Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Visualization of Knowledge Graphs with Embeddings: an Essay on Recent Trends and Methods

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This essay argues that knowledge-graph visualization has largely met usability and performance goals, but rarely achieves modularity, and that embedding-based tools split into exploratory and explanatory camps with differing feature…

desk verdict A useful survey with a clean taxonomy, but the headline claims on modularity need more transparency about the corpus and coding before they can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05289 v1 pith:FUKKWLWM submitted 2024-11-21 cs.IR cs.GR

Davide Riva , Cristina Rossetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.GR
keywords knowledgegraphvisualizationembeddingsvisualanalyticsembeddingexplanationmodularityexploratoryandexplanatorysurvey
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

This essay reviews roughly a decade of research on visualizing knowledge graphs and knowledge-graph embeddings, organizing the field around four requirements: modularity, intuitive user interface, performance, and query support. The authors find that most reviewed frameworks meet the usability and performance requirements, and that query support is commonly present in general and exploratory tools, but that few frameworks are modular and visualizations are typically fixed. They also distinguish exploratory uses of embeddings, which help users navigate a graph, from explanatory uses, which help users understand what the embeddings captured, and find the two perspectives have different feature profiles. The reason to care is that the survey locates where the field is mature and where it is not, pointing to modularity, relation-focused views, and query support for explanatory tools as the concrete directions for future work.

What carries the argument

The paper's analytic engine is a two-part classification. First, each surveyed framework is scored against four requirements that the authors define: modularity, meaning the architecture is extensible and adaptable; intuitive UI, meaning the interface is clear and largely independent of the graph's structure; performance, meaning the handling of large graphs; and query support, meaning the user can explore without learning a query language. Second, embedding-based visualization approaches are split into an exploratory perspective, where embeddings guide navigation and summarization, and an explanatory perspective, where visualizations expose what embedding models captured. These two axes organize the review and drive its conclusions.

What would settle it

A replication that broadens the corpus, for instance by adding lower-ranked venues, open-source repositories, and non-English work, and then finds that a substantial share of the additional tools are modular or visualize relations would directly undercut the paper's two main conclusions. Concretely, if more than half of, say, 30 newly included tools had plugin-based architectures or relation-specific views, the claim that frameworks are rarely modular and relations are generally overlooked would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the state of knowledge-graph visualization can be summarized as: user interfaces are generally intuitive and performance demands are usually met, but modular architectures are rare, so most visualizations are fixed rather than extensible. In the embedding-specific literature, the authors separate tools that use embeddings to guide exploration of a graph from tools that explain the embeddings themselves; the exploratory tools generally provide query support, while the explanatory ones do not, and nearly all tools ignore relation embeddings and relation-focused visual features. The essay further claims that this asymmetry, together with the neglect of relations, is the main open frontier for KG visualization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the papers returned by the survey's Section 4 search query and its exclusion criteria form a representative sample of knowledge-graph visualization research; if significant tools from lower-ranked venues or non-indexed sources are missing, the conclusion that modularity is rarely met may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the survey's picture is right, a new KG visualization framework that wants to add value should focus on modularity and relation-oriented views, since those are the least satisfied requirements.
  • Explanatory embedding tools, which today generally lack query support, would become more useful for instance-level analysis if querying were added.
  • Because most embedding-based tools compute embeddings offline, performance is rarely the bottleneck; the bottleneck is adaptivity and extensibility.
  • Semantic zooming and relation-specific encodings are named as concrete underused features that future systems could explore.
  • The exploratory/explanatory split suggests that hybrid tools, like the one reviewed tool that combines both perspectives, remain an underexplored design space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The modularity gap may be partly a market artifact: many tools are closed-source industrial products with fixed feature sets, so a survey restricted to published frameworks may underrepresent modular open-source toolkits.
  • Editorial inference: Relation embeddings are a distinctive output of KGE models, so designing views that visualize relations by type, path, or learned vector direction could be a testbed for whether KG visualization can differentiate itself from general graph visualization.
  • Editorial inference: The challenge framing could be extended by treating explainability of embeddings not as a separate perspective but as a queryable view, so users could ask why an entity is close to another and get a visual answer.
  • Editorial inference: A direct empirical test of the survey's ranking would be a task-based user study comparing modular and fixed tools on the same KG, measuring extension time and user insight.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is an essay/survey on recent trends in Knowledge Graph (KG) visualization, with a focus on frameworks that use Knowledge Graph Embeddings (KGEs). The authors define four challenges for KG visualization--modularity, intuitive UI, performance, and query support--and use a Scopus-based literature search to select 72 papers, of which 18 frameworks are tabulated: 10 general KG visualization frameworks in Section 5 and 8 embedding-based approaches in Section 6. The embedding-based approaches are further divided into exploratory and explanatory perspectives. The central conclusions, stated in Section 7, are that intuitive UI and performance requirements are usually met, query support is present in general and exploratory tools but not in explanatory embedding tools, and that frameworks are rarely modular, so visualizations are typically fixed. The paper also identifies relation visualization as a peculiar and underaddressed element of KG visualization and suggests it as a future research direction.

