Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Knowledge Graph Completion for Action Prediction on Situational Graphs -- A Case Study on Household Tasks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that situational knowledge graphs built from household action videos have a fragmented, temporal, hierarchical structure that breaks standard embedding-based link prediction, leaving simple frequency baselines and a few-sh

desk verdict Useful dataset and benchmark framing, but the central negative result on KGE models is likely an artifact of a transductive evaluation on unseen test entities. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13675 v1 pith:SSRYJCXS submitted 2025-08-19 cs.AI

Mariam Arustashvili , Jörg Deigmöller , Heiko Paulheim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords knowledgegraphcompletionlinkpredictionsituationalgraphshouseholdactionfrequencybaselineslargelanguagemodelstransductiveembeddings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tests whether knowledge-graph completion can predict what a person is doing (the parent action) and what they will do next (a sub-action) from graphs built out of household-task video recordings. It finds that standard embedding-based link prediction models essentially fail on these situations: on parent-action prediction they stay below 6% Hits@5, while a frequency-counting baseline reaches 76-100% Hits@3 and a large language model reaches 78.73% Hits@1. On sub-action prediction, a simple transition-count baseline beats every model, including the language model. The paper's central explanation is that situational graphs are fragmented into one disconnected component per recording and carry hierarchical and temporal relations, which violates the dense-connectivity assumptions behind conventional link prediction benchmarks. This matters because household robots that assist people depend on exactly this kind of incomplete, situational knowledge.

What carries the argument

The central object is the situational knowledge graph itself, built from a household-action video dataset with four relation types: has actor, has object, has element, and has next. Each of the 540 recordings becomes its own disconnected weak component, giving 13,928 nodes, 32,577 edges, very low density (0.00017), and zero reciprocity. A fixed train/test split, holding out two of ten repetitions of each task, is applied identically to every model. This graph carries the argument because it is the testbed that reveals the failure: conventional embedding models are transductive and cannot represent test components whose nodes never appeared in training, while frequency baselines and the LLM o

What would settle it

Retrain the embedding models with one held-out test component included in the training graph, or initialize unseen test entities with feature-based embeddings, and recompute Hits@k. If scores jump to the baseline range, the reported failure is an artifact of unseen-node evaluation rather than a property of situational graphs; if they stay near zero, the structural mismatch is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that situational knowledge graphs, which describe a household activity as a parent action decomposed into object-related sub-actions connected by has-next edges, have structural properties that defeat standard knowledge-graph completion. The graph built from 540 recordings of nine household tasks contains 13,928 nodes and 32,577 edges but forms 540 disconnected weak components, one per recording, with zero reciprocity. On parent-action prediction, the embedding models reach at most 5.72% Hits@5, whereas a context-aware frequency baseline reaches 76% Hits@1 and 100% Hits@3, and a few-shot large language model reaches 78.73% Hits@1. On sub-action prediction, the same embed

