predict the correct entity in the next time step.”

• cites [177]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Temporal knowledge graph prediction methods can be further categorized into three types: path-based prediction methods, point process-based prediction methods, and sequence network-based prediction methods.

“These methods can be further categorized into three types: path-based prediction methods, point process-based prediction methods, and sequence networkbased prediction methods.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

LLMs provide new perspectives on addressing quality control and maintenance challenges by leveraging parameterized knowledge learned from vast corpora for KGs' quality control and maintenance in an unsupervised way.

“The advent of LLMs provides new perspectives on addressing these challenges, which leverages parameterized knowledge of LLMs learned from vast corpora for KGs' quality control and maintenance in an unsupervised way.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

T-GAP designs an interpretable mechanism: starting from the target entity u in the incomplete knowledge (u, r, ?, t), T-GAP iteratively expands the subgraph using attention pruning strategies and updates the representations and attention scores of each entity in the subgraph through a time-aware graph neural network.

“T-GAP [165] designs an interpretable mechanism: starting from the target entity u in the incomplete knowledge (u, r, ?, t), T-GAP iteratively expands the subgraph using attention pruning strategies and updates the representations and attention scores of each entity in the subgraph through a time-aware graph neural network.”

• cites [165]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

By complementing each other, both KGs and LLMs have the potential to achieve superior performance and broader application scenarios.

“By complementing each other, both entities have the potential to achieve superior performance and broader application scenarios.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Know-evolve treats transient knowledge (u, r, v, t) as a probability event and uses a loss function based on a multivariate Rayleigh point process to model the event probability.

“It treats transient knowledge (u, r, v, t) as a probability event.It uses a loss function based on a multivariate Rayleigh point process to model the event probability.”

• cites [171]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

CEN considers the length diversity and temporal variability of temporal patterns, encodes multiple lengths using a relation-aware graph convolutional network to model the length diversity, and trains the model online to address temporal variability.

“CEN [179] considers the length diversity and temporal variability of temporal patterns.It encodes multiple lengths using a relation-aware graph convolutional network to model the length diversity and trains the model online to address temporal variability.”

• cites [179]Not matched

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

It may state two separate claims as one.

RE-GCN uses a relation-aware graph convolutional network (RGCN) to encode snapshot features in the knowledge graph and then learns the evolution patterns of features through a recurrent neural network.

“To better learn the topological features of knowledge graphs at each stage, RE-GCN [178] uses a relation-aware graph convolutional network (RGCN) to encode snapshot features in the knowledge graph and then learns the evolution patterns of features through a recurrent neural network.”

• cites [178]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim.

Recent advancements in neural or symbolic reasoning have highlighted the potential of integrating neural networks' data-driven learning with symbolic reasoning's structured logic to enhance reasoning on various KGs.

“Recent advancements in neural or symbolic reasoning have highlighted the potential of integrating neural networks' data-driven learning with symbolic reasoning's structured logic, to enhance reasoning on various KGs.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

M2DNE learns entity representations by modeling evolutionary trends at both macro and micro levels.

“M 2 DNE [174] learns entity representations by modeling evolutionary trends at both macro and micro levels.”

• cites [174]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

There is significant potential for integration between KGs and LLMs.

“In summary, despite the distinct characteristics and functionalities of KGs and LLMs, there is significant potential for integration between the two, as illustrated in Figure 15.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In finance, knowledge extraction, knowledge reasoning, and intelligent QA systems combining KGs with LLMs play a vital role.

“Specifically, knowledge extraction, knowledge reasoning, and intelligent QA systems that combine KGs with LLMs play a vital role in this domain.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

xERTE designs a temporal relation graph attention mechanism to guide expansion in the direction that benefits query prediction and the expanded subgraph can be viewed as an explanation for predicting the entity.

“xERTE designs a temporal relation graph attention mechanism to guide expansion in the direction that benefits query prediction and the expanded subgraph can be viewed as an explanation for predicting the entity.”

• cites [170]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

DyRep uses neural networks to model the conditional intensity function λ(u,v)k(t), which calculates the probability of the existence of associated knowledge between entities (u,v) at time t (k denotes the relation type).

“DyRep uses neural networks to model the conditional intensity function λ (u,v) k (t), which calculates the probability of the existence of associated knowledge between entities (u,v) at time t (k denotes the relation type).”

• cites [173]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

LLMs can offer better extendability and expressibility to different kinds of downstream tasks and thus have a broader range of application scenarios.