Significance. If the survey's synthesis is accurate, the paper provides a useful organizing taxonomy--exploratory versus explanatory use of embeddings--and draws attention to two concrete gaps in current KG visualization practice: modularity and relation-level visualization. The four-challenge framing is clear and could be reused by other researchers. The paper also makes a specific, checkable observation: embedding-based visualization tools generally rely on offline embedding computation to meet performance requirements, yet none of the surveyed tools implements a modular architecture for adding or modifying views. These are valuable claims for the visualization and semantic-web communities. However, the significance is conditional on the transparency of the survey methodology: the paper's conclusions are counts over binary feature checkmarks in Tables 1 and 2, and the corpus and coding procedure behind those checkmarks are not disclosed in sufficient detail.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] Section 4 reports that 656 Scopus records were reduced to 72 included papers, but the paper never lists the 72 papers and never explains why Tables 1 and 2 summarize only 18 frameworks. Because the Section 7 conclusions (intuitive UI and performance are usually met; modularity is rare) are counts over the tabulated frameworks, the missing corpus list and flow diagram prevent the reader from verifying the synthesis. Please provide the complete list of included papers, a PRISMA-style flow diagram, and a statement of how the 54 included-but-not-tabulated papers were used, or why they do not appear in the tables.
  2. [Section 4] The exclusion criteria 'closed-access papers' and 'low-ranking journals or conferences' are not operationalized. The survey gives no venue-ranking source, no rank threshold, and no count of papers excluded per reason. Closed-access exclusion is an availability filter rather than a quality filter, and it creates a concrete selection risk for the central modularity claim: modular systems documented in lower-ranked or closed-access venues would be invisible to the survey. Please define the exact criteria, report the number excluded for each reason, and discuss how the conclusions might change under plausible variations of the thresholds.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2, Section 7] The binary checkmarks in Tables 1 and 2 are the quantitative basis for the Section 7 conclusions, but the paper does not provide a coding protocol or per-cell evidence. Section 3 itself concedes that intuitive UI is 'naturally subject to personal perspective,' and the paper states only that the authors inspect which features are present or absent. Without an explicit rubric (e.g., what counts as modular, whether performance claims are taken from the paper or measured), the counts cannot be separated from the authors' judgment. Please add a coding protocol, ideally with an inter-rater reliability check, and a supplementary table that gives the evidence for each checkmark.
  4. [Section 6.2, Table 2] Table 2 includes general-graph embedding tools (CorGIE, GEMVis, BiaScope) that Section 6.2 explicitly says are 'not tailored to KGs.' The conclusion that embedding-based frameworks are rarely modular is then reported as a finding about KG visualization at large. This conflation is load-bearing for the central claim. Please report KG-specific and general-graph tools separately, or justify why the general-graph tools are included in the counts that support the KG-specific conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'an user' should be 'a user.'
  2. [Section 3] The phrase 'As as example' should be 'As an example.'
  3. [Section 6.2] The description of GEMVis says 'in a5 view framework'; this should be 'in a 5-view framework,' and the similar phrase '5 view framework' should be revised for clarity.
  4. [Section 6.2] The word 'accomodates' in the CorGIE description should be 'accommodates.'
  5. [Figure 2] Figure 2 would benefit from labeled axes and explicit counts on the vertical axis; currently the reader cannot read the exact number of papers per year.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's conclusions are qualitative syntheses of the reviewed literature, not derived from its own definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is an essay/survey. It identifies four challenges (modularity, intuitive UI, performance, query support) in Section 3, then surveys 72 Scopus-indexed papers in Sections 5-6, tabulates binary features in Tables 1-2, and summarizes in Section 7 that 'intuitive UI and performance requirements are usually met' and 'frameworks are rarely modular'. These conclusions are inductive summaries of the external corpus, not mathematical derivations. The challenge definitions are the survey's coding scheme, and the final claims simply report the resulting counts; this is the normal operation of a literature review, not a reduction of a prediction to its inputs. There are no fitted parameters, no equations, and no self-citations by the present authors that carry argumentative weight. The weakest point noted by the reader is that the 72-paper corpus is not fully disclosed and the binary coding is partly subjective (Section 3 concedes that intuitive UI is 'naturally subject to personal perspective'); however, that is a methodological and validity concern about corpus selection and judgment, not circular reasoning. The survey's claims are in principle falsifiable by inspecting the same literature, so no circularity is present.