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that embedding models trained on some video recordings can be scored on held-out recordings whose nodes never appeared in training, even though the models have no way to represent those unseen nodes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On this kind of situational graph, parent-action prediction is solved by an object-aware frequency baseline or a few-shot LLM, while embedding-based KGC models contribute essentially nothing.
  • For sub-action prediction, the most frequent observed transition conditioned on the current action-object pair is the strongest predictor, and the LLM's sequential reasoning is a liability at this granularity.
  • The fragmented, hierarchical, temporal structure of situational graphs fails the dense-connectivity assumption of standard KGC benchmarks, so random link masking is an inappropriate evaluation protocol for this setting.
  • If these results hold, KGC methods for robotics will need inductive or dynamic representations rather than transductive embeddings trained on a single connected graph.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that its recording-level split is the right stress test for real deployment: a robot meeting a new household scene must generalize to unseen nodes, so the transductive failure is a substantive finding rather than a mere artifact.
  • A direct experimental extension is to give unseen test components feature-initialized or inductively computed embeddings; if Hits@k jumps to baseline levels, the gap is explained by node representation rather than by missing relational structure.
  • The parent/sub-action asymmetry suggests a hybrid design, which the paper mentions only as future work: let a global model choose the goal and a transition-count model choose the next step.
  • The same disconnected-component structure is likely present in other situational graphs derived from video or sensor streams, so the conclusion may transfer beyond household tasks, though the paper does not test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies knowledge graph completion for action prediction on a situational KG built from the KIT Bimanual Actions Dataset. It constructs one graph component per video recording, with parent actions, sub-actions, objects, and relations such as has_element and has_next. The authors compare embedding-based KGC models (TransE, TransR, ComplEx, DistMult, RotatE, and LiteralE variants), simple frequency baselines, and GPT-4o-mini on two tasks: predicting the parent action of an observed sub-action sequence and predicting the next sub-action. The reported results show near-zero Hits@k for KGE models on parent-action prediction, high performance of the object-aware frequency baseline, and strong GPT-4o-mini performance on the parent-action task. The paper concludes that standard LP methods are poorly suited to situational KGs due to disconnected subgraphs and hierarchical dependencies, and calls for new evaluation protocols.

Significance. If the empirical comparison were valid, the paper would provide a useful cautionary result for the robotics/KGC community: standard transductive embedding models may fail on fragmented, component-wise graphs, while simple heuristics and LLMs can be competitive. The paper also contributes a public dataset, a fixed train/test split, and reproducible code, which are valuable assets. However, the central negative result is undermined by a fundamental evaluation-protocol problem: the test components contain entities unseen during training, yet all compared KGE models are transductive and require an embedding for every scored entity. The paper never explains how test entities are represented. Because the headline conclusion rests entirely on Table 3, this issue is load-bearing, not a presentation detail.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (train/test split) and Table 3] The evaluation protocol is invalid as described for the KGE models. The paper states that two of ten repetitions per task were reserved for testing, yielding 11,088 training nodes and 2,840 test nodes, and that the split is held constant across models. TransE, TransR, ComplEx, DistMult, and RotatE learn an embedding per entity ID and have no mechanism to score entities that were absent from training. The paper never states how test entities receive embeddings. If they were randomly initialized or simply omitted, the near-zero Hits@k values in Table 3 are a mechanical artifact of the split rather than evidence about situational graph structure. The central claim — that standard LP models are 'not fit for the job' — is therefore unsupported by the reported numbers.
