A Survey of Task-Oriented Knowledge Graph Reasoning: Status, Applications, and Prospects

Bo Li; Guanglin Niu; Yangguang Lin

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Survey of Task-Oriented Knowledge Graph Reasoning: Status, Applications, and Prospects

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey claims that the full landscape of knowledge graph reasoning can be organized into six task families, and that earlier surveys missed the integration of downstream applications and open challenges.

desk verdict A useful, broad task-oriented KGR survey whose main soft spot is an unproven taxonomy; worth a careful referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11012 v1 pith:GPGZBLF2 submitted 2025-04-27 cs.AI cs.CL

Guanglin Niu , Bo Li , Yangguang Lin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.CL

keywords knowledgegraphreasoningtask-orientedtaxonomystaticsingle-stepdynamicmulti-modalfew-shotinductivelargelanguagemodels

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 survey tries to give a single organizing map of knowledge graph reasoning (KGR), the task of inferring new facts from the facts already stored in a knowledge graph. It sorts the field into six task families—static single-step, static multi-step, dynamic, multi-modal, few-shot, and inductive reasoning—and reviews the main model strategies in each. Its claim to novelty is scope: earlier reviews covered one or a few of these families, while this one also ties each family to benchmark datasets, downstream applications (question answering, recommendation, visual reasoning, healthcare, business, cybersecurity), and open challenges such as sparse and uncertain graphs. If the taxonomy holds, a researcher or practitioner can use the survey as a map from task to method to application.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the six-task taxonomy, defined by KG type and reasoning scenario, together with the cross-task map in the survey's overview figure, where numbered circles mark shared ideas (e.g., logic-rule learning in static single-step, temporal, and inductive KGR; meta-learning in few-shot and temporal few-shot). The taxonomy does the work of delimiting the field: each task section groups models by mechanism and ends with an advantage/limitation comparison, and the same structure is reused to organize benchmarks, applications, and open challenges.

What would settle it

Count the KGR papers published in the last three years, assign each to exactly one of the six task categories, and require that every assignment be unambiguous; if a sizable residue falls outside all six categories (e.g., hyper-relational or commonsense-only KGs, or zero-shot without a few-shot support set), the exhaustiveness claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that KGR research is best understood through a task-oriented taxonomy with six primary tasks, and that no previous survey integrated all six with downstream applications and harder reasoning paradigms. The paper argues that static single-step KGR (predicting one missing element of a triple) and static multi-step KGR (following paths) are the two basic static scenarios; dynamic KGR adds updates and timestamps; multi-modal KGR adds text, images, and video; few-shot KGR handles long-tailed relations with few support triples; and inductive KGR handles unseen entities and relations at test time. Within each family, it categorizes the model landscape (e.g., embedding-based vs. rule-based for single-step, random walk vs. reinforcement learning vs. LLM for multi-step, time embedding vs. evolution learning for temporal), and it identifies cross-task shared ideas, such as rule learning appearing in static, temporal, and inductive settings. The survey also positions LLM-based reasoning as an emerging cross-cutting technique rather than a separate task.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy assumes that KGR research splits naturally and exhaustively into static single-step, static multi-step, dynamic, multi-modal, few-shot, and inductive reasoning; if a substantial body of work fits none of these six boxes, the survey's promise of comprehensiveness loses force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A newcomer can use the six-task taxonomy to locate any KGR method and its closest alternatives.
Methods developed for one task can be transplanted to another where the numbered circles in the overview show shared ideas, such as rule learning appearing in static, temporal, and inductive settings.
Benchmarks and applications in question answering, recommendation, healthcare, finance, and cybersecurity give practitioners a direct path from model choice to deployment.
LLM-based KGR is treated as a cross-cutting enhancement layer over all six tasks rather than a seventh task.
The challenge sections (sparse, uncertain, error-prone, untrustworthy, and LLM-hybrid reasoning) define the open problems the next generation of KGR models must address.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the taxonomy invites a direct test: map recent KGR papers onto the six categories and see whether hybrid papers (e.g., temporal few-shot inductive reasoning) force a cross-product view rather than six clean boxes.
If LLM-based agents become the dominant interface to knowledge graphs, the static/dynamic/multi-modal distinction may shift from being about model family to being about data modality and time axis, which would change how the field is partitioned.
The survey's emphasis on downstream applications implies a benchmark design principle: evaluate KGR models not only by MRR and Hits@N, but by their effect on end tasks such as question-answering accuracy or recommendation explainability.
The paper's separation of few-shot and inductive reasoning suggests a testable boundary: few-shot handles limited observed triples for known relations, inductive handles unseen entities; work doing both at once would straddle the line.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a competent survey that gives newcomers a genuinely useful map of knowledge graph reasoning by task type, with benchmarks, applications, and challenges. The central claim—being the first to systematically cover all six task families plus downstream applications—is overstated, because the authors' own Table I shows prior surveys covered each task individually, and the six-way taxonomy is not a clean partition. That said, the integrated presentation has real value.

