Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Deep Sparse Latent Feature Models for Knowledge Graph Completion

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 DSLFM-KGC, a deep VAE with Indian Buffet Process community memberships plus BERT text, improves knowledge graph completion on Wikidata5M-Ind (MRR 76.3 vs 71.3 for SimKGC) and yields interpretable communities.

desk verdict Strong empirical results, but the model's central claim about global community discovery via an Indian Buffet Process doesn't hold as written—per-instance stick-breaking weights produce sparse text codes, not shared graph communities. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15694 v2 pith:SQQLYZVW submitted 2024-11-24 cs.CL

Haotian Li , Rui Zhang , Lingzhi Wang , Bin Yu , Youwei Wang , Yuliang Wei , Kai Wang , Richard Yi Da Xu
show 1 more author
Bailing Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords knowledgegraphcompletionsparselatentfeaturemodelsIndianbuffetprocessstochasticblockmodelsvariationalautoencodercommunitystructurecontrastivelearninginterpretability
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

DSLFM-KGC tries to establish that knowledge graph completion (KGC) improves when the model explicitly learns the graph's global community structure instead of relying on local text alone. The paper builds a generative model in which each query and each candidate answer entity is described by a sparse binary community membership vector plus a real-valued feature vector, with an Indian Buffet Process prior that lets the number of communities emerge from data, and a deep variational autoencoder that scales inference to millions of entities. On the Wikidata5M-Ind benchmark the method raises MRR from 71.3 to 76.3 over the text-only SimKGC baseline, and on WN18RR it beats the previous best model on every metric; on the dense FB15k-237 graph, where the authors measure low modularity, gains shrink, supporting the claim that community structure is the operative signal. The authors argue the learned communities are interpretable and that the performance gain comes from sparse community modeling rather than added model capacity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a sparse latent feature relational model with an Indian Buffet Process prior, the LFRM-style construction in which each node (here, each query and each answer entity) carries a binary vector $z$ of community memberships and a continuous vector $w$ of membership strengths; the existence probability of a triple is $p(A_{hr,t}=1) = \sigma(f_{hr}^\top f_t)$ with $f = w \odot z$. To make inference scalable, the paper uses the stick-breaking construction of the IBP with truncation $K=128$, a variational autoencoder whose encoder is two weight-shared BERT encoders plus an MLP producing Bernoulli probabilities, Gaussian means and variances, and Beta parameters, and a decoder that maps $f$ through an MLP and scores with a cosine-similarity contrastive loss with margin and temperature. The ELBO combines KL divergences over the latent variables, reconstruction terms, and the contrastive triple-completion term; reparameterization uses the Concrete/Gumbel-softmax trick for the Bernoulli variables and implicit differentiation for Beta variables.