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

The central claim of this survey rests on two unverified premises: that the Scopus-based corpus represents the field, and that binary feature checks accurately capture framework capabilities. No free parameters or invented entities are present because the paper makes no quantitative or theoretical claims.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Scopus search and exclusion criteria produce a representative corpus of KG visualization literature.
    The survey relies on this to generalize findings about the field; only one bibliographic database is used and low-ranking venues are excluded (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The binary checks in Tables 1 and 2 accurately capture each framework's capabilities.
    The authors assign checks based on reading the referenced papers, not on user studies or running the tools (Sections 5 and 6).
  • ad hoc to paper The four challenges (Modularity, Intuitive UI, Performance, Query Support) are the right organizing categories for evaluating KG visualization tools.
    These categories are defined by the authors in Section 3 and used to evaluate all tools; they are not derived from an external taxonomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visualization of Knowledge Graphs with Embeddings: an Essay on Recent Trends and Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FUKKWLWM

@misc{pith2026241205289,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visualization of Knowledge Graphs with Embeddings: an Essay on Recent Trends and Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FUKKWLWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05289}
}
read the original abstract

In this essay we discuss the recent trends in visual analysis and exploration of Knowledge Graphs, particularly in conjunction with Knowledge Graph Embedding techniques. We present an overview of the current state of visualization techniques and frameworks for KGs, in relation to four identified challenges. The challenges in visualizing Knowledge Graphs include the need for intuitive and modular interfaces, performance in handling big data, and difficulties for users in understanding and using query languages. We find frameworks that generally satisfy the intuitive UI, performance, and query support requirements, but few satisfying the modularity requirement. In the context of Knowledge Graph Embeddings, we divide the approaches that use embeddings to facilitate exploration of Knowledge Graphs from those that aim at the explanation of the embeddings themselves. We find significant differences between the two perspectives. Finally, we highlight some possible directions for future work, including diffusion of the unmet requirements, implementation of new visual features, and experimentation with relation visualization as a peculiar element of Knowledge Graphs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05289 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schema of graph embedding. user’s interests ([48]) or fed into Graph Neural Networks ([47]) to produce recommendations. Furthermore, many works have been published about the use of KGs in medicine and healthcare ([1, 31, 38]), cybersecurity ([26, 27]), Industry 5.0 ([2]), geoscience ([8]), education ([9]), and Natural Language Processing ([55]). 2.2 Knowledge Graphs Embeddings Graph Embedding models are mathematical… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of papers grouped by year of publication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of entities search from StarDog Explorer[13] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of graph visualization from StarDog Explorer [13] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of recommended chart for a KG - VizKG [42] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Toy examples of CorGIE latent neighbor block view with 9 blocks (a) and distance comparison view (b). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Healthcare knowledge graph construction: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art, open issues, and opportunities

    Bilal Abu-Salih et al. “Healthcare knowledge graph construction: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art, open issues, and opportunities”. In: Journal of Big Data 10.1 (2023), p. 81

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    The SemIoE Ontology: A Semantic Model Solution for an IoE-based Industry

    Marco Arazzi, Antonino Nocera, and Emanuele Storti. The SemIoE Ontology: A Semantic Model Solution for an IoE-based Industry. 2024. arXiv: 2401.06667 [cs.IR]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data

    S ¨oren Auer et al. “Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data”. In: international semantic web conference . Springer. 2007, pp. 722–735