What's actually new: the organization around six reasoning scenarios (static single/multi-step, dynamic, multi-modal, few-shot, inductive) plus dedicated sections on applications and open challenges is broader than prior surveys. The benchmark tables and taxonomy figures are well designed, and the writing is generally clear. Coverage is current through 2024, including LLM-based methods. The GitHub repo is a nice companion. Credit is due for the breadth and effort.

The soft spots are real but manageable. The stress-test concern is correct: the categories mix criteria. Single-step vs multi-step is reasoning complexity; dynamic is a temporal KG type; multi-modal is input modality; few-shot is data availability; inductive is a generalization setting. These axes overlap. A single work can land in multiple primary tasks, and the text itself double-lists TITer (V-B4 and VIII-C3) and FITCARL (VII-E2 and VIII-C3). Without a priority rule or multi-label matrix, the taxonomy is an organizing device, not a partition. The lack of a documented literature selection protocol also makes the coverage claim hard to verify independently; binary checks in Table I don't prove comprehensiveness.

There are minor quality issues: the example in Section III has a concrete error—the rule instantiation writes BornIn(David, California) where it should be BornIn(David, San Francisco)—plus scattered typos (e.g., 'timestemp'). These are cosmetic but worth fixing.

Who it's for: newcomers wanting a map of the field, researchers looking for a single entry point to tasks, benchmarks, and applications. It doesn't resolve a scientific question, but it is an honest synthesis. My recommendation: send it to peer review. A serious referee can check the taxonomy, clean up the double-listings, and push the authors to either justify the six axes or soften the comprehensiveness claim. With reasonable revision, it would be a solid survey contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a task-oriented survey of knowledge graph reasoning (KGR). It organizes the literature into six primary task families—static single-step, static multi-step, dynamic, multi-modal, few-shot, and inductive KGR—and devotes one section to each, reviewing representative methods with per-section taxonomy figures. The survey also compiles benchmark datasets, discusses downstream applications in both horizontal domains (question answering, recommendation, visual reasoning) and vertical domains (healthcare, business, cybersecurity, education, transport, environment), and closes with challenges and opportunities including sparse KGR, uncertain KGR, KG error detection, trustworthy KGR, and LLM-enhanced KGR. The central claim is that, in contrast to prior surveys, this work provides a more comprehensive perspective by jointly covering all six KGR task families along with downstream applications and challenging reasoning paradigms.

Significance. If the organizing taxonomy is accepted, the survey has clear value as a reference: it collects a large body of recent work, including many 2023–2024 LLM-based methods, provides structured per-category reviews, summarizes widely used datasets in tables, and gives an application-oriented view that most prior KGR surveys lack. The companion GitHub repository and the per-section taxonomy figures are useful navigation aids. The principal risk is not the accuracy of individual method descriptions but the defensibility of the 'more comprehensive' claim: the six-task taxonomy is built on intersecting criteria, and the comparison with prior surveys is presented without a verifiable coverage protocol.

major comments (3)

