Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Bayes EMbedding (BEM): Refining Representation by Integrating Knowledge Graphs and Behavior-specific Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian generative model that treats knowledge-graph vectors as priors and behavior-graph vectors as observations refines both embeddings while preserving each graph's topology.

desk verdict A useful VAE framework for fusing KG and BG embeddings, but the refined BG embedding is a deterministic function of the corrected KG vector, so the 'mutual refinement' claim is overstated and needs re-scoping. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10611 v1 pith:X233NIDR submitted 2019-08-28 cs.LG cs.SIstat.ML

Yuting Ye , Xuwu Wang , Jiangchao Yao , Kunyang Jia , Jingren Zhou , Yanghua Xiao , Hongxia Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.SIstat.ML
keywords knowledgegraphembeddingbehaviorBayesiangenerativemodelvariationalinferencefusionnodeclassificationlinkpredictionrecommendation
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

BEM is a Bayesian framework for combining two pre-trained embeddings of the same entities: one from a knowledge graph of structured facts and one from a behavior graph of interactions. The paper's claim is that these two views can refine each other—the behavior graph corrects the knowledge-graph vector with a per-entity bias, and the corrected vector is then projected back into behavior space—so that neither graph's topology is averaged away or disguised. In experiments on two small datasets and one large e-commerce dataset, the refined embeddings improve node classification by 2–10 percentage points, improve link prediction and triplet classification, and raise recommendation hit recall by 1–3 points over the original embeddings. If the claim holds, BEM offers a model-agnostic interface: any pre-trained knowledge-graph embedding method and any behavior-graph embedding method can be plugged in and mutually improved.

What carries the argument

The generative model in Equations (4.1) and (4.3) is the machinery: for each entity pair, $\delta_i,\delta_j\sim p_\eta$, $\nu_i=f_\phi(w_i+\delta_i)$, and $g(z_i,z_j)\sim p_\theta(\cdot|g(\nu_i,\nu_j))$, with the edge function chosen as the translation function $g(x,y)=x-y$. The model is trained with a mean-field variational inference network $h_\psi(z_i,w_i)$ that outputs posterior means and variances of $\delta_i$ and $s_i$, plus the reparametrization trick to make the ELBO differentiable. The reconstruction term preserves the behavior graph's topology while the KL penalty keeps corrected vectors near the knowledge graph's geometry, and the tuning parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ balance the two influences.

What would settle it

Train BEM on a pair of graphs where the behavior graph is deliberately given a signal with no counterpart in the knowledge graph—for instance, a planted cluster of co-purchases that cuts across semantic categories. If the refined knowledge-graph embedding fails to reproduce that cluster, or if the refined behavior embedding loses it, the functional-form assumption fails. A direct comparison against a variant that adds an explicit behavior-only residual term would show the same.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a knowledge-graph embedding and a behavior-graph embedding of the same entities can mutually refine each other without destroying the topological information of either. The paper models the behavior embedding $z_i$ as generated from the corrected knowledge embedding $w_i + \delta_i$ via a shared nonlinear map $f_\phi$, with pairwise interactions $g(z_i,z_j)=z_i-z_j$ drawn from a normal distribution whose variance is the sum of two per-node log-normal variables $s_i+s_j$. Optimizing a variational lower bound yields refined embeddings $\hat{w}_i = w_i + \hat{\mu}_{\delta_i}$ and $\hat{z}_i = f_\phi(\hat{w}_i)$. The paper reports that these refined embeddings outperform the original embeddings and a concatenation baseline on node classification, link prediction, triplet classification, and large-scale item recommendation, and that the learned corrections can surface behavior-specific knowledge that is absent from the knowledge graph itself.