  2. [Section 3 (PyKeen setup) and Table 3] The manuscript omits essential evaluation details: whether filtered or unfiltered Hits@k was used, how the candidate set was constructed, how many random seeds or training runs were averaged, and whether any hyperparameter tuning was performed. Without error bars or repeated trials, the reported differences among KGE models (e.g., RotatE 3.88% vs TransE 3.25% vs TransR 3.25% at Hits@1 in parent-action prediction) are not interpretable. The sub-action results also contain an anomaly: TransE and TransR report Hits@1 = 0.00% but Hits@3 = 53.40% and 31.51%, respectively, which is difficult to reconcile with a standard filtered ranking protocol and suggests either very small candidate sets or an implementation inconsistency. The paper must specify the exact protocol before any comparison can be trusted.
  3. [Section 4 and Figure 2 (GPT-4o-mini comparison)] The LLM comparison is not on equal footing with the KGE models. The prompt in Figure 2 asks GPT-4o-mini to answer with exactly one of nine predefined parent-action labels, making it a nine-way classifier. The frequency baselines also map to the same nine labels. In contrast, the KGE link-prediction models are scored by ranking against the full entity set, which includes thousands of possible tails. This mismatch alone can produce the reported performance gap: the LLM and baselines are evaluated on a closed-set classification task while the KGE models are evaluated on open-set link ranking. The paper should either restrict the KGE candidate set to the nine parent actions (and the corresponding sub-action vocabulary) or evaluate all methods under a common ranking protocol.
  4. [Section 5 (conclusion)] The paper attributes the poor KGE performance to 'disconnected subgraphs' and 'hierarchical dependencies,' but the current experimental design cannot separate these structural explanations from the trivial transductive-entity-novelty problem. The conclusion is therefore overclaimed. A minimal control would be to evaluate inductive link-prediction models (e.g., GraIL, NBFNet) or to train the embedding models on the union graph with edge masking rather than on disjoint components. The future-work sentence in Section 5 that calls for 'redefined evaluation protocols' does not repair the current comparison, since the paper's headline result is precisely the one produced by the flawed protocol.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Reference [13] and [14] are duplicates (the same survey by Ji et al.). This should be corrected. Reference [28] for GPT-4o-mini lacks a version/date and is incomplete.
  2. [Table 3] Several cells use dashes where values could be expected (e.g., Random Hits@5, GPT-4o-mini Hits@3/Hits@5). Please indicate whether these are not applicable or not measured. Also, the table would benefit from confidence intervals or standard deviations.
  3. [Section 3 (graph construction)] The statement that the data was 'structured to ensure compatibility with MemNet' is not explained, and MemNet is not otherwise used in the experiments. Either clarify or remove the mention.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'special characteristics' is used as the paper's central explanation, but the paper never defines a formal set of distinguishing characteristics beyond disconnected components and hierarchy. A precise characterization would strengthen the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical benchmark comparison, no derivation chain reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical finding: on the KIT household action situational graphs, standard embedding-based KGC models do not outperform frequency baselines or GPT-4o-mini for parent-action prediction, and simple baselines win for sub-action prediction. This is a measured comparison, not a derivation. The baselines are constructed from training-set statistics and evaluated on held-out repetitions; the KGE models are trained and then scored, so there is no fitted parameter that is relabeled as a prediction. The few-shot LLM prompt does list the nine possible parent actions, but that is a classification-output constraint, not an input that forces the reported accuracy. The paper cites prior work by some of the authors (MemNet, [9]) only to describe data compatibility, not to justify the headline result. The paper's own conclusion even calls for future work to 'redefine evaluation protocols for LP in disconnected graphs,' which flags a benchmarking limitation, not a circular step. The concern that transductive embedding models cannot represent test-set entities is a validity/correctness issue about the experimental protocol, not a circularity, because the paper does not derive the near-zero scores by construction from its own assumptions. The evaluation is externally grounded in a public dataset with public splits and code, so the findings are independently checkable. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming patterns are present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities, forces, or mediators are introduced. The paper reuses existing relations (has actor, has object, has element, has next) and existing model families.