“By contrast, LLMs can offer better extendability and expressibility to different kinds of downstream tasks and thus have a broader range of application scenarios.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

TRESCAL extends the static knowledge graph reasoning method RESCAL to temporal knowledge graph reasoning and considers that the information of relations evolves over time, with the relation-temporal matrix W r,t trained at different temporal information.

“TRESCAL [156] extends the static knowledge graph reasoning method RESCAL [90] to temporal knowledge graph reasoning.TRESCAL considers that the information of relations evolves over time, and the temporal information depends on the existence of the relationship, i.e., the relation-temporal matrix W r,t is trained at different temporal information.”

• cites [156]Not matched

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

• cites [90]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The finance sector benefits from KGs by streamlining information extraction, enabling sophisticated knowledge reasoning, and enhancing user interaction through integration with LLMs.

“In conclusion, the finance sector benefits immensely from knowledge graphs by streamlining information extraction, enabling sophisticated knowledge reasoning, and enhancing user interaction through the integration of large language models.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

DANE, DACHA, and HIP also design structure-temporal self-attention mechanisms, which are applied to the entity and relation prediction tasks.

“Moreover, DANE [184], DACHA [185], HIP [186] also design structuretemporal self-attention mechanisms, which are applied to the entity and relation prediction tasks.”

• cites [184]Not matched

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

• cites [185]Not matched

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

• cites [186]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The path-based prediction methods of temporal knowledge graphs believe that the temporal walks in the graph reflect the evolution rules of knowledge.

“The path-based prediction methods of temporal knowledge graphs believe that the temporal walks [166] in the graph reflect the evolution rules of knowledge.”

• cites [166]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

LLMs can offer unsupervised quality control and maintenance for KGs, ensuring quality and accuracy of knowledge.

“Additionally, LLMs can offer unsupervised quality control and maintenance for KGs, ensuring the quality and accuracy of knowledge.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Recurrent neural networks suffer from the problem of information forgetting when encoding long-distance temporal information and perform poorly in multi-step prediction tasks.

“However, recurrent neural networks suffer from the problem of information forgetting when encoding long-distance temporal information and perform poorly in multi-step prediction tasks [181].”

• cites [181]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim.

KGs and LLMs represent contrasting paradigms in knowledge representation.

“Knowledge Graphs and Large Language Models represent contrasting paradigms in knowledge representation.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

KGs are the most representative symbolic knowledge form, providing interpretability through structured information, yet may lack flexibility.

“KGs are the most representative symbolic knowledge form, which provides interpretability through structured information, yet may lack flexibility.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

DySAT proposes a structural-temporal attention mechanism: the structure self-attention mechanism extracts features from the entity neighborhoods in each snapshot and aggregates them with weights, while the temporal self-attention mechanism captures the evolution law by flexibly weighting the historical entity representations of multiple time steps.

“Furthermore, DySAT [181] proposes a structural-temporal attention mechanism.The structure self-attention mechanism extracts features from the entity neighborhoods in each snapshot and aggregates them with weights, while the temporal self-attention mechanism captures the evolution law by flexibly weighting the historical entity representations of multiple time steps.”

• cites [181]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

TeMP uses R-GCN as the snapshot encoder to extract the historical vector sequence of the target entity s, x s,t-τ , . . ., x s,t-1 , x s,t ; based on the self-attention mechanism, the temporal encoder aggregates the historical vector sequence with weights to obtain the vector representation z s,t of entity s at time t.

“TeMP [183] uses R-GCN [99] as the snapshot encoder to extract the historical vector sequence of the target entity s, x s,t-τ , . . ., x s,t-1 , x s,t ; based on the self-attention mechanism, the temporal encoder aggregates the historical vector sequence with weights to obtain the vector representation z s,t of entity s at time t.”

• cites [183]Not matched

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

• cites [99]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Temporal knowledge graph prediction methods aim to learn the evolution patterns of TKG historical information to predict future states.

“Temporal knowledge graph prediction methods aim to learn the evolution patterns of TKG historical information to predict future states.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Based on the types of temporal encoders, sequence neural network-based prediction methods can be divided into RNN-based temporal encoding methods and self-attention-based temporal encoding methods.

“Based on the types of temporal encoders, these methods can be divided into RNN-based temporal encoding methods and self-attention-based temporal encoding methods.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The interplay between KGs and advanced technologies like LLMs amplifies their application spectrum, propelling innovation and efficiency.

“The interplay between KGs and advanced technologies like LLMs further amplifies their application spectrum, propelling innovation and efficiency.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

TIME2BOX and RTGE both design temporal smoothing mechanisms to constrain the change in adjacent time vectors.

“TIME2BOX [162] and RTGE [163] both design temporal smoothing mechanisms to constrain the change in adjacent time vectors.”

• cites [162]Not matched

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

• cites [163]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The self-attention mechanism can effectively alleviate the forgetting problem in encoding long-distance time series.

“The selfattention mechanism can effectively alleviate the forgetting problem in encoding long-distance time series.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

ATiSE considers uncertainty in the time functions and adds random noise to the representation of entities and relations to simulate random interference factors, and conducts reasoning by learning the parameters of a multi-dimensional Gaussian distribution composed of linear trend, periodic trend, and noise.

“Furthermore, ATiSE [8] considers uncertainty in the time functions and adds random noise to the representation of entities and relations to simulate random interference factors.It conducts reasoning by learning the parameters of a multi-dimensional Gaussian distribution composed of three factors: linear trend, periodic trend, and noise.”

• cites [8]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

TLogic learns the confidence of cyclic temporal logical rules through statistical frequency and selects high-confidence paths as reasoning rules.

“TLogic learns the confidence of cyclic temporal logical rules through statistical frequency and selects high-confidence paths as reasoning rules, such as:”

• cites [167]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Diachronic embedding regards representations of entity and relation as a series of time functions, which use parameterized Fourier functions to encode the entity and relation representations at time spots.

“Diachronic embedding [164] regards representations of entity and relation as a series of time functions, which use parameterized Fourier functions to encode the entity and relation representations at time spots.”

• cites [164]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The completion methods implicitly represented the time information, and model the evolution of entities or relations with time as functions, which reflects the evolution trend of each entity at each moment.

“The completion methods implicitly represented the time information, and model the evolution of entities or relations with time as functions, which reflects the evolution trend of each entity at each moment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Most knowledge extraction tasks are labeling tasks, while generative LLMs are good at generation tasks.

“This is because most of the knowledge extraction tasks are labeling tasks, while generative LLMs are good at generation tasks.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

TTransE learns the time representation based on the static knowledge reasoning method TransE, and combines the representation of entities, relations, and time information to calculate the confidence of the temporal knowledge.

“TTransE [156] learns the time representation based on the static knowledge reasoning method TransE, and combines the representation of entities, relations, and time information to calculate the confidence of the temporal knowledge.”

• cites [156]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim.

This fusion aims to overcome limitations of exclusively neural or symbolic approaches, particularly in representing dynamic and time-variant nature of real-world knowledge in DKGs and TKGs.

“This fusion aims to overcome limitations posed by exclusively neural or symbolic approaches, particularly in representing the dynamic and time-variant nature of real-world knowledge in DKGs and TKGs.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Due to the graph nature of temporal knowledge graphs, the sampled time-constrained random walk paths in temporal knowledge graphs can be viewed as multi-hop relations between entities to represent reasoning rules.

“Due to the graph nature of temporal knowledge graphs, the sampled timeconstrained random walk paths in temporal knowledge graphs can be viewed as multi-hop relations between entities to represent reasoning rules.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

HiSMatch uses relation-aware graph neural networks and recurrent neural networks to distinguish between graph sequences relevant to queries and those relevant to candidate entities and proposes a matching framework for temporal reasoning.

“HiSMatch [180] uses relation-aware graph neural networks and recurrent neural networks to distinguish between graph sequences relevant to queries and those relevant to candidate entities and proposes a matching framework for temporal reasoning.”

• cites [180]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The emergence of LLMs presents an opportunity to uncover underlying patterns in knowledge, aiding in reasoning tasks.

“Furthermore, the emergence of LLMs presents an opportunity to uncover underlying patterns in knowledge, aiding in reasoning tasks.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The Cyclic Temporal Logical Rule strictly follows the temporal-ordered constraint to collect temporal walks and represents the evolution feature of multi-hop relation reasoning.

“The Cyclic Temporal Logical Rule (CTL) strictly follows the temporal-ordered constraint to collect temporal walks and represents the evolution feature of multihop relation reasoning.”

• cites [167]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

HyTE designs the time hyperplane to reflect the entity and relation information at a specific time.

“HyTE [157] designs the time hyperplane to reflect the entity and relation information at a specific time.”

• cites [157]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Utilizing text processing capabilities of LLMs, KGs can achieve more efficient unsupervised knowledge extraction during construction, enhancing automated building and editing capabilities.

“Utilizing the text processing capabilities of LLMs, KGs can achieve more efficient unsupervised knowledge extraction during their construction phase, thereby enhancing their automated building and editing capabilities.”