pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.12362 · v3 · submitted 2025-06-14 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

HYPER: A Foundation Model for Inductive Link Prediction with Knowledge Hypergraphs

Xingyue Huang , Mikhail Galkin , Michael M. Bronstein , \.Ismail \.Ilkan Ceylan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 09:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI
keywords knowledge hypergraphsinductive link predictionfoundation modelsnovel relationshyperedge predictiongeneralizationvarying aritiesnode-and-relation inductive
0
0 comments X

The pith

HYPER predicts missing hyperedges in knowledge hypergraphs even when both entities and relation types are novel at test time.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents HYPER as a foundation model for inductive link prediction on knowledge hypergraphs. Existing methods are limited to fixed sets of relations and cannot handle new relation types, but HYPER generalizes to completely new entities and new relations of any arity. It achieves this by encoding each entity together with its position inside the hyperedge rather than relying on a fixed relational vocabulary. The authors build 16 new inductive datasets from existing hypergraphs and demonstrate that HYPER outperforms prior approaches in both node-only and full node-and-relation inductive settings. If correct, this removes a major barrier to applying link prediction on evolving hypergraphs that introduce new concepts over time.

Core claim

HYPER is a foundation model that generalizes inductive link prediction to any knowledge hypergraph containing novel entities and novel relations by encoding the entities of each hyperedge along with their respective positions, enabling transfer across relation types of arbitrary arities and yielding consistent gains over existing methods on 16 constructed inductive datasets.

What carries the argument

Encoding entities together with their positions inside each hyperedge, which supports transfer across relation types of varying arities without assuming a fixed relational vocabulary.

If this is right

  • HYPER can be deployed on existing or future knowledge hypergraphs without retraining for unseen relations.
  • The same position-aware encoding works for both node-inductive and full node-and-relation inductive regimes.
  • Performance advantages appear across diverse arities, suggesting the approach is not limited to binary or fixed-arity cases.
  • Foundation-model pretraining on one hypergraph can transfer to others that introduce new relation types.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar position encoding could extend to other variable-arity structured prediction tasks beyond hypergraphs.
  • This reduces the need for separate models when knowledge bases grow with new predicates.
  • Scaling the approach to very large hypergraphs would test whether the gains persist at web scale.
  • The results point toward unified foundation models that treat graphs and hypergraphs under the same inductive framework.

Load-bearing premise

That encoding entities together with their positions inside each hyperedge is sufficient to enable effective transfer and generalization across relation types of arbitrary and varying arities on the constructed inductive splits.