free parameters (2)
  • Embedding model hyperparameters
    Dimension, number of epochs, learning rate, margin, and negative sampling settings for TransE, TransR, ComplEx, DistMult, RotatE, and LiteralE are not reported; results can shift substantially with these choices.
  • Few-shot example selection for GPT-4o-mini
    The prompt uses "several examples" but the paper does not state how examples were chosen or how many; this is a manually chosen input that can affect LLM accuracy.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The KIT Bimanual Actions Dataset annotations, after manual correction, provide ground truth for parent actions, sub-actions, and object associations.
    All evaluation relies on these labels; the paper only states that inconsistencies were manually corrected, without criteria.
  • domain assumption Each recording is a separate weakly connected component, and disconnectedness is a stable characteristic of situational household KGs.
    Graph statistics support the first part, but generalizing to situational KGs at large is an assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Transductive embedding models trained on train graph components can be evaluated on held-out test components with unseen entity nodes.
    This is required for the KG model results to be meaningful, but the paper never explains how test entities obtain embeddings; standard transductive models cannot handle unseen entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge Graph Completion for Action Prediction on Situational Graphs -- A Case Study on Household Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SSRYJCXS

@misc{pith2026250813675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge Graph Completion for Action Prediction on Situational Graphs -- A Case Study on Household Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SSRYJCXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13675}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge Graphs are used for various purposes, including business applications, biomedical analyses, or digital twins in industry 4.0. In this paper, we investigate knowledge graphs describing household actions, which are beneficial for controlling household robots and analyzing video footage. In the latter case, the information extracted from videos is notoriously incomplete, and completing the knowledge graph for enhancing the situational picture is essential. In this paper, we show that, while a standard link prediction problem, situational knowledge graphs have special characteristics that render many link prediction algorithms not fit for the job, and unable to outperform even simple baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13675 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample graph visualization of the task cooking intersection analysis. Temporal or spatial inconsistencies—such as missing or overlap￾ping annotations—were manually corrected to ensure coherence. The graph structure was built using the following relation types: has actor (link be￾tween parent action and the subject performing the task), has object (link between sub￾action and object), has element (link between parent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prompt used for parent action prediction. It follows a few-shot format with structured reasoning. Parent action labels are taken directly from the dataset, where some tasks are object-based rather than ac￾tion-based. The same naming is used in the prompt examples. Parent Action Prediction Subsequent Action Prediction Category Model Hits@1 Hits@3 Hits@5 Hits@1 Hits@3 Hits@5 Baselines Random 11% 33% - 7.14% - - Baseli… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Shaoxiong Ji, Shirui Pan, Erik Cambria, Pekka Marttinen, and Philip S. Yu. A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33(2):494–514, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    PyKEEN 1.0: A Python Library for Training and Evaluating Knowledge Graph Embeddings

    Mehdi Ali, Max Berrendorf, Charles Tapley Hoyt, Laurent Vermue, Sahand Sharifzadeh, V olker Tresp, and Jens Lehmann. PyKEEN 1.0: A Python Library for Training and Evaluating Knowledge Graph Embeddings. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(82):1–6, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Towards automated models of activities of daily life

    Michael Beetz, Rolf Dillmann, Martin Hanheide, Michael Kirchberg, Dimos Kulic, Thomas L ¨owe, Yu- taka Maeda, Alexander Muelling, Bernhard Nebel, Wolfram Nebel, et al. Towards automated models of activities of daily life. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 17(1):27–40, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    Trans- lating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data

    Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Trans- lating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In C.J. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahra- mani, and K.Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert- V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litw...

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Temporal knowledge graph completion: A survey

    Borui Cai, Yong Xiang, Longxiang Gao, He Zhang, Yunfeng Li, and Jianxin Li. Temporal knowledge graph completion: A survey. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-2023, page 6545–6553. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intel- ligence Organization, August 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Rescaling ego- centric vision

    Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, , Antonino Furnari, Jian Ma, Evangelos Kaza- kos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. Rescaling ego- centric vision. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(1):33–55, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    P. Das, C. Xu, R. F. Doell, and Corso J. J. A thousand frames in just a few words: Lingual description of videos through latent topics and sparse object stitching. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Christian R. G. Dreher, Mirko W ¨achter, and Tamim Asfour. Learning object-action relations from bi- manual human demonstration using graph networks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , 5(1):187–194, 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    Memory net: Generalizable common-sense reasoning over real-world actions and objects

    Julian Eggert, J ¨org Deigm ¨oller, Pavel Smirnov, Johane Takeuchi, and Andreas Richter. Memory net: Generalizable common-sense reasoning over real-world actions and objects. InInternational Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development. Scitepress, November 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Towards a definition of knowledge graphs

    Lisa Ehrlinger and Wolfram W ¨oß. Towards a definition of knowledge graphs. SEMANTiCS (Posters, Demos, SuCCESS), 48(1-4):2, 2016

    2016

  4. [11]

    Semantics for robotic mapping, perception and interaction: A survey

    Sourav Garg, Niko S ¨underhauf, Feras Dayoub, Douglas Morrison, Akansel Cosgun, Gustavo Carneiro, Qi Wu, Tat-Jun Chin, Ian Reid, Stephen Gould, et al. Semantics for robotic mapping, perception and interaction: A survey. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, 8(1–2):1–224, 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Rashid, Anisa Rula, Lukas Schmelzeisen, Juan Sequeda, Steffen Staab, and Antoine Zimmermann

    Aidan Hogan, Eva Blomqvist, Michael Cochez, Claudia D’amato, Gerard De Melo, Claudio Gutierrez, Sabrina Kirrane, Jos ´e Emilio Labra Gayo, Roberto Navigli, Sebastian Neumaier, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Axel Polleres, Sabbir M. Rashid, Anisa Rula, Lukas Schmelzeisen, Juan Sequ...

    2021

  6. [15]

    Representation learning for dynamic graphs: A survey, 2020

    Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Rishab Goel, Kshitij Jain, Ivan Kobyzev, Akshay Sethi, Peter Forsyth, and Pascal Poupart. Representation learning for dynamic graphs: A survey, 2020

    2020

  7. [16]

    Human action recognition and prediction: A survey

    Yu Kong and Yun Fu. Human action recognition and prediction: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(5):1366–1401, 2022

    2022

  8. [17]

    On a generalized framework for time-aware knowl- edge graphs

    Franz Krause, Tobias Weller, and Heiko Paulheim. On a generalized framework for time-aware knowl- edge graphs. In Towards a Knowledge-Aware AI, pages 69–74. IOS Press, 2022

    2022

  9. [18]

    In- corporating literals into knowledge graph embeddings

    Agustinus Kristiadi, Mohammad Asif Khan, Denis Lukovnikov, Jens Lehmann, and Asja Fischer. In- corporating literals into knowledge graph embeddings. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2019: 18th Inter- national Semantic Web Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, October 26–30, 2019, Proceed...

    2019

  10. [19]

    Kuehne, A

    H. Kuehne, A. B. Arslan, and T. Serre. The language of actions: Recovering the syntax and semantics of goal-directed human activities. In Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR), 2014

    2014

  11. [20]

    An end-to-end generative framework for video seg- mentation and recognition

    Hilde Kuehne, Juergen Gall, and Thomas Serre. An end-to-end generative framework for video seg- mentation and recognition. In Proc. IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Conference (WACV 16), Lake Placid, Mar 2016

    2016

  12. [21]

    Ross, Jo ˜ao Carreira, Alexander V ostrikov, and Andrew Zisser- man

    Ang Li, Meghana Thotakuri, David A. Ross, Jo ˜ao Carreira, Alexander V ostrikov, and Andrew Zisser- man. The ava-kinetics localized human actions video dataset, 2020

    2020

  13. [22]

    Yin Li, Miao Liu, and James M. Rehg. In the eye of the beholder: Gaze and actions in first person video, 2020

    2020

  14. [23]

    Learning entity and relation embed- dings for knowledge graph completion

    Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. Learning entity and relation embed- dings for knowledge graph completion. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29(1), Feb. 2015

    2015

  15. [24]

    Forecasting human-object interaction: joint prediction of motor attention and actions in first person video

    Miao Liu, Siyu Tang, Yin Li, and James M Rehg. Forecasting human-object interaction: joint prediction of motor attention and actions in first person video. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16, pages 70...

    2020

  16. [25]

    Constructing knowledge graphs and their biomedical applica- tions

    David N Nicholson and Casey S Greene. Constructing knowledge graphs and their biomedical applica- tions. Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 18:1414–1428, 2020

    2020

  17. [26]

    A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs

    Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, V olker Tresp, and Evgeniy Gabrilovich. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(1):11–33, 2016

    2016

  18. [27]

    Habib, Julita Bermejo-Alonso, Marcos Barreto, Mohammed Diab, Jan Rosell, Jo ˜ao Quintas, and et al

    Alberto Olivares-Alarcos, Daniel Beßler, Alaa Khamis, Paulo Goncalves, Maki K. Habib, Julita Bermejo-Alonso, Marcos Barreto, Mohammed Diab, Jan Rosell, Jo ˜ao Quintas, and et al. A review and comparison of ontology-based approaches to robot autonomy. The Knowledge Engineering ...