What would settle it

Train a matched-capacity dense Gaussian VAE with the same BERT/MLP backbone and the same contrastive loss but no IBP-Bernoulli sparsity and compare on Wikidata5M-Ind; if the dense variant matches DSLFM-KGC's 76.3 MRR, the sparse community mechanism is not the driver of the gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a sparse latent feature model for KGC—where each query and each answer entity is represented by a sparse binary community-membership vector $z$ and a continuous feature vector $w$, combined through the Hadamard product $f = w \odot z$ and scored by an MLP-transformed inner product—captures global clustering information that text-only encoders miss, and that optimizing this model through a deep variational autoencoder makes it scalable. Under an Indian Buffet Process prior on the membership matrices, the number of active communities is learned rather than fixed. On Wikidata5M-Ind, the method reports an MRR of 76.3 versus 71.3 for SimKGC and Hit@1 of 67.2 versus 60.7; on WN18RR it reports MRR 70.4 and Hit@10 84.2, surpassing the strongest prior model (GHN) across all metrics. The authors support the community-structure mechanism by showing that a Gaussian VAE and an autoencoder variant perform close to SimKGC and far below DSLFM-KGC, and that the gain is largest on long-range triples in WN18RR while being modest on the low-modularity FB15k-237 graph.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's causal claim depends on the assumption that the latent communities learned from the Indian Buffet Process prior genuinely reflect the graph's real community structure and are the source of the accuracy gains, rather than acting as an uninterpretable increase in model capacity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On knowledge graphs with clear community structure, such as WN18RR and Wikidata5M, community-aware latent features can substantially outperform text-only contrastive baselines (MRR 76.3 vs 71.3 on Wikidata5M-Ind).
  • Learned communities are inspectable: the highest-strength entities in a community form coherent semantic groups (e.g., counties, music artists), giving a path from link prediction to explanation.
  • The performance gain is concentrated on long-range triples—head and tail more than a few hops apart—where local text evidence is weak, indicating that global structure supplies complementary signal.
  • On graphs with low modularity such as FB15k-237, the method's advantage over text-only baselines shrinks, consistent with community structure being the active ingredient rather than model complexity.
  • The deep VAE formulation with a fixed truncation level scales to graphs with millions of entities and tens of millions of triples, removing the scalability barrier that has kept SBM-style models out of large-scale KGC.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the community mechanism is the true driver, then across a family of KGs the MRR gap between DSLFM-KGC and a text-only baseline should be rank-correlated with graph modularity; this is a testable prediction the paper does not run.
  • The architecture is a template: any entity encoder (multimodal, multilingual, or LLM-based) could be placed under the same IBP latent layer, so the structural inductive bias may transfer beyond text-only KGC to other link-prediction settings.
  • A sharper test of interpretability would quantify community purity by comparing the learned partition against known entity categories; the paper currently shows qualitative examples only.
  • Because the triple-completion likelihood is replaced by a contrastive loss, the generative model is partly a scaffold; ablating the cosine-margin scoring against a plain inner product would separate the contribution of the sparse latent structure from the contrastive objective.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DSLFM-KGC, a knowledge graph completion method that combines BERT-encoded textual descriptions of queries and entities with a deep variational autoencoder whose latent variables are intended to be sparse Bernoulli community indicators under an Indian Buffet Process prior. The encoder maps text to the parameters of Beta, Bernoulli, and Gaussian latents; the decoder applies a Hadamard product and an MLP to produce query/answer representations, and the training objective is an ELBO whose triple-completion term is a supervised contrastive loss. Experiments on UMLS, WN18RR, FB15k-237, and Wikidata5M-Ind report state-of-the-art or competitive results, including a 5.0-point MRR improvement over SimKGC on Wikidata5M-Ind. The paper additionally provides ablations to a Gaussian VAE and an autoencoder, robustness tests over stick-breaking prior parameters, geodesic-distance analyses, and latent-structure visualizations.