[Sections I-A, Fig. 1, and Sections V-B4/VII-E2/VIII-C3] The six task classes are defined along different conceptual axes: single-step versus multi-step is a reasoning-complexity axis, dynamic is a temporal KG axis, multi-modal is an input-modality axis, few-shot is a data-availability axis, and inductive is a generalization-setting axis. These axes intersect, so the categories do not form a partition of the literature. The text itself demonstrates the overlap by discussing TITer in both Section V-B4 and Section VIII-C3, and FITCARL in both Section VII-E2 and Section VIII-C3. Since the abstract claims to categorize approaches 'based on primary reasoning tasks,' the paper should either state an explicit assignment or priority rule that determines the primary task of each work, or reframe the organization as a multi-label/matrix structure with a discussion of how intersections are handled. Without this, the claim that the taxonomy systematically organizes the full KGR literature is not established.
[Section I-B, Table I] The comparison with prior surveys [23]–[33] is presented as binary checkmarks, but the paper provides no selection protocol, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or operational definitions for the rows such as 'Downstream Tasks' and 'LLM.' A reader cannot verify the central claim that previous surveys lack these elements or that this survey uniquely covers all six task families. Please add a methodology paragraph describing how the surveyed papers were collected and how Table I was compiled, ideally with representative citations or section numbers from the compared surveys for each checkmark. This is load-bearing because the paper's distinctive contribution is precisely the claimed gap over prior reviews.
[Section II-B and Section VII-C] The paper asserts that KGR tasks 'can be categorized into six types' but gives no argument that these six are exhaustive. The text itself discusses zero-shot KGR as a distinct setting (e.g., ZSGAN, OntoZSL, DOZSL, DMoG in Section VII-C) and treats sparse KGR and uncertain KGR as challenges in Section X rather than as primary tasks. If zero-shot KGR is a separate scenario from few-shot KGR, or if sparse and uncertain KGs define distinct reasoning settings, the six-type taxonomy is incomplete. Please justify why these are excluded from the primary-task list, or explicitly state that the six categories are organizing scenarios rather than a formal exhaustive partition.

minor comments (6)

[Section III, introductory paragraph] The rule-instantiation example is internally inconsistent: the observed triples are (David, BornIn, San Francisco) and (San Francisco, LocatedIn, U.S.A.), but the rule is instantiated as (David, BornIn, California) and (California, LocatedIn, U.S.A.). Section II-B(2) also gives the path David → San Francisco → California, which would suggest Nationality(David, California), conflicting with Nationality(David, U.S.A.). Please make the example triples and the inferred conclusion consistent throughout.
[Section VII, few-shot setup] The notation for the support and query sets is garbled: 'Sr ={(hi, r, ti )|(hi, r, ti )∈ Tr}(i = 1) K' and the displayed expression for Qr do not parse. Please rewrite these definitions with proper subscript/superscript ranges.
[Section IX-A, Table VII] The test-set relation count for DBPedia50k is listed as '-'; either provide that statistic or explain why it is omitted, since all other rows in the table report both entity and relation counts.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors that should be corrected in a revision, including 'techiniques' (Section IX-C4), 'drivend' (Section I-A), 'cannnot' (Section III-A1), 'timestemps' (Sections V-B1 and V-B2), and 'entites' (Section III-A1).
[References [84] and [275]] KoPA is cited as both [84] and [275]; please unify duplicate references to the same work.
[Section X-D] The text refers to 'TLIP' when describing temporal rule learning models, but the cited model is TILP [236]; please correct the name for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the survey synthesizes external literature; one minor self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This survey contains no derivation chain in the sense of fitted parameters or theorem proving; it synthesizes external literature. The central contribution claim, a more comprehensive task-oriented taxonomy than [23]-[33], is an organizational claim supported by the comparison in Table I, not by a result defined in terms of itself. The six task categories are introduced as a classification scheme in Sec. I-A and II-B; their mutual exclusivity and completeness are open methodological questions (the axes mix hop count, temporal dynamics, modality, data availability, and inductive setting, and models such as TITer are discussed under both dynamic and inductive KGR), but this is a coverage or boundary weakness, not circularity, because no category is defined by the conclusions drawn from it. The only notable self-citation is Niu et al. [113] in Sec. III-A3(c), cited as one reviewed path-enhanced KGE method among hundreds; it is not load-bearing for any claim in the survey. Accordingly, no prediction reduces to its input and no load-bearing argument rests on self-citation.