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data

    Antoine Bordes et al. “Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Valerio Diego Camarda, Silvia Mazzini, and Alessandro Antonuccio. LodLive. http://lodlive.it/. 2012. 11 Visualization of Knowledge Graphs with Embeddings: an Essay on Recent Trends and MethodsA PREPRINT

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information

    Shaosheng Cao, Wei Lu, and Qiongkai Xu. “Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information”. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management. 2015, pp. 891–900

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Aurum: A Data Discovery System

    Raul Castro Fernandez et al. “Aurum: A Data Discovery System”. In: 2018 IEEE 34th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 2018, pp. 1001–1012. DOI: 10.1109/ICDE.2018.00094

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    The GeoLink knowledge graph

    Michelle Cheatham et al. “The GeoLink knowledge graph”. In: Big Earth Data 2.2 (2018), pp. 131–143

    work page 2018

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Knowedu: A system to construct knowledge graph for education

    Penghe Chen et al. “Knowedu: A system to construct knowledge graph for education”. In: Ieee Access 6 (2018), pp. 31553–31563

    2018

  2. [10]

    GEMvis: A visual analysis method for the comparison and refinement of graph embedding models

    Yi Chen et al. “GEMvis: A visual analysis method for the comparison and refinement of graph embedding models”. In: The Visual Computer 38.9-10 (2022), pp. 3449–3462

    2022

  3. [11]

    Enriching Data Lakes with Knowledge Graphs

    Alessandro Chessa et al. “Enriching Data Lakes with Knowledge Graphs”. In: 1st International Workshop on Knowledge Graph Generation From Text and the 1st International Workshop on Modular Knowledge, TEXT2KG 2022 and MK 2022. 2022. URL: https://oro.open.ac.uk/83013/

    2022

  4. [12]

    Formal ontologies, linked data, and TEI semantics

    Fabio Ciotti and Francesca Tomasi. “Formal ontologies, linked data, and TEI semantics”. In: Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative 9 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    StarDog Explorer

    Kendall Clark, Mike Grove, and Evren Sirin. StarDog Explorer. https://stardog.com. 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    The missing path: Analysing incompleteness in knowledge graphs

    Marie Destandau and Jean-Daniel Fekete. “The missing path: Analysing incompleteness in knowledge graphs”. In: Information Visualization 20.1 (2021), pp. 66–82

    2021

  7. [15]

    A Knowledge-Based Approach to Support Analytic Query Answering in Semantic Data Lakes

    C. Diamantini, D. Potena, and E. Storti. “A Knowledge-Based Approach to Support Analytic Query Answering in Semantic Data Lakes”. In: Advances in Databases and Information Systems. Ed. by S. Chiusano et al. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 179–192

    2022

  8. [16]

    Stunning Doodle: a Tool for Joint Visualization and Analysis of Knowledge Graphs and Graph Embeddings

    Antonia Ettorre et al. “Stunning Doodle: a Tool for Joint Visualization and Analysis of Knowledge Graphs and Graph Embeddings”. In: European Semantic Web Conference. Springer. 2022, pp. 370–386

    2022

  9. [17]

    AllegroGraph

    Richard Fateman et al. AllegroGraph. https://allegrograph.com. 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Magnn: Metapath aggregated graph neural network for heterogeneous graph embedding

    Xinyu Fu et al. “Magnn: Metapath aggregated graph neural network for heterogeneous graph embedding”. In: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 2020, pp. 2331–2341

    2020

  11. [19]

    Lineup: Visual analysis of multi-attribute rankings

    Samuel Gratzl et al. “Lineup: Visual analysis of multi-attribute rankings”. In: IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19.12 (2013), pp. 2277–2286

    2013

  12. [20]

    node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks

    Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec. “node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks”. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 2016, pp. 855–864

    2016

  13. [21]

    Embedding logical queries on knowledge graphs

    Will Hamilton et al. “Embedding logical queries on knowledge graphs”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Data Management Issues on the Se- mantic Web

    Oktie Hassanzadeh, Anastasios Kementsietsidis, and Yannis Velegrakis. “Data Management Issues on the Se- mantic Web”. In: 2012 IEEE 28th International Conference on Data Engineering . 2012, pp. 1204–1206. DOI: 10.1109/ICDE.2012.141