Significance. If the mechanism were as described, the paper would make a useful contribution: it would show that scalable variational inference of sparse latent community features improves text-based KGC and provides interpretable clusters. The empirical work has genuine strengths, including five-seed averaged results, a 30-setting robustness grid over the stick-breaking priors, and a geodesic-distance analysis that gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction about where gains concentrate. However, the central claimed mechanism, a global IBP prior that integrates graph-community structure with text, is not present in the implemented equations, and the evaluation protocol raises comparability questions. As written, the benchmark gains and interpretability examples cannot be attributed to community modeling; they may reflect a sparse regularization of text-derived features. The significance of the result therefore depends on substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1–3.2, Eqs. (8)–(16)] The model does not implement the claimed global IBP/LFRM prior. In the standard IBP stick-breaking construction the Beta weights v_k are shared across rows, whereas Eq. (9) draws v_hr,k and v_t,k separately for each query and entity. The mean-field family in Eqs. (10)–(12) also has per-instance Beta parameters, so Z_qry and Z_ans are not draws from the IBP as defined. Moreover, the encoder in Eqs. (15)–(16) receives only textual descriptions; the graph adjacency matrix A enters only through the contrastive triple-completion term (Eq. 19). The latent "communities" are therefore per-instance sparse text-derived codes, not a global community assignment matrix shared across entities. The abstract's claim that the model "dynamically integrates global clustering information with local textual features" and the interpretability claims in Section 5.2 are not supported by the generative model as written. The authors should either implement a genuine global community assignment (e.g., shared stick-breaking weights and a graph-based encoder) or reframe the contribution as a sparse-latent text-based KGC model and remove the SBM/community causal language.
  2. [§4.1, Tables 1–2 and Fig. 2] The evaluation protocol for DSLFM-KGC differs from the protocol used to produce most published baseline numbers. Section 4.1 states that for each test triple the paper evaluates both a forward query (h,r,?) and a backward query (?, r^{-1}, t), using the inverse-relation convention from the authors' own KERMIT paper, and averages the two. No statement is made that the baselines in Table 1 and Figure 2 were recomputed under this protocol; the baseline numbers appear to be taken from the original papers, which typically use only the standard filtered forward protocol or a different reciprocal convention. Since the reported gains are often small (e.g., MRR 70.4 vs. 67.8 on WN18RR; 76.3 vs. 71.3 on Wikidata5M-Ind), the headline comparisons are not trustworthy until baselines are evaluated under exactly the same protocol or both protocols are reported.
  3. [§3.4, Eq. (19)] The generative likelihood and the training objective are inconsistent. Section 3.1 defines p(A_hr,t = 1 | ...) = σ(f_hr^T f_t), a Bernoulli probability (Eq. 7). Section 3.4 then sets log pθ(A_hr,t | ...) equal to a supervised contrastive softmax over positive and negative entities (Eq. 19). This is not the log-likelihood of the Bernoulli model, so the ELBO in Eq. (18) is not being optimized for the generative model described. The paper should either derive the contrastive objective as an approximation to the Bernoulli likelihood (specifying how the normalization over negative entities arises) or describe the objective as a hybrid contrastive+VAE loss rather than a probabilistic KGC model.
  4. [§4.3, Table 2] The ablation in Section 4.3 does not isolate graph-community modeling. Replacing the sparse Beta-Bernoulli prior with a Gaussian VAE or an autoencoder changes the regularizer, but none of these variants has access to graph structure either; the comparison only tests whether a sparse latent prior helps over a dense Gaussian prior or no probabilistic prior. Moreover, the variants are not matched on hyperparameters such as β, η, and training epochs (Table 2 shows different epoch counts). The conclusion that "the enhancement in KGC performance arises from the sparse community modeling itself" is therefore too strong; the experiment cannot distinguish a sparse-regularization effect from a graph-community effect, especially given that the latent codes are text-derived.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] The text says "Table 2 presents the results for the Wikidata5M-Ind dataset," but Figure 2 contains the Wikidata5M-Ind results and Table 2 contains ablations for WN18RR, FB15k-237, and UMLS; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [§7] The conclusion says the method is evaluated on "three benchmark datasets," but the paper reports results on UMLS, WN18RR, FB15k-237, and Wikidata5M-Ind; the count should be four.
  3. [§D.2, Fig. 11] The latent-structure visualization uses K = 64 and α_ans = 50, whereas the main results use K = 128 and α_ans = 20 (Appendix C, Table 4); the authors should clarify whether the displayed communities come from the same configuration that produced the reported benchmark numbers.
  4. [§4.2] The phrase "5.0% increase in MRR" describes a 5.0 percentage-point increase (71.3 to 76.3); the wording should be made precise.
  5. [§6, Table 1] The same method is referred to as both KBGAT [41] in the related-work section and KGGAT [41] in Table 1; the notation should be unified.
  6. [Appendix B.1] The reconstruction terms pθ(X_qry | Z_qry, W_qry) and pθ(X_ans | Z_ans, W_ans) are introduced in the ELBO, but the generative model in Section 3.1 does not specify a text-likelihood; the appendix says the reconstruction is computed by cosine similarity between e_hr and g_hr, but this is not derived from the generative story. A precise definition is needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported MRR gains are evaluated against external, held-out benchmarks and published baselines, so the headline results are not defined in terms of fitted parameters or self-citation.

full rationale

The numerical claims that carry the paper's headline—a 5.0% MRR gain on Wikidata5M-Ind over SimKGC and WN18RR gains over GHN—are produced by training on standard train splits and scoring on held-out test sets under the filtered protocol. These results are therefore not defined in terms of any fitted parameter or self-citation. The KL/Beta/Concrete derivations in Appendix B are standard identities and do not encode the target benchmark numbers. The only self-citation, KERMIT [33], is used in Section 4.1 to define the inverse-relation convention for averaging forward/backward metrics; this is an evaluation convention, not a load-bearing model component, so it does not force the outcome. Two caveats are recorded but do not constitute circularity. First, the stick-breaking construction in Eq. 9 uses per-query Beta weights v_hr,k rather than a single column-shared weight sequence, so the global IBP prior asserted in Eq. 8 is not literally implemented; this is an implementation/claim mismatch affecting attribution of the gains to 'global clustering information,' not a circular reduction of the benchmarks. Second, the interpretability demonstration in Section 5.2 uses entity descriptions to interpret communities whose posterior parameters are produced by the same BERT+MLP text encoder (Eqs. 15-16), making the textual interpretability partly definitional; again, this does not enter the benchmark computation. Overall, the central empirical derivation is self-contained and externally checkable.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard Bayesian and VAE machinery, plus the domain assumption that knowledge graph triples can be explained by overlapping latent communities. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unaccounted costs are the fixed hyperparameters and the replacement of the triple likelihood with a contrastive objective.

free parameters (7)
  • Indian Buffet Process concentration alpha_qry = 100 for all datasets
    Controls the expected number of query-side communities; chosen from the grid {80, 90, 100} rather than learned.
  • Indian Buffet Process concentration alpha_ans = 20 (WN18RR, FB15k-237), 100 (Wikidata5M)
    Controls entity-side community count; hand-tuned per dataset, with sensitivity reported in Table 6.
  • Truncation level K = 128
    Maximum number of communities; the IBP is only approximately nonparametric beyond this bound.
  • Contrastive temperature tau = 0.02, 0.08, 0.03
    Per-dataset temperature in the cosine score function of Eq. 19.
  • Additive margin gamma = not reported
    Appears in the score S(ghr, gt) in Eq. 19, but no value is given anywhere in the paper.
  • KL weight beta = not stated for main experiments
    Eq. 21 weights the KL terms; the ablation spans 10^-1 to 10^-4, but the final setting is unspecified.
  • Reconstruction weight eta = not reported
    Weights the reconstruction loss in Eq. 21; no value is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Triples are conditionally independent given their latent communities.
    Stated in Section 3.1; this is the core modeling assumption that lets the decoder factor over triples.
  • domain assumption A knowledge graph can be represented as a bipartite query-answer graph A in {0,1}^{|Q|x|E|}.
    Section 2.2 folds each (h, r) pair into a single query node, so relation-specific structure is only captured through query embeddings.
  • standard math Mean-field factorization of the variational posterior.
    Equations 10-11 assume independence across latent variables, a standard approximation that may miss posterior correlations.
  • domain assumption IBP stick-breaking prior with fixed truncation K.
    Equations 8-9 set a Beta(alpha,1) stick-breaking process and truncate at K=128, limiting the number of communities that can be discovered.
  • domain assumption BERT text descriptions provide sufficient local features.
    Equation 15 uses mean-pooled BERT embeddings as the only local input; if descriptions are missing or noisy, this signal degrades.
  • ad hoc to paper Supervised contrastive loss equals the triple log-likelihood.
    Equation 19 replaces log p(theta)(A|H) with a contrastive objective; the paper does not derive this as a likelihood, so it is a design choice made to make training work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Sparse Latent Feature Models for Knowledge Graph Completion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQQLYZVW

@misc{pith2026241115694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Sparse Latent Feature Models for Knowledge Graph Completion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQQLYZVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15694}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in knowledge graph completion (KGC) have emphasized text-based approaches to navigate the inherent complexities of large-scale knowledge graphs (KGs). While these methods have achieved notable progress, they frequently struggle to fully incorporate the global structural properties of the graph. Stochastic blockmodels (SBMs), especially the latent feature relational model (LFRM), offer robust probabilistic frameworks for identifying latent community structures and improving link prediction. This paper presents a novel probabilistic KGC framework utilizing sparse latent feature models, optimized via a deep variational autoencoder (VAE). Our proposed method dynamically integrates global clustering information with local textual features to effectively complete missing triples, while also providing enhanced interpretability of the underlying latent structures. Extensive experiments on four benchmark datasets with varying scales demonstrate the significant performance gains achieved by our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15694 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of our DSLFM-KGC framework during inference. Initially, the encoder network hϕ encodes the textual information of a triple (xhr and xt) into posterior distributions, as defined in Equations 15 and 16. Latent variables (e.g., zhr and whr) are then sampled using reparameterization tricks (see Appendix B.4), after which the decoder gθ generates representations for the query and answer (ghr and gt). The samp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. KGC results for the Wikidata5M-Ind dataset. Method MRR Hit@1 Hit@3 Hit@10 DKPL [58] 23.1 5.9 32.0 54.6 KEPLER [56] 40.2 22.2 51.4 73.0 BLP-ComplEx [12] 48.9 26,2 66.4 87.7 BLP-SimplE [12] 49.3 28.9 63.9 86.6 SimKGC [55] 71.3 60.7 78.7 91.3 DSLFM-KGC 76.3 67.2 82.7 93.6 Owing to the stochastic nature of our model, we conduct five independent experiments with distinct random seeds and report the average metrics [PITH… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average number of activated commu￾nities learned on the WN18RR and FB15k-237 datasets. Robustness w.r.t. hyperparameter settings. We conduct KGC experiments with αqry and αans selected from the grid {80, 90, 100} × {10, 20, . . . , 100}, while maintaining all other hyperparameters fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of DSLFM-KGC and SimKGC performance on the WN18RR dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A simplified example of KG involving diverse communities. Solid black arrows indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Validation triple completion loss Lcomp for DSLFM-KGC during training with different β values on the WN18RR and FB15k-237 datasets. Datasets. The statistics of each dataset are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance of DSLFM-KGC on the WN18RR and FB15k-237 datasets w/ different β values. β WN18RR FB15k-237 MRR Hit@1 Hit@10 MRR Hit@1 Hit@10 10−1 69.2 61.6 83.3 33.7 24.5 52.2 10−2 70.2 62.8 83.9 35.1 26.0 53.3 10−3 70.2 62.6 84.3 35.4 26.2 53.6 10−4 70.4 62.5 84.0 35.4 2…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Testing data distribution of the WN18RR and FB15k-237 dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of DSLFM-KGC and SimKGC performance on the FB15k-237 dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The latent structure Fans learned from the WN18RR and FB15k-237 datasets. The columns of Fans, representing communities, are sorted such that communities with higher summed strengths are assigned lower indices in the matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels

    Edo M Airoldi, David Blei, Stephen Fienberg, and Eric Xing. Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels. Advances in neural information processing systems, 21, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data

    Sören Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary Ives. Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. In international semantic web conference, pages 722–735. Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion

    Ivana Balaževi´c, Carl Allen, and Timothy M Hospedales. Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09590, 2019

    arXiv 1901

  4. [4]

    Reverse engineering self-supervised learning

    Ido Ben-Shaul, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Tomer Galanti, Shai Dekel, and Yann LeCun. Reverse engineering self-supervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:58324–58345, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data

    Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  6. [6]

    Generating sentences from a continuous space

    Samuel R Bowman, Luke Vilnis, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew M Dai, Rafal Jozefowicz, and Samy Bengio. Generating sentences from a continuous space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06349, 2015

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Knowledge is flat: A seq2seq generative framework for various knowledge graph completion

    Chen Chen, Yufei Wang, Bing Li, and Kwok-Yan Lam. Knowledge is flat: A seq2seq generative framework for various knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07299, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Dipping plms sauce: Bridging structure and text for effective knowledge graph completion via conditional soft prompting

    Chen Chen, Yufei Wang, Aixin Sun, Bing Li, and Kwok-Yan Lam. Dipping plms sauce: Bridging structure and text for effective knowledge graph completion via conditional soft prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01709, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    HittER: Hierarchical transformers for knowledge graph embeddings

    Sanxing Chen, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Jian Jiao, Ruofei Zhang, and Yangfeng Ji. HittER: Hierarchical transformers for knowledge graph embeddings. In Marie-Francine Moens, Xuan- jing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen-tau Yih, editors, Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on ...

    2021

  2. [10]

    A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations. In Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh, editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceeding...

    2020

  3. [11]

    A direct formulation for sparse pca using semidefinite programming

    Alexandre d’Aspremont, Laurent Ghaoui, Michael Jordan, and Gert Lanckriet. A direct formulation for sparse pca using semidefinite programming. Advances in neural information processing systems, 17, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Inductive entity representations from text via link prediction

    Daniel Daza, Michael Cochez, and Paul Groth. Inductive entity representations from text via link prediction. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 798–808, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings

    Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Confer- ence of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Knowledge vault: A web-scale approach to proba- bilistic knowledge fusion

    Xin Dong, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Geremy Heitz, Wilko Horn, Ni Lao, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Strohmann, Shaohua Sun, and Wei Zhang. Knowledge vault: A web-scale approach to proba- bilistic knowledge fusion. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge d...

    2014

  8. [16]

    Implicit reparameterization gradients

    Mikhail Figurnov, Shakir Mohamed, and Andriy Mnih. Implicit reparameterization gradients. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Infinite latent feature models and the indian buffet process

    Zoubin Ghahramani and Thomas Griffiths. Infinite latent feature models and the indian buffet process. Advances in neural information processing systems, 18, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    The indian buffet process: An introduction and review

    Thomas L Griffiths and Zoubin Ghahramani. The indian buffet process: An introduction and review. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(4), 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Noise-contrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics

    Michael U Gutmann and Aapo Hyvärinen. Noise-contrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics. Journal of machine learning research, 13(2), 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    beta-vae: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework

    Irina Higgins, Loic Matthey, Arka Pal, Christopher P Burgess, Xavier Glorot, Matthew M Botvinick, Shakir Mohamed, and Alexander Lerchner. beta-vae: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. ICLR (Poster), 3, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization

    R Devon Hjelm, Alex Fedorov, Samuel Lavoie-Marchildon, Karan Grewal, Phil Bachman, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06670, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Stochastic blockmodels: First steps

    Paul W Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps. Social networks, 5(2):109–137, 1983

    1983

  15. [23]

    Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax

    Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A modified principal component technique based on the lasso

    Ian T Jolliffe, Nickolay T Trendafilov, and Mudassir Uddin. A modified principal component technique based on the lasso. Journal of computational and Graphical Statistics, 12(3):531–547, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Supervised contrastive learning

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:18661–18673, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Multi-task learning for knowl- edge graph completion with pre-trained language models

    Bosung Kim, Taesuk Hong, Youngjoong Ko, and Jungyun Seo. Multi-task learning for knowl- edge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 28th Interna- tional Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1737–1743, Barcelona, Spain (Online), Decem...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Statistical predicate invention

    Stanley Kok and Pedro Domingos. Statistical predicate invention. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning, pages 433–440, 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    V on mises-fisher loss for training sequence to sequence models with continuous outputs

    Sachin Kumar and Yulia Tsvetkov. V on mises-fisher loss for training sequence to sequence models with continuous outputs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04616, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bayesian methods for graph clustering

    Pierre Latouche, Etienne Birmelé, and Christophe Ambroise. Bayesian methods for graph clustering. In Advances in Data Analysis, Data Handling and Business Intelligence: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation eV , Joint Conference with ...

    2008

  24. [32]

    Overlapping stochastic block models with application to the french political blogosphere

    Pierre Latouche, Etienne Birmelé, and Christophe Ambroise. Overlapping stochastic block models with application to the french political blogosphere. 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Kermit: Knowledge graph completion of enhanced relation modeling with inverse transformation

    Haotian Li, Lingzhi Wang, Yuliang Wei, Richard Yi Da Xu, and Bailing Wang. Kermit: Knowledge graph completion of enhanced relation modeling with inverse transformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14770, 2023. 11

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Juanhui Li, Harry Shomer, Jiayuan Ding, Yiqi Wang, Yao Ma, Neil Shah, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. Are message passing neural networks really helpful for knowledge graph com- pletion? In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion

    Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 29, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables

    Chris J Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh. The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00712, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A* sampling.Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    Chris J Maddison, Daniel Tarlow, and Tom Minka. A* sampling.Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Stochastic blockmodels meet graph neural networks

    Nikhil Mehta, Lawrence Carin Duke, and Piyush Rai. Stochastic blockmodels meet graph neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4466–4474. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Nonparametric latent feature models for link prediction

    Kurt Miller, Michael Jordan, and Thomas Griffiths. Nonparametric latent feature models for link prediction. Advances in neural information processing systems, 22, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Stick-breaking variational autoencoders

    Eric Nalisnick and Padhraic Smyth. Stick-breaking variational autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.06197, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs

    Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01195, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Communities in networks

    Mason Alexander Porter, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, Peter J Mucha, et al. Communities in networks. 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    Improving knowledge graph completion with generative hard negative mining

    Zile Qiao, Wei Ye, Dingyao Yu, Tong Mo, Weiping Li, and Shikun Zhang. Improving knowledge graph completion with generative hard negative mining. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Variational inference with normalizing flows

    Danilo Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1530–1538. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks

    Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne Van Den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In The semantic web: 15th international conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3–7, 2018, proceedings...

