REVIEW 1 cited by
Is Complex Query Answering Really Complex?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Is Complex Query Answering Really Complex?
read the original abstract
Complex query answering (CQA) on knowledge graphs (KGs) is gaining momentum as a challenging reasoning task. In this paper, we show that the current benchmarks for CQA might not be as complex as we think, as the way they are built distorts our perception of progress in this field. For example, we find that in these benchmarks, most queries (up to 98% for some query types) can be reduced to simpler problems, e.g., link prediction, where only one link needs to be predicted. The performance of state-of-the-art CQA models decreases significantly when such models are evaluated on queries that cannot be reduced to easier types. Thus, we propose a set of more challenging benchmarks composed of queries that require models to reason over multiple hops and better reflect the construction of real-world KGs. In a systematic empirical investigation, the new benchmarks show that current methods leave much to be desired from current CQA methods.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
CQD-SHAP: Explainable Complex Query Answering via Shapley Values
CQD-SHAP uses Shapley values over query atoms to quantify how much neural (versus symbolic) execution of each atom contributes to a target answer's ranking in complex query answering.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.