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    Prototyping an Interactive Visualization of Dietary Supplement Knowledge Graph

    Xing He et al. “Prototyping an Interactive Visualization of Dietary Supplement Knowledge Graph”. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) . 2018, pp. 1649–1652. DOI: 10. 1109/BIBM.2018.8621340

    2018

  16. [24]

    Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space

    Tom Heath and Christian Bizer. Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Knowledge graph embedding based question answering

    Xiao Huang et al. “Knowledge graph embedding based question answering”. In: Proceedings of the twelfth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 2019, pp. 105–113

    2019

  18. [26]

    A practical approach to constructing a knowledge graph for cybersecurity

    Yan Jia et al. “A practical approach to constructing a knowledge graph for cybersecurity”. In: Engineering 4.1 (2018), pp. 53–60

    2018

  19. [27]

    The SEPSES knowledge graph: An integrated resource for cybersecurity

    Elmar Kiesling et al. “The SEPSES knowledge graph: An integrated resource for cybersecurity”. In: Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference. Springer. 2019, pp. 198–214

    2019

  20. [28]

    Mining hidden knowledge: embedding models of cause–effect relationships curated from the biomedical literature

    Andreas Kr ¨amer et al. “Mining hidden knowledge: embedding models of cause–effect relationships curated from the biomedical literature”. In: Bioinformatics Advances 2.1 (2022), vbac022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Making sense of search: Using graph embedding and visualization to transform query understanding

    Jonathan Larson et al. “Making sense of search: Using graph embedding and visualization to transform query understanding”. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2020, pp. 1–8

    2020

  22. [30]

    Knowledge Graphs in Practice: Characterizing their Users, Challenges, and Visualization Op- portunities

    Harry Li et al. “Knowledge Graphs in Practice: Characterizing their Users, Challenges, and Visualization Op- portunities”. In: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30.1 (2024), pp. 584–594. DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3326904. 12 Visualization of Knowledge Graph...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Real-world data medical knowledge graph: construction and applications

    Linfeng Li et al. “Real-world data medical knowledge graph: construction and applications”. In: Artificial Intel- ligence in Medicine 103 (2020), p. 101817. ISSN : 0933-3657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed. 2020.101817. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Embeddingvis: A visual analytics approach to comparative network embedding inspection

    Quan Li et al. “Embeddingvis: A visual analytics approach to comparative network embedding inspection”. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). IEEE. 2018, pp. 48–59

    2018

  25. [33]

    Visual Understanding of COVID-19 Knowledge Graph for Predictive Analysis

    Seung-Hwan Lim et al. “Visual Understanding of COVID-19 Knowledge Graph for Predictive Analysis”. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . 2021, pp. 4381–4386. DOI: 10 . 1109 / BigData52589.2021.9672055

    2021

  26. [34]

    Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion

    Yankai Lin et al. “Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. V ol. 29. 1. 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    KGVQL: A knowledge graph visual query language with bidirectional transformations

    Pengkai Liu et al. “KGVQL: A knowledge graph visual query language with bidirectional transformations”. In: Knowledge-Based Systems 250 (2022), p. 108870

    2022

  28. [36]

    Visualizing graph neural networks with corgie: Corresponding a graph to its embedding

    Zipeng Liu et al. “Visualizing graph neural networks with corgie: Corresponding a graph to its embedding”. In: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28.6 (2022), pp. 2500–2516

    2022

  29. [37]

    Visualization analysis and design

    Tamara Munzner. Visualization analysis and design. CRC press, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Towards electronic health record-based medical knowledge graph construction, completion, and applications: A literature study

    Lino Murali et al. “Towards electronic health record-based medical knowledge graph construction, completion, and applications: A literature study”. In: Journal of Biomedical Informatics 143 (2023), p. 104403. ISSN : 1532-

    2023

  31. [39]

    Knowledge Graph Visualization: Challenges, Framework, and Implementation

    Rungsiman Nararatwong, Natthawut Kertkeidkachorn, and Ryutaro Ichise. “Knowledge Graph Visualization: Challenges, Framework, and Implementation”. In: 2020 IEEE Third International Conference on Artificial In- telligence and Knowledge Engineering (AIKE). 2020, pp. 174–178. DOI:...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods

    Heiko Paulheim. “Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods”. In: Semantic Web 8 (Dec. 2016), pp. 489–508. DOI: 10.3233/SW-160218

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Knowledge Enhanced Contextual Word Representations

    Matthew E. Peters et al. “Knowledge Enhanced Contextual Word Representations”. In: Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2019. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 202542757

    2019

  34. [42]

    VizKG: A framework for visualizing SPARQL query results over knowledge graphs

    Hana Raissya, Fariz Darari, and Fajar J. Ekaputra. “VizKG: A framework for visualizing SPARQL query results over knowledge graphs”. English. In:CEUR Workshop Proceedings3023 (2021), pp. 95–102. ISSN : 1613-0073

    2021

  35. [43]

    BiaScope: Visual unfairness diagnosis for graph embeddings

    Agapi Rissaki et al. “BiaScope: Visual unfairness diagnosis for graph embeddings”. In: 2022 IEEE Visualization in Data Science (VDS). IEEE. 2022, pp. 27–36

    2022

  36. [44]

    CEPV: A Tree Structure Information Extraction and Visual- ization Tool for Big Knowledge Graph

    Shaojing Sheng, Peng Zhou, and Xindong Wu. “CEPV: A Tree Structure Information Extraction and Visual- ization Tool for Big Knowledge Graph”. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Knowledge (ICBK) . 2019, pp. 221–228. DOI: 10.1109/ICBK.2019.00037

    2019

  37. [45]

    EduVis: Visualization for education knowledge graph based on web data

    Kai Sun et al. “EduVis: Visualization for education knowledge graph based on web data”. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction. 2016, pp. 138–139

    2016

  38. [46]

    Knowledge graph embedding and visualization for pre-silicon detection of hardware Trojans

    Dmitry Utyamishev and Inna Partin-Vaisband. “Knowledge graph embedding and visualization for pre-silicon detection of hardware Trojans”. In: 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) . IEEE. 2022, pp. 180–184

    2022

  39. [47]

    Knowledge Graph Convolutional Networks for Recommender Systems

    Hongwei Wang et al. “Knowledge Graph Convolutional Networks for Recommender Systems”. In: The World Wide Web Conference. WWW ’19. San Francisco, CA, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, pp. 3307–3313. ISBN : 9781450366748. DOI: 10.1145/3308558.3313417 . URL: https:/...

    2019

  40. [48]

    RippleNet: Propagating User Preferences on the Knowledge Graph for Recom- mender Systems

    Hongwei Wang et al. “RippleNet: Propagating User Preferences on the Knowledge Graph for Recom- mender Systems”. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowl- edge Management. CIKM ’18. Torino, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery, 201...

    2018

  41. [49]

    KGNav: A Knowledge Graph Navigational Visual Query System

    Xiang Wang et al. “KGNav: A Knowledge Graph Navigational Visual Query System”. In: Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 16.12 (2023), pp. 3946–3949

    2023

  42. [50]

    Vision-kg: Topic-centric visualization system for summarizing knowledge graph

    Jiaqi Wei, Shuo Han, and Lei Zou. “Vision-kg: Topic-centric visualization system for summarizing knowledge graph”. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 2020, pp. 857– 860

    2020

  43. [51]

    SSP: semantic space projection for knowledge graph embedding with text descriptions

    Han Xiao et al. “SSP: semantic space projection for knowledge graph embedding with text descriptions”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. V ol. 31. 1. 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    TigerGraph

    Yu Xu. TigerGraph. https://www.tigergraph.com/product/. 2012. 13 Visualization of Knowledge Graphs with Embeddings: an Essay on Recent Trends and MethodsA PREPRINT

    2012

  45. [53]

    Deep graph kernels

    Pinar Yanardag and SVN Vishwanathan. “Deep graph kernels”. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 2015, pp. 1365–1374

    2015

  46. [54]

    KGScope: Interactive Visual Exploration of Knowledge Graphs with Embedding- based Guidance

    Chao-Wen Hsuan Yuan et al. “KGScope: Interactive Visual Exploration of Knowledge Graphs with Embedding- based Guidance”. In: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models

    Xikun Zhang et al. “Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models”. In: International conference on learning representations. 2021. 14

    2021

  48. [464]

    URL: https://www.sciencedirect

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104403 . URL: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1532046423001247

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.