    2018

  38. [46]

    Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion

    Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    Stochas- tic block models with multiple continuous attributes

    Natalie Stanley, Thomas Bonacci, Roland Kwitt, Marc Niethammer, and Peter J Mucha. Stochas- tic block models with multiple continuous attributes. Applied Network Science, 4:1–22, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Rotate: Knowledge graph em- bedding by relational rotation in complex space

    Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. Rotate: Knowledge graph em- bedding by relational rotation in complex space. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Kracl: Contrastive learning with graph context modeling for sparse knowledge graph completion

    Zhaoxuan Tan, Zilong Chen, Shangbin Feng, Qingyue Zhang, Qinghua Zheng, Jundong Li, and Minnan Luo. Kracl: Contrastive learning with graph context modeling for sparse knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 2548–2559, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Stick-breaking construction for the indian buffet process

    Yee Whye Teh, Dilan Grür, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Stick-breaking construction for the indian buffet process. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 556–563. PMLR, 2007. 12

    2007

  43. [51]

    Representing text for joint embedding of text and knowledge bases

    Kristina Toutanova, Danqi Chen, Patrick Pantel, Hoifung Poon, Pallavi Choudhury, and Michael Gamon. Representing text for joint embedding of text and knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1499–1509, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks

    Shikhar Vashishth, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha Talukdar. Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03082, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase

    Denny Vrandeˇci´c and Markus Krötzsch. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Com- munications of the ACM, 57(10):78–85, 2014

    2014

  46. [54]

    Structure- augmented text representation learning for efficient knowledge graph completion

    Bo Wang, Tao Shen, Guodong Long, Tianyi Zhou, Ying Wang, and Yi Chang. Structure- augmented text representation learning for efficient knowledge graph completion. In Proceed- ings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 1737–1748, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models

    Liang Wang, Wei Zhao, Zhuoyu Wei, and Jingming Liu. Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4281–4294, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation

    Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 9:176–194, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Kicgpt: Large language model with knowledge in context for knowledge graph completion

    Yanbin Wei, Qiushi Huang, James T Kwok, and Yu Zhang. Kicgpt: Large language model with knowledge in context for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02389, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Representation learning of knowledge graphs with entity descriptions

    Ruobing Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, Jia Jia, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. Representation learning of knowledge graphs with entity descriptions. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30, 2016

    2016

  51. [59]

    Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases

    Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6575, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Enhancing text-based knowledge graph completion with zero-shot large language models: A focus on semantic enhancement

    Rui Yang, Jiahao Zhu, Jianping Man, Li Fang, and Yi Zhou. Enhancing text-based knowledge graph completion with zero-shot large language models: A focus on semantic enhancement. Knowledge-Based Systems, 300:112155, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Knowledge graph embedding and completion based on entity community and local importance

    Xu-Hua Yang, Gang-Feng Ma, Xin Jin, Hai-Xia Long, Jie Xiao, and Lei Ye. Knowledge graph embedding and completion based on entity community and local importance. Applied Intelligence, 53(19):22132–22142, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Kg-bert: Bert for knowledge graph completion

    Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. Kg-bert: Bert for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03193, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Exploring large language models for knowledge graph completion

    Liang Yao, Jiazhen Peng, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. Exploring large language models for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13916, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Native: Multi-modal knowledge graph completion in the wild

    Yichi Zhang, Zhuo Chen, Lingbing Guo, Yajing Xu, Binbin Hu, Ziqi Liu, Wen Zhang, and Huajun Chen. Native: Multi-modal knowledge graph completion in the wild. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pag...

    2024

  57. [65]

    Making large language models perform better in knowledge graph completion

    Yichi Zhang, Zhuo Chen, Lingbing Guo, Yajing Xu, Wen Zhang, and Huajun Chen. Making large language models perform better in knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 233–242, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Rethinking graph convolutional networks in knowledge graph completion

    Zhanqiu Zhang, Jie Wang, Jieping Ye, and Feng Wu. Rethinking graph convolutional networks in knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 , pages 798–807, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    acquaintance

    Jun Zhu, Jiaming Song, and Bei Chen. Max-margin nonparametric latent feature models for link prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.07428, 2016. 13 A Clustering Benefits for KGC: An Example Michael Jordan Dennis Rodman Scottie Pippen Gregg Popovich Chuck Daly Phil Jackson Horac...

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    location-scale

    is computed as: DKL [qϕ(zhr)||pθ(zhr|vhr)] = Eq [log qϕ(zhr) − log pθ(zhr|vhr)] = KX k=1 Eq[log qϕ(zhr,k) − log pθ(zhr,k|vhr)] (29) where we apply the Concrete relaxation to the variational posterior (Equation 13) and the prior (Equation 9): qϕ(zhr,k) ≜ Concrete(zhr,k|πhr,k(G)...

    2000

Pith tools

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