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

The survey does not fit parameters or introduce entities; it rests on the validity of its taxonomy and on the accuracy of its literature summaries.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The six-task taxonomy (static single-step, static multi-step, dynamic, multi-modal, few-shot, inductive) is a natural and complete partition of KGR research.
The entire organization of the survey depends on this partitioning (Section I-A, Fig. 1). If the categories are not exhaustive or overlap, the comprehensiveness claim is unsupported. The paper does not provide a formal argument for exhaustiveness.
domain assumption Descriptions of the cited methods are faithful to the original papers.
The survey's summaries of hundreds of methods are taken on trust; the authors do not provide reproduction code or systematic evidence. A misdescription of any influential paper could propagate errors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey of Task-Oriented Knowledge Graph Reasoning: Status, Applications, and Prospects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPGZBLF2

@misc{pith2026250611012,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey of Task-Oriented Knowledge Graph Reasoning: Status, Applications, and Prospects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPGZBLF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11012}
}

read the original abstract

Knowledge graphs (KGs) have emerged as a powerful paradigm for structuring and leveraging diverse real-world knowledge, which serve as a fundamental technology for enabling cognitive intelligence systems with advanced understanding and reasoning capabilities. Knowledge graph reasoning (KGR) aims to infer new knowledge based on existing facts in KGs, playing a crucial role in applications such as public security intelligence, intelligent healthcare, and financial risk assessment. From a task-centric perspective, existing KGR approaches can be broadly classified into static single-step KGR, static multi-step KGR, dynamic KGR, multi-modal KGR, few-shot KGR, and inductive KGR. While existing surveys have covered these six types of KGR tasks, a comprehensive review that systematically summarizes all KGR tasks particularly including downstream applications and more challenging reasoning paradigms remains lacking. In contrast to previous works, this survey provides a more comprehensive perspective on the research of KGR by categorizing approaches based on primary reasoning tasks, downstream application tasks, and potential challenging reasoning tasks. Besides, we explore advanced techniques, such as large language models (LLMs), and their impact on KGR. This work aims to highlight key research trends and outline promising future directions in the field of KGR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11012 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Comprehensive overview framework of our survey. The same number ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The illustration of the six primary KGR tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (14 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The illustration of five representative KGE models. The framework diagrams of NTN [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The illustration of TransE and its variants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The illustration of ontology graph and instance graph. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The illustration of six types of negative sampling (NS) strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Taxonomy of static single-step KGR approaches with the comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Taxonomy of static multi-step KGR approaches with the comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The illustration of the dynamic KGR task. This task implies three characteristics, namely dynamic update of knowledge, KGR for interpolation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Taxonomy of dynamic KGR approaches with the comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Taxonomy of multi-modal KGR approaches with the comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The illustration of few-shot KGR in the 3-shot setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Taxonomy of few-shot KGR approaches with the comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: The illustration of inductive KGR. few-shot settings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Taxonomy of inductive KGR approaches with the comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Illustrative examples of the KGR technique applied to QA systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

RADD: Retrieval-Augmented Discrete Diffusion for Multi-Modal Knowledge Graph Completion
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

RADD decouples retrieval and reranking in multi-modal KGC via a relation-aware KGE retriever and conditional discrete denoiser, reporting state-of-the-art results on three benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[23]

Knowledge graph embedding: a survey from the perspective of representation spaces,

J. Cao, J. Fang, Z. Meng, and S. Liang, “Knowledge graph embedding: a survey from the perspective of representation spaces,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1–42, 2024

2024
[33]

A survey of knowledge graph reasoning on graph types: Static, dynamic, and multi-modal,

K. Liang, L. Meng, M. Liu, Y . Liu, W. Tu, S. Wang, S. Zhou, X. Liu, F. Sun, and K. He, “A survey of knowledge graph reasoning on graph types: Static, dynamic, and multi-modal,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 9456–9478, 2024

2024
[1]

Knowl- edge graphs,

A. Hogan, E. Blomqvist, M. Cochez, C. D’Amato, G. De Melo, C. Gutierrez, S. Kirrane, J. E. Labra Gayo, R. Navigli, S. Neu- maier, A. C. Ngonga Ngomo, A. Polleres, S. M. Rashid, A. Rula, L. Schmelzeisen, J. Sequeda, S. Staab, and A. Zimmermann, “Knowl- edge graphs,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1–37, 2021

2021
[2]

A survey on knowledge graphs: representation, acquisition, and applications,

S. X. Ji, S. R. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, and P. S. Yu, “A survey on knowledge graphs: representation, acquisition, and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 494–514, 2021

2021
[3]

Free- base: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge,

K. Bollacker, C. Evans, P. Paritosh, T. Sturge, and J. Taylor, “Free- base: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Management of Data , 2008, pp. 1247–1250

2008
[4]

Yago: a core of semantic knowledge,

F. M. Suchanek, G. Kasneci, and G. Weikum, “Yago: a core of semantic knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2007, pp. 697–706