What would settle it

If HYPER fails to outperform baselines on the node-and-relation inductive splits for higher-arity relations in the 16 new datasets, the generalization claim would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12362 by \.Ismail \.Ilkan Ceylan, Michael M. Bronstein, Mikhail Galkin, Xingyue Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A knowledge hy￾pergraph with three hyperedges over distinct relation types. Generalizing knowledge graphs with relations between any num￾ber of nodes, knowledge hypergraphs offer flexible means of storing, processing, and managing relational data. Knowl￾edge hypergraphs can encode rich relationships between enti￾ties; e.g., consider a relationship between four entities: “Bengio has a research project on to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A model is trained on relations like Research, Teaches, and AtConference, and is ex￾pected to generalize to structurally similar relations TradingDeal, Sells, and AtBusinessFair at test time. Example. Consider the knowledge hyper￾graphs depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The relation graph Grel corresponding to the knowledge hypergraph Gtrain. Furthermore, we can encode such relations between relations in a separate relation graph, which can be used to learn from. We illustrate this on our running example in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reified KG corresponding to the knowledge hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overall framework of HYPER. HYPER first constructs a relation graph Grel based on the observed positional interactions between the relations. EncPI then computes embeddings for each position pair, which are refined via message passing over Grel. The resulting relation representations are then used for message passing over the original knowledge hypergraph G (shown in color). 4.1 How to Encode the Relations… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Inductive link prediction with knowledge hypergraphs is the task of predicting missing hyperedges involving completely novel entities (i.e., nodes unseen during training). Existing methods for inductive link prediction with knowledge hypergraphs assume a fixed relational vocabulary and, as a result, cannot generalize to knowledge hypergraphs with novel relation types (i.e., relations unseen during training). Inspired by knowledge graph foundation models, we propose HYPER as a foundation model for link prediction, which can generalize to any knowledge hypergraph, including novel entities and novel relations. Importantly, HYPER can learn and transfer across different relation types of varying arities, by encoding the entities of each hyperedge along with their respective positions in the hyperedge. To evaluate HYPER, we construct 16 new inductive datasets from existing knowledge hypergraphs, covering a diverse range of relation types of varying arities. Empirically, HYPER consistently outperforms all existing methods in both node-only and node-and-relation inductive settings, showing strong generalization to unseen, higher-arity relational structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HYPER as a foundation model for inductive link prediction on knowledge hypergraphs. It claims to generalize to any knowledge hypergraph including novel entities and novel relations by encoding entities along with their positions within each hyperedge, enabling transfer across relation types of varying arities. The authors construct 16 new inductive datasets from existing knowledge hypergraphs and report that HYPER consistently outperforms all existing methods in both node-only and node-and-relation inductive settings.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold under rigorous validation, this would be a meaningful step toward foundation models for hypergraphs that handle arbitrary arities and unseen relations without relation-specific parameters. The construction of 16 diverse datasets is a concrete contribution that could support future benchmarking in inductive hypergraph reasoning.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (method description): the central claim that encoding entities with their positions inside hyperedges (without relation-specific parameters) produces transferable representations for unseen relation types of arbitrary arities is load-bearing for the generalization result, yet the manuscript provides no concrete analysis or diagnostic test to distinguish true semantic transfer from structural overlap between training and test relations in the constructed splits.
  2. [§4 and result tables] §4 (experiments) and associated result tables: the abstract states consistent outperformance on 16 new datasets, but the reported results lack details on baseline implementations, statistical significance tests, and ablation studies isolating the contribution of positional encoding; this leaves the strength of support for the node-and-relation inductive claims moderate.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for hyperedge positions should explicitly define how positional indices are assigned and normalized for relations whose arity varies between training and test hypergraphs.
  2. [§4.1] The description of dataset construction would benefit from an explicit statement of how novel relations are selected to ensure minimal structural leakage from the training portion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive assessment of the work's potential significance. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (method description): the central claim that encoding entities with their positions inside hyperedges (without relation-specific parameters) produces transferable representations for unseen relation types of arbitrary arities is load-bearing for the generalization result, yet the manuscript provides no concrete analysis or diagnostic test to distinguish true semantic transfer from structural overlap between training and test relations in the constructed splits.

    Authors: We agree that explicit diagnostics would strengthen the central claim. The dataset splits ensure that every relation type appearing in the test sets is entirely absent from training, and HYPER contains no relation-specific parameters, so any successful generalization to novel relations of varying arities must rely on the positional encoding of entities within hyperedges. To directly address the distinction between semantic transfer and structural overlap, we will add a new subsection (and corresponding appendix) that reports (i) performance stratified by arity and by structural similarity metrics between train and test hyperedges, and (ii) an ablation that removes the positional encoding while keeping all other components fixed. These additions will provide concrete evidence for the mechanism underlying the observed transfer. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 and result tables] §4 (experiments) and associated result tables: the abstract states consistent outperformance on 16 new datasets, but the reported results lack details on baseline implementations, statistical significance tests, and ablation studies isolating the contribution of positional encoding; this leaves the strength of support for the node-and-relation inductive claims moderate.

    Authors: We acknowledge these reporting gaps. In the revised manuscript we will expand §4 and the supplementary material with: (a) complete hyperparameter tables and implementation details for all baselines together with pointers to the exact code versions used, (b) statistical significance results (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests across five random seeds) for all reported comparisons, and (c) additional ablation tables that isolate the positional-encoding component by comparing the full model against a variant that replaces positional encodings with simple entity embeddings. These changes will make the empirical support for the node-and-relation inductive setting more rigorous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: generalization claims rest on new datasets and empirical comparisons

full rationale

The paper proposes HYPER, an architecture that encodes entities together with their positions inside hyperedges to support transfer across relation types of varying arities. It then constructs 16 new inductive splits from existing hypergraphs and reports outperformance versus prior methods on node-only and node-and-relation inductive tasks. No equation or modeling step defines a target quantity in terms of a fitted parameter taken from the same data, and no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation whose validity is presupposed by the present work. The central claims are therefore supported by independent experimental evidence rather than by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach relies on standard assumptions of neural network training and the representativeness of the 16 constructed inductive splits; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5724 in / 1101 out tokens · 24843 ms · 2026-05-19T09:48:16.080440+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abboud, ˙I

    R. Abboud, ˙I. ˙I. Ceylan, T. Lukasiewicz, and T. Salvatori. Boxe: A box embedding model for knowledge base completion. In NeurIPS, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Abubaker, T

    A. Abubaker, T. Maehara, M. Nimishakavi, and V . Plachouras. Self-supervised pretraining for heterogeneous hypergraph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11368, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Balazevic, C

    I. Balazevic, C. Allen, and T. Hospedales. Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bazaga, P

    A. Bazaga, P. Liò, and G. Micklem. Hyperbert: Mixing hypergraph-aware layers with language models for node classification on text-attributed hypergraphs. In EMNLP, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bordes, N

    A. Bordes, N. Usunier, A. Garcia-Duran, J. Weston, and O. Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Y . Cui, Z. Sun, and W. Hu. A prompt-based knowledge graph foundation model for universal in-context reasoning. In NeurIPS, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Dettmers, M

    T. Dettmers, M. Pasquale, S. Pontus, and S. Riedel. Convolutional 2D knowledge graph embeddings. In AAAI, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    B. Du, C. Yuan, R. Barton, T. Neiman, and H. Tong. Hypergraph pre-training with graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.10862, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Fatemi, P

    B. Fatemi, P. Taslakian, D. Vazquez, and D. Poole. Knowledge hypergraphs: Prediction beyond binary relations. In IJCAI, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Y . Feng, H. You, Z. Zhang, R. Ji, and Y . Gao. Hypergraph neural networks. InAAAI, 2018

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Y . Feng, S. Liu, X. Han, S. Du, Z. Wu, H. Hu, and Y . Gao. Hypergraph foundation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01203, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Fey and J

    M. Fey and J. E. Lenssen. Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric. In ICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds, 2019

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    L. A. Galárraga, C. Teflioudi, K. Hose, and F. Suchanek. AMIE: Association rule mining under incomplete evidence in ontological knowledge bases. In WWW, 2013

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Galkin, P

    M. Galkin, P. Trivedi, G. Maheshwari, R. Usbeck, and J. Lehmann. Message passing for hyper-relational knowledge graphs. In EMNLP, 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Galkin, E

    M. Galkin, E. Denis, J. Wu, and W. L. Hamilton. Nodepiece: Compositional and parameter- efficient representations of large knowledge graphs. In ICLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Galkin, X

    M. Galkin, X. Yuan, H. Mostafa, J. Tang, and Z. Zhu. Towards foundation models for knowledge graph reasoning. In ICLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    J. Gao, Y . Zhou, J. Zhou, and B. Ribeiro. Double equivariance for inductive link prediction for both new nodes and new relation types. In arXiv, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    S. Guan, X. Jin, J. Guo, Y . Wang, and X. Cheng. Link prediction on n-ary relational data based on relatedness evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Huang, M

    X. Huang, M. R. Orth, ˙I. ˙I. Ceylan, and P. Barceló. A theory of link prediction via relational weisfeiler-leman on knowledge graphs. In NeurIPS, 2023. 10

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Huang, P

    X. Huang, P. Barceló, M. M. Bronstein, ˙Ismail ˙Ilkan Ceylan, M. Galkin, J. L. Reutter, and M. R. Orth. How expressive are knowledge graph foundation models? In ICML, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Huang, M

    X. Huang, M. A. R. Orth, P. Barceló, M. M. Bronstein, and˙I. ˙I. Ceylan. Link prediction with relational hypergraphs. TMLR, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    J. Lee, C. Chung, and J. J. Whang. Ingram: Inductive knowledge graph embedding via relation graphs. In ICML, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    S. Liu, B. Grau, I. Horrocks, and E. Kostylev. Indigo: Gnn-based inductive knowledge graph completion using pair-wise encoding. In NeurIPS, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    H. Mao, Z. Chen, W. Tang, J. Zhao, Y . Ma, T. Zhao, N. Shah, M. Galkin, and J. Tang. Position: Graph foundation models are already here. In ICML, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Safavi and D

    T. Safavi and D. Koutra. CoDEx: A Comprehensive Knowledge Graph Completion Benchmark. In EMNLP, 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    M. S. Schlichtkrull, T. N. Kipf, P. Bloem, R. van den Berg, I. Titov, and M. Welling. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In ESWC, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Sun, Z.-H

    Z. Sun, Z.-H. Deng, J.-Y . Nie, and J. Tang. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In ICLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    K. K. Teru, E. G. Denis, and W. L. Hamilton. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In ICML, 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Toutanova and D

    K. Toutanova and D. Chen. Observed versus latent features for knowledge base and text inference. In Workshop on Continuous Vector Space Models and their Compositionality, 2015

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Trouillon, J

    T. Trouillon, J. Welbl, S. Riedel, É. Gaussier, and G. Bouchard. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In ICML, pages 2071–2080. PMLR, 2016

    work page 2071

  31. [31]

    Vashishth, S

    S. Vashishth, S. Sanyal, V . Nitin, and P. Talukdar. Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks. In ICLR, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    J. Wen, J. Li, Y . Mao, S. Chen, and R. Zhang. On the representation and embedding of knowledge bases beyond binary relations. In IJCAI, 2016

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    N. Yadati. Neural message passing for multi-relational ordered and recursive hypergraphs. In NeurIPS, 2020

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Yadati, M

    N. Yadati, M. Nimishakavi, P. Yadav, V . Nitin, A. Louis, and P. Talukdar. Hypergcn: A new method for training graph convolutional networks on hypergraphs. In NeurIPS, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    M. Yang, Z. Liu, L. Yang, X. Liu, C. Wang, H. Peng, and P. S. Yu. Instruction-based hypergraph pretraining. In SIGIR, 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Zhang, P

    M. Zhang, P. Li, Y . Xia, K. Wang, and L. Jin. Labeling trick: A theory of using graph neural networks for multi-node representation learning. In NeurIPS, 2021

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Zhang and Q

    Y . Zhang and Q. Yao. Knowledge graph reasoning with relational digraph. In WebConf, 2022

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Zhang, Z

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhou, Q. Yao, X. Chu, and B. Han. Adaprop: Learning adaptive propagation for graph neural network based knowledge graph reasoning. In KDD, 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Zhang, B

    Y . Zhang, B. Bevilacqua, M. Galkin, and B. Ribeiro. TRIX: A more expressive model for zero-shot domain transfer in knowledge graphs. In LoG, 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    J. Zhou, B. Bevilacqua, and B. Ribeiro. A multi-task perspective for link prediction with new relation types and nodes. In NeurIPS GLFrontiers, 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    X. Zhou, B. Hui, I. Zeira, H. Wu, and L. Tian. Dynamic relation learning for link prediction in knowledge hypergraphs. In Appl Intell, 2023. 11

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Z. Zhu, Z. Zhang, L.-P. Xhonneux, and J. Tang. Neural bellman-ford networks: A general graph neural network framework for link prediction. In NeurIPS, 2021

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Z. Zhu, X. Yuan, M. Galkin, S. Xhonneux, M. Zhang, M. Gazeau, and J. Tang. A*net: A scalable path-based reasoning approach for knowledge graphs. In NeurIPS, 2023. 12 A Dataset generation details A.1 Generating Datasets for Node and Relation-inductive Link Prediction To evaluate our models in an inductive setting, we created multiple dataset variants with ...

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    For each position a ∈ { 1, · · · , k}, we construct sparse matrices Ea ∈ Rn×m where each nonzero entry indicates the presence of an entity at position a for a given relation type

    work page

  45. [45]

    Here, (Aa2b)i,j is nonzero if there exists an entity that simultaneously plays position a in a hyperedge of relation i and position b in a hyperedge of relation j

    For each pair of positions (a, b) ∈ {1, · · · , k} × {1, · · · , k}, we compute a sparse matrix multiplication: Aa2b = spmm(E⊤ a , Eb) ∈ Rm×m. Here, (Aa2b)i,j is nonzero if there exists an entity that simultaneously plays position a in a hyperedge of relation i and position b in a hyperedge of relation j. This operation systematically captures all interse...

    work page 1942