    2019

  19. [28]

    Gpt-4o-mini, 2023

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o-mini, 2023

    2023

  20. [29]

    Robotic perception and manipulation in unstructured environments

    Marcus Patel and Ethan Reynolds. Robotic perception and manipulation in unstructured environments. International Journal on Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, 13(1):16–22, 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods

    Heiko Paulheim. Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods. Se- mantic web, 8(3):489–508, 2016

    2016

  22. [31]

    Buchanan, Jeanine Sam, and Yu Sun

    David Paulius, Yongqiang Huang, Roger Milton, William D. Buchanan, Jeanine Sam, and Yu Sun. Func- tional object-oriented network for manipulation learning. In 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), page 2655–2662. IEEE Press, 2016

    2016

  23. [32]

    Graph learning in robotics: a survey

    Francesca Pistilli and Giuseppe Averta. Graph learning in robotics: a survey. IEEE Access, 11:112664– 112681, 2023

    2023

  24. [33]

    Knowl- edge graph embedding for link prediction: A comparative analysis

    Andrea Rossi, Denilson Barbosa, Donatella Firmani, Antonio Matinata, and Paolo Merialdo. Knowl- edge graph embedding for link prediction: A comparative analysis. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 15(2):1–49, 2021

    2021

  25. [34]

    Scene- driven multimodal knowledge graph construction for embodied ai

    Yaoxian Song, Penglei Sun, Haoyu Liu, Zhixu Li, Wei Song, Yanghua Xiao, and Xiaofang Zhou. Scene- driven multimodal knowledge graph construction for embodied ai. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng., 36(11):6962–6976, November 2024

    2024

  26. [35]

    Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space, 2019

    Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space, 2019

    2019

  27. [36]

    Knowrob: A knowledge processing infrastructure for cognition- enabled robots

    Moritz Tenorth and Michael Beetz. Knowrob: A knowledge processing infrastructure for cognition- enabled robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(5):566–590, 2013

    2013

  28. [37]

    Complex embeddings for simple link prediction, 2016

    Th ´eo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, ´Eric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction, 2016

    2016

  29. [38]

    How to support action prediction: Evidence from human coordination tasks

    Cordula Vesper. How to support action prediction: Evidence from human coordination tasks. In The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pages 655–659. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  30. [39]

    Montiel, Alexander Perzylo, Bj ¨orn Schießle, Moritz Tenorth, Oliver Zweigle, and Ren ´e Van De Molengraft

    Markus Waibel, Michael Beetz, Javier Civera, Raffaello D’Andrea, Jos Elfring, Dorian G ´alvez-L´opez, Kai H¨aussermann, Rob Janssen, J.M.M. Montiel, Alexander Perzylo, Bj ¨orn Schießle, Moritz Tenorth, Oliver Zweigle, and Ren ´e Van De Molengraft. Roboearth. IEEE Robotics & Au...

    2011

  31. [40]

    Kgat: Knowledge graph atten- tion network for recommendation

    Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Yixin Cao, Meng Liu, and Tat-Seng Chua. Kgat: Knowledge graph atten- tion network for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Confer- ence on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , KDD ’19, page 950–958, New York, NY , USA, 201...

    2019

  32. [41]

    Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases, 2015

    Bishan Yang, Wen tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases, 2015

    2015

  33. [42]

    Prediction of human activ- ity patterns for human–robot collaborative assembly tasks.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 15(7):3934–3942, 2018

    Andrea Maria Zanchettin, Andrea Casalino, Luigi Piroddi, and Paolo Rocco. Prediction of human activ- ity patterns for human–robot collaborative assembly tasks.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 15(7):3934–3942, 2018

    2018

  34. [43]

    Patterns for representing knowledge graphs to communicate situational knowledge of service robots

    Shengchen Zhang, Zixuan Wang, Chaoran Chen, Yi Dai, Lyumanshan Ye, and Xiaohua Sun. Patterns for representing knowledge graphs to communicate situational knowledge of service robots. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, New Y...

    2021

  35. [2021]

    Association for Computing Machinery

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.