2007
[5]

Wordnet: a lexical database for english,

G. A. Miller, “Wordnet: a lexical database for english,” Communica- tions of the ACM , vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 39–41, 1995

1995
[6]

Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning,

A. Carlson, J. Betteridge, B. Kisiel, B. Settles, E. R. Hruschka, and T. M. Mitchell, “Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning,” in Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2010, pp. 1306–1313

2010

Show all 300 references

[7]

Dbpedia: A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia,

J. Lehmann, R. Isele, M. Jakob, A. Jentzsch, D. Kontokostas, P. N. Mendes, S. Hellmann, M. Morsey, P. van Kleef, S. Auer, and C. Bizer, “Dbpedia: A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia,” Semantic Web Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 167–195, 2015

2015
[8]

Long-tail relation extraction via knowledge graph embeddings and graph convolution networks,

N. Zhang, S. Deng, Z. Sun, G. Wang, X. Chen, W. Zhang, and H. Chen, “Long-tail relation extraction via knowledge graph embeddings and graph convolution networks,” in Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Li...

2019
[9]

Semantic parsing via paraphrasing,

J. Berant and P. Liang, “Semantic parsing via paraphrasing,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014, pp. 1415–1425

2014
[10]

Commonsense knowledge aware conversation generation with graph attention,

H. Zhou, T. Young, M. Huang, H. Zhao, and X. Zhu, “Commonsense knowledge aware conversation generation with graph attention,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018, pp. 4623–4629

2018
[11]

Kagnet: Knowledge aware graph networks for commonsense reasoning,

B. Y . Lin, X. Chen, J. Chen, and X. Ren, “Kagnet: Knowledge aware graph networks for commonsense reasoning,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EM...

2019
[12]

Explainable reasoning over knowledge graphs for recommendation,

X. Wang, D. Wang, C. Xu, X. He, Y . Cao, and T. S. Chua, “Explainable reasoning over knowledge graphs for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019, pp. 5329– 5336

2019
[13]

From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization,

D. Edge, H. Trinh, N. Cheng, J. Bradley, A. Chao, A. Mody, S. Truitt, D. Metropolitansky, R. O. Ness, and J. Larson, “From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

2024 arXiv
[14]

Knowledge base completion via search based question answering,

R. West, E. Gabrilovich, K. Murphy, S. Sun, R. Gupta, and D. Lin, “Knowledge base completion via search based question answering,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, 2014, pp. 515–526

2014
[15]

Type-constrained representation learning in knowledge graphs,

D. Krompass, S. Baier, and V . Tresp, “Type-constrained representation learning in knowledge graphs,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Semantic Web Conference, 2015, pp. 640–655

2015
[16]

A survey of embedding models of entities and relationships for knowledge graph completion,

D. Q. Nguyen, “A survey of embedding models of entities and relationships for knowledge graph completion,” in Proceedings of the Graph-based Methods for Natural Language Processing (TextGraphs) , 2020, pp. 1–14

2020
[17]

Repurpose open data to discover therapeutics for covid-19 using deep learning,

X. Zeng, X. Song, T. Ma, X. Pan, Y . Zhou, Y . Hou, Z. Zhang, K. Li, G. Karypis, and F. Cheng, “Repurpose open data to discover therapeutics for covid-19 using deep learning,” J Proteome Res, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 4624–4636, 2020. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, A...

2020
[18]

A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data,

M. Nickel, V . Tresp, and H. P. Kriegel, “A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data,” in Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning , 2011, pp. 809–816

2011
[19]

Jointly learning explainable rules for recommendation with knowledge graph,

W. Ma, M. Zhang, Y . Cao, W. Jin, and C. Wang, “Jointly learning explainable rules for recommendation with knowledge graph,” in Proc. of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web , 2019, pp. 1210–1221

2019
[20]

An interpretable reasoning network for multi-relation question answering,

M. Zhou, M. Huang, and X. Zhu, “An interpretable reasoning network for multi-relation question answering,” in Proc. of the 27th Interna- tional Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2018, pp. 2010–2022

2018
[21]

Graph path fusion and reinforcement reasoning for recommendation in moocs,

L. Z, M. L, C. J, and X. Q, “Graph path fusion and reinforcement reasoning for recommendation in moocs,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 525–545, 2023

2023
[22]