Load-bearing premise

The model banks on the idea that a behavior embedding is just a fixed mathematical transform of the corrected knowledge embedding; if a behavior carries extra information beyond that, BEM drops it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Refined knowledge-graph embeddings can be used directly for link prediction and triplet classification, so behavior signals reach knowledge-graph tasks without retraining the original KG embedding model.
  • Refined behavior-graph embeddings can be used for item recommendation, so semantic constraints from the knowledge graph reach behavior-graph tasks; the paper reports 1–3 percentage-point hit-recall gains on a large e-commerce dataset.
  • Because BEM operates on pre-trained vectors, it can wrap any knowledge-graph embedding method and any behavior-graph embedding method, making the fusion method-agnostic.
  • The pairwise-interaction variant BEM-P consistently outperforms the independent variant BEM-I, indicating that edge-level interaction information, not just node-level correction, is what carries much of the improvement.
  • The learned bias term $\delta_i$ can act as a source of novel knowledge: the paper shows concept-to-category predictions that do not appear in the original knowledge graph.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Testable extension: if the functional-form assumption is wrong, adding an explicit behavior-only residual $\varepsilon_i$ to the generative model and comparing performance would show whether BEM currently discards behavior information not expressible through $f_\phi$.
  • The same variational scheme could be extended to multiple behavior graphs at once, and the paper itself notes that multiple biases could cancel; a concrete test is whether refining with two or three behavior views beats refining with one.
  • BEM could be made end-to-end by differentiating through the embedding networks instead of using fixed pre-trained vectors, which would let the knowledge-graph embedding itself be supervised by behavior observations.
  • The log-normal sample-specific variance $s_i$ is doing real work in the likelihood; ablating it by fixing a global variance would reveal whether node-level uncertainty is essential or a modeling artifact.
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 proposes BEM, a variational Bayesian method for refining pretrained knowledge graph (KG) and behavior graph (BG) embeddings. The generative model treats the KG embedding w_i as a prior, adds a per-node behavior-specific correction δ_i, maps the corrected vector through a nonlinear function f_φ, and generates the observed BG embedding z_i (or pairwise functions g(z_i,z_j)) under Gaussian noise with node-specific variances. Variational inference with an inference network h_ψ yields refined embeddings w_hat_i = w_i + posterior mean δ_i and z_hat_i = f_φ(w_hat_i). Experiments on FB15K237 with pagelink and description BGs cover node classification, link prediction, triplet classification, and a Taobao recommendation task, reporting improvements over original and concatenated embeddings. The paper includes code and a parameter-sensitivity appendix.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the framework is a useful contribution: it provides a general interface between pretrained KG and BG embeddings and goes beyond simple concatenation. The paper's strengths are that it releases code, includes dimension-controlled projection baselines in Appendix D, reports parameter sensitivity in Appendix C, and honestly documents the failure case on the desc dataset. However, the central claim of mutual refinement is weakened by an asymmetric output definition that projects BG through the corrected KG representation, by a large-scale experiment on entity sets that do not match the model assumption, and by the absence of error bars and significance tests. The core derivation is coherent, but the empirical support is conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4, Eq. (4.12)] Equation (4.12) defines the refined BG embedding as z_hat_i = f_φ(w_hat_i), so the refined BG embedding is a deterministic function of the refined KG embedding. Consequently, any BG-specific information that is not expressible as f_φ of the corrected KG vector is discarded at refinement time. This is load-bearing because Section 2 motivates BG as a source of 'novel knowledge' beyond the KG and Section 5.2 (Table 7) claims that BEM acquires 'novel knowledge that does not exist in the original KG.' The paper never measures whether the refined BG embedding retains BG-only information, for example by evaluating on a task where BG is informative but KG is not. The claim of mutual refinement in the abstract is therefore conditional on an untested sufficiency assumption.
  2. [Table 4, desc rows] For the desc dataset with TransE, both BEM-I and BEM-P reduce link prediction Hit@10 relative to the original KG embedding (e.g., KG-P 41.99/42.21 vs KG-O 43.14). The paper acknowledges this and explains that the desc graph lacks interaction information, but this is a direct counterexample to the general claim that BEM refines KG embeddings while preserving their topological structure. Because the desc setting was explicitly constructed as a no-interaction BG, the result shows that the method is not robust to weak or absent BG signal, and the abstract and introduction should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Appendix A.2] The Taobao behavior graph is a bipartite graph containing both user and item nodes, whereas the Taobao knowledge graph contains items, categories, scenes, and attribute values. The model in Section 4.2 assumes that each entity has one KG embedding w_i and one BG embedding z_i, with the same entity set. The paper does not specify how user nodes are handled or whether only item nodes are used in BEM refinement. As written, the large-scale recommendation experiment violates the entity-set assumption of the generative model, and the reported 1-3% hit-recall gains cannot be interpreted without clarifying this mismatch.
  4. [Tables 3, 4, 6] The main experimental tables report single accuracy or hit-recall numbers without error bars, repeated runs, or significance tests. Several reported gains are small (e.g., Table 6: 15.97 to 16.14 and 24.87 to 25.10; Table 3: multiple 1-3 point differences), and Table 3 shows that BEM-I often nearly matches BEM-P, so the claim that pairwise interactions are crucial is only weakly supported. Since Appendix D already reports standard errors for the projection baselines, the authors should provide comparable variance information for the headline comparisons.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (4.8)] Equation (4.8) contains g(z_i, z_i) in the reconstruction term; this should be g(z_i, z_j).
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 11] Algorithm 1 says 'Denote the φ and ψ in the last round as ˆφ and ˆφ'; the second symbol should be ˆψ, and line 10 should read 'KG/BG embeddings' rather than 'KB/BG embeddings.'
  3. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'mean-filed family' should be 'mean-field family.'
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption reads '1000,000 node pairs'; this should be '1,000,000 node pairs.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Claimed mutual refinement reduces to a projection: refined BG embeddings are defined as f_phi of refined KG embeddings, whose per-node correction is inferred from the same BG embedding being refined.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.4, Equation (4.12); generative model in Section 4.2]
    "we can get the refined KG/BG embedding for ei by ˆwi = wi +ˆµµµδδδi, ˆzi = fφ(ˆwi) (4.12)"

    The refined BG embedding is defined, by construction, as f_phi applied to the refined KG embedding. Thus the abstract's claim that BEM can 'mutually refine the embeddings from both sides while preserving their own topological structures' has no independent BG-side object: any behavior-specific information that survives into \hat z_i must already be present in \hat w_i and must be expressible through f_phi. The BG-side output is a one-way projection of the corrected KG embedding, not an independent refinement of the BG embedding; the claimed symmetry is a consequence of the output definition, not of an estimated bidirectional process.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Equation (4.7) and Section 4.4, Equation (4.12)]
    "hΨ(zi, wi) = (ˆµµµδδδi,ˆσσσδδδi,ˆµµµsi,ˆσσσsi), (4.7)"

    The per-node correction \hat\mu_{\delta_i} is produced by an inference network whose input is the same observed BG embedding z_i that BEM is supposed to refine. Equation (4.12) then labels w_i+\hat\mu_{\delta_i} and f_phi of it as the 'refined KG/BG embedding'. These outputs are therefore in-sample fits of each node's own input embeddings, not independent predictions. The reported gains of BEM-P over BEM-O on the refined embeddings partly reflect this fitted reconstruction; the genuinely external part of the evaluation is the downstream classifier/link-prediction/recommendation test, not the refinement step itself.

full rationale

BEM is not globally circular: the downstream experiments use held-out KG triplets, class labels and future recommendation behavior, and the paper's own desc-dataset results (Table 4) show that when the BG carries no interaction information the refined TransE KG-P can be worse than KG-O, an external falsification of the method's universal benefit. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. However, the central claim of symmetric mutual refinement is definitionally constrained: Eq. (4.12) sets \hat z_i = f_\phi(\hat w_i), and Eq. (4.7) makes the correction \hat\mu_{\delta_i} a function of the observed z_i. The refined BG embedding therefore cannot preserve any behavior-specific topological structure beyond what is expressible as a function of the corrected KG embedding, and both refined outputs are in-sample deterministic functions of the input pair (w_i,z_i). This makes the 'mutual refinement preserving both topologies' headline partially circular by construction; the independent content lives in the downstream predictive tasks, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

BEM's core is a variational autoencoder with empirical priors; the load-bearing assumptions are the generative mapping from KG to BG and the data-dependent priors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda_1 (KL weight for delta) = 1.0 default; 0.1 on validation improves Hit@10 from 43.66 to 45.82
    Balances reconstruction vs prior for delta; Appendix C shows strong sensitivity.
  • lambda_2 (KL weight for s) = 1.0 default; 5.0 gives Hit@10 44.35
    Balances reconstruction vs prior for the noise variance s; Appendix C shows sensitivity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each entity has exactly one KG embedding and one BG embedding; both are pre-trained and fixed.
    Section 4.2 states this case explicitly; on the Taobao data the KG and BG node sets differ, so this assumption is not checked.
  • ad hoc to paper BG embedding z_i is generated by f_phi(w_i + delta_i) plus Gaussian noise with variance s_i + s_j.
    Model (4.3), Section 4.2. This is the core generative assumption that defines BEM; it is not derived from data.
  • standard math Mean-field variational family with Gaussian delta and log-normal s posteriors and priors.
    Section 4.3. Standard VAE approximation choices; mathematically valid but restricting.
  • ad hoc to paper Batch empirical statistics and bootstrap define the priors for delta and s (Equation 4.11).
    Equation (4.11), Section 4.4. Empirical Bayes priors make the model data-dependent beyond the likelihood.
  • domain assumption Translation edge function g(x,y)=x-y is equivalent to cosine/inner-product similarity on the unit sphere.
    Section 4.5, Figure 2(d). The choice of g determines which KG information is transferred; the equivalence claim holds only for normalized embeddings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayes EMbedding (BEM): Refining Representation by Integrating Knowledge Graphs and Behavior-specific Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X233NIDR

@misc{pith2026190810611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayes EMbedding (BEM): Refining Representation by Integrating Knowledge Graphs and Behavior-specific Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X233NIDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10611}
}
read the original abstract

Low-dimensional embeddings of knowledge graphs and behavior graphs have proved remarkably powerful in varieties of tasks, from predicting unobserved edges between entities to content recommendation. The two types of graphs can contain distinct and complementary information for the same entities/nodes. However, previous works focus either on knowledge graph embedding or behavior graph embedding while few works consider both in a unified way. Here we present BEM , a Bayesian framework that incorporates the information from knowledge graphs and behavior graphs. To be more specific, BEM takes as prior the pre-trained embeddings from the knowledge graph, and integrates them with the pre-trained embeddings from the behavior graphs via a Bayesian generative model. BEM is able to mutually refine the embeddings from both sides while preserving their own topological structures. To show the superiority of our method, we conduct a range of experiments on three benchmark datasets: node classification, link prediction, triplet classification on two small datasets related to Freebase, and item recommendation on a large-scale e-commerce dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (i) Examples of KG and BG; (ii) The workflow of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The BEM -P method with the normal/log-normal distributions with the sample-specific vari￾ance θij = si + sj for g(zi , zj ). (a) The generative model (4.3). The shaded circles represent ob￾served/estimated variables. The empty circles represent latent variables. Edges signify conditional dependency (including deterministic mapping). The solid rectangles (“plates”) indicate independent replication while the dashed re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the similarities between nodes. Here, 1000,000 node pairs are sampled ran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the embeddings. Blue: BEM -O; Red: BEM -P. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of KG and BG for the two small datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://developers.google.com/freebase/

    Data dumps — freebase api. https://developers.google.com/freebase/. December 20, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Battaglia, R

    P. Battaglia, R. Pascanu, M. Lai, and D. J. Rezende. Interaction networks for learning about objects, relations and physics. In Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 4502–4510, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Laplacian eigenmaps and spectral techniques for embedding and clustering

    Mikhail Belkin and Partha Niyogi. Laplacian eigenmaps and spectral techniques for embedding and clustering. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 585–591, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Variational inference: A review for statisti- cians

    David M Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D McAuliffe. Variational inference: A review for statisti- cians. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 112(518):859–877, 2017

    work page 2017

  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. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2787–2795, 2013

    2013

  6. [6]

    Kullback-leibler information as a basis for strong inference in ecological studies

    Kenneth P Burnham and David R Anderson. Kullback-leibler information as a basis for strong inference in ecological studies. Wildlife research, 28(2):111–119, 2001. 21 Table 9: The node classification accuracy (%) on the FB15K237- pagelink dataset, using the BG/KG embeddings refined by BEM . Here concat R50/concat R100 refers to the projection of concat into...

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: problems, techniques and applications

    Hongyun Cai, Vincent W Zheng, and Kevin Chang. A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: problems, techniques and applications. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    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 , pages 891–900. ACM, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on network embedding

    Peng Cui, Xiao Wang, Jian Pei, and Wenwu Zhu. A survey on network embedding. IEEE Trans- actions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings

    Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    A. Fout, J. Byrd, B. Shariat, and A. Ben-Hur. Protein interface prediction using graph convolutional networks. In Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 6530–6539, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice

    Walter R Gilks, Sylvia Richardson, and David Spiegelhalter. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1995

    1995

  5. [13]

    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 , pages 855–864. ACM, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Hamaguchi, H

    T. Hamaguchi, H. Oiwa, M. Shimbo, and Y. Matsumoto. Knowledge transfer for out-of-knowledge- base entities : A graph neural network approach. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 1802–1808, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec

    William L. Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In NIPS, pages 1025–1035, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Openke: An open toolkit for knowledge embedding

    Xu Han, Shulin Cao, Lv Xin, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Juanzi Li. Openke: An open toolkit for knowledge embedding. In Proceedings of EMNLP, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Elbo surgery: yet another way to carve up the variational evidence lower bound

    Matthew D Hoffman and Matthew J Johnson. Elbo surgery: yet another way to carve up the variational evidence lower bound. In Workshop in Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference, NIPS, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Knowledge graph embedding via dynamic mapping matrix

    Guoliang Ji, Shizhu He, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. Knowledge graph embedding via dynamic mapping matrix. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processi...

    2015

  11. [19]

    Billion-scale similarity search with gpus

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Herv´ e J´ egou. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08734, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Learning combinatorial optimization algorithms over graphs

    Elias Khalil, Hanjun Dai, Yuyu Zhang, Bistra Dilkina, and Le Song. Learning combinatorial optimization algorithms over graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pages 6348–6358. 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 23

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional net- works. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    The local rademacher complexity of lp-norm multiple kernel learning

    Marius Kloft and Gilles Blanchard. The local rademacher complexity of lp-norm multiple kernel learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2438–2446, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Distributed representations of sentences and documents

    Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1188–1196, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    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 Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , AAAI’15, pages 2181–2187, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    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 AAAI, volume 15, pages 2181–2187, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines

    Vinod Nair and Geoffrey E Hinton. Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning (ICML-10), pages 807–814, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    A view of the em algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants

    Radford M Neal and Geoffrey E Hinton. A view of the em algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants. In Learning in graphical models, pages 355–368. Springer, 1998

    1998

  22. [30]

    Stranse: a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge bases

    Dat Quoc Nguyen, Kairit Sirts, Lizhen Qu, and Mark Johnson. Stranse: a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge bases. In HLT-NAACL, pages 460–466. The Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Asymmetric transitivity pre- serving graph embedding

    Mingdong Ou, Peng Cui, Jian Pei, Ziwei Zhang, and Wenwu Zhu. Asymmetric transitivity pre- serving graph embedding. In KDD, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Unsupervised Learning of Sentence Embed- dings using Compositional n-Gram Features

    Matteo Pagliardini, Prakhar Gupta, and Martin Jaggi. Unsupervised Learning of Sentence Embed- dings using Compositional n-Gram Features. In NAACL 2018 - Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Variational bayesian inference with stochastic search

    John Paisley, David Blei, and Michael Jordan. Variational bayesian inference with stochastic search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6430 , 2012

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Deepwalk: Online learning of social representa- tions

    Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representa- tions. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 701–710. ACM, 2014

  27. [35]

    An attention-based collaboration framework for multi-view network representation learning

    Meng Qu, Jian Tang, Jingbo Shang, Xiang Ren, Ming Zhang, and Jiawei Han. An attention-based collaboration framework for multi-view network representation learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages 1767–1776. ACM, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Sanchez-Gonzalez, N

    A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, N. Heess, J. T. Springenberg, J. Merel, M. Riedmiller, R. Hadsell, and P. Battaglia. Graph networks as learnable physics engines for inference and control. In arXiv preprint, page 1806.01242, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    mvn2vec: Preservation and collaboration in multi-view network embedding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.06597, 2018

    Yu Shi, Fangqiu Han, Xinwei He, Xinran He, Carl Yang, Jie Luo, and Jiawei Han. mvn2vec: Preservation and collaboration in multi-view network embedding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.06597, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    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. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 926–934, 2013. 24

    2013

  31. [39]

    Line: Large-scale information network embedding

    Jian Tang, Meng Qu, Mingzhe Wang, Ming Zhang, Jun Yan, and Qiaozhu Mei. Line: Large-scale information network embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web , pages 1067–1077. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Relational learning via latent social dimensions

    Lei Tang and Huan Liu. Relational learning via latent social dimensions. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 817–826. ACM, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 , 1(2), 2017

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes

    Z Wang, J Zhang, J Feng, and Z Chen. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-16) , pages 985– 991, 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    Knowledge representation via joint learning of sequential text and knowledge graphs

    Jiawei Wu, Ruobing Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Knowledge representation via joint learning of sequential text and knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07075 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    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 AAAI, pages 2659–2665, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Network representation learning with rich text information

    Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Deli Zhao, Maosong Sun, and Edward Chang. Network representation learning with rich text information. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Fast network embedding enhancement via high order proximity approximation

    Cheng Yang, Maosong Sun, Zhiyuan Liu, and Cunchao Tu. Fast network embedding enhancement via high order proximity approximation. In IJCAI, pages 3894–3900, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Bayesian co-training.Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research , 12(Sep):2649–2680, 2011

    Shipeng Yu, Balaji Krishnapuram, R´ omer Rosales, and R Bharat Rao. Bayesian co-training.Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research , 12(Sep):2649–2680, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    Multiview metric learn- ing with global consistency and local smoothness

    Deming Zhai, Hong Chang, Shiguang Shan, Xilin Chen, and Wen Gao. Multiview metric learn- ing with global consistency and local smoothness. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 3(3):53, 2012. 25

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.