Knowledge graph embed- ding: A survey of approaches and applications,

Q. Wang, Z. Mao, B. Wang, and L. Guo, “Knowledge graph embed- ding: A survey of approaches and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 2724–2743, 2017

2017
[24]

Negative sampling in knowledge graph representation learning: a review,

T. Madushanka and R. Ichise, “Negative sampling in knowledge graph representation learning: a review,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2402.19195 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[25]

Knowledge graph reasoning with logics and embeddings: survey and perspective,

W. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Li, Z. Xu, J. Z. Pan, and H. Chen, “Knowledge graph reasoning with logics and embeddings: survey and perspective,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2202.07412 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[26]

Overview of knowledge reasoning for knowledge graph,

X. Liu, T. Mao, Y . Shi, and Y . Ren, “Overview of knowledge reasoning for knowledge graph,” Neurocomput., vol. 585, 2024

2024
[27]

A survey on temporal knowledge graph: representation learning and applications,

L. Cai, X. Mao, Y . Zhou, Z. Long, C. Wu, and M. Lan, “A survey on temporal knowledge graph: representation learning and applications,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2403.04782 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[28]

A survey on temporal knowledge graph completion: taxonomy, progress, and prospects,

J. Wang, B. Wang, M. Qiu, S. Pan, B. Xiong, H. Liu, L. Luo, T. Liu, Y . Hu, B. Yin, and W. Gao, “A survey on temporal knowledge graph completion: taxonomy, progress, and prospects,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2308.02457, 2023

2023 arXiv
[29]

Generalizing to unseen elements: a survey on knowledge extrapolation for knowledge graphs,

M. Chen, W. Zhang, Y . Geng, Z. Xu, J. Z. Pan, and H. Chen, “Generalizing to unseen elements: a survey on knowledge extrapolation for knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Survey Track , 2023, pp. 6574–6582

2023
[30]

A survey on few-shot knowledge graph com- pletion with structural and commonsense knowledge,

H. Ma and D. Z. Wang, “A survey on few-shot knowledge graph com- pletion with structural and commonsense knowledge,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2301.01172, 2023

2023 arXiv
[31]

Beyond transduction: a survey on inductive, few shot, and zero shot link prediction in knowledge graphs,

N. Hubert, P. Monnin, and H. Paulheim, “Beyond transduction: a survey on inductive, few shot, and zero shot link prediction in knowledge graphs,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2312.04997 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[32]

A comprehensive overview of knowledge graph completion,

T. Shen, F. Zhang, and J. Cheng, “A comprehensive overview of knowledge graph completion,” Knowl.-Based Syst., vol. 255, 2022

2022
[34]

Knowledge graphs meet multi-modal learning: A comprehensive survey,

Z. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Fang, Y . Geng, L. Guo, X. Chen, Q. Li, W. Zhang, J. Chen, Y . Zhuet al., “Knowledge graphs meet multi-modal learning: A comprehensive survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05391 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[35]

Temporal knowledge graph completion: a survey,

B. Cai, Y . Xiang, L. Gao, H. Zhang, Y . Li, and J. Li, “Temporal knowledge graph completion: a survey,” in Proc. of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Survey Track , 2023, pp. 6545–6553

2023
[36]

A survey of multi- modal knowledge graphs: technologies and trends,

W. Liang, P. De Meo, Y . Tang, and J. Zhu, “A survey of multi- modal knowledge graphs: technologies and trends,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 1–41, 2024

2024
[37]

Multi-modal knowledge graph construction and application: a survey,

X. Zhu, Z. Li, X. Wang, X. Jiang, P. Sun, X. Wang, Y . Xiao, and N. Yuan, “Multi-modal knowledge graph construction and application: a survey,” IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 715–735, 2024

2024
[38]

Deeppath: a reinforcement learning method for knowledge graph reasoning,

W. Xiong, T. Hoang, and W. Y . Wang, “Deeppath: a reinforcement learning method for knowledge graph reasoning,” in Proc. of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2017, pp. 564–573

2017
[39]

Zero-shot and few-shot learning with knowledge graphs: A comprehensive survey,

J. Chen, Y . Geng, Z. Chen, J. Z. Pan, Y . He, W. Zhang, I. Horrocks, and H. Chen, “Zero-shot and few-shot learning with knowledge graphs: A comprehensive survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 653–685, 2023

2023
[40]

A re- evaluation of knowledge graph completion methods,

Z. Sun, S. Vashishth, S. Sanyal, P. Talukdar, and Y . Yang, “A re- evaluation of knowledge graph completion methods,” in Proc. of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2020, pp. 5516–5522

2020
[41]

Realistic re- evaluation of knowledge graph completion methods: An experimental study,

F. Akrami, M. S. Saeef, Q. Zhang, W. Hu, and C. Li, “Realistic re- evaluation of knowledge graph completion methods: An experimental study,” in Proc. of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data , 2020, pp. 1995–2010

2020
[42]

Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion,

R. Socher, D. Chen, C. D. Manning, and A. Y . Ng, “Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion,” in Proc. of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing System, 2013, pp. 926–934

2013
[43]

Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks,

M. Schlichtkrull, T. N. Kipf, P. Bloem, R. VanDenBerg, I. Titov, and M. Welling, “Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks,” in Proc. of the 17th European Semantic Web Conference , 2018, pp. 593–607

2018
[44]

Kg-bert: Bert for knowledge graph completion,

L. Yao, C. Mao, and Y . Luo, “Kg-bert: Bert for knowledge graph completion,” 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03193

2019 arXiv
[45]

Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data,

A. Bordes, N. Usunier, A. Garcia-Dur ´an, J. Weston, and O. Yakhnenko, “Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data,” in Proc. of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2013, pp. 2787–2795

2013
[46]

Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space,

T. Mikolov, “Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space,” 2013, arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781

2013 arXiv
[47]

Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes,

Z. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Feng, and Z. Chen, “Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes,” in Proc. of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2014, pp. 1112–1119

2014
[48]

Rotate3d: Repre- senting relations as rotations in three-dimensional space for knowledge graph embedding,

C. Gao, C. Sun, L. Shan, L. Lin, and M. J. Wang, “Rotate3d: Repre- senting relations as rotations in three-dimensional space for knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , 2020, pp. 385–394

2020
[49]

Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion,

Y . Lin, Z. Liu, M. Sun, Y . Liu, and X. Zhu, “Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2015, pp. 2181–2187

2015
[50]

Knowledge graph embedding via dynamic mapping matrix,

G. Ji, S. He, L. Xu, K. Liu, and J. Zhao, “Knowledge graph embedding via dynamic mapping matrix,” in Proc. of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2015, pp. 687–696

2015
[51]

Knowledge graph completion with adaptive sparse transfer matrix,

G. Ji, K. Liu, S. He, and J. Zhao, “Knowledge graph completion with adaptive sparse transfer matrix,” in Proc. of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016, pp. 985–991

2016
[52]

Pairre: Knowledge graph embeddings via paired relation vectors,

L. L. Chao, J. S. He, T. F. Wang, and W. Chu, “Pairre: Knowledge graph embeddings via paired relation vectors,” in Proc. of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, 2021...

2021
[53]

Transa: An adaptive approach for knowledge graph embedding,

H. Xiao, M. Huang, Y . Hao, and X. Zhu, “Transa: An adaptive approach for knowledge graph embedding,” 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.05490

2015 arXiv
[54]

Learning to represent knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding,

S. He, K. Liu, G. Ji, and J. Zhao, “Learning to represent knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding,” in Proc. of the 24th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2015, pp. 623–632

2015
[55]

From one point to a manifold: Knowledge graph embedding for precise link prediction,

H. Xiao, M. Huang, and X. Zhu, “From one point to a manifold: Knowledge graph embedding for precise link prediction,” in Proc. of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2016, pp. 1315–1321

2016
[56]

Toruse: Knowledge graph embedding on a lie group,

T. Ebisu and R. Ichise, “Toruse: Knowledge graph embedding on a lie group,” in Proc. of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018, pp. 1819–1826

2018
[57]

Poincare embeddings for learning hierarchical representations,

M. Nickel and D. Kiela, “Poincare embeddings for learning hierarchical representations,” in Proc. of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017, pp. 6341–6350

2017
[58]

Multi-relational poincare graph embeddings,

I. Bala ˇzevi´c, C. Allen, and T. Hospedales, “Multi-relational poincare graph embeddings,” in Proc. of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2019, pp. 4463–4473

2019
[59]

Learning hierarchy-aware knowledge graph embeddings for link prediction,

Z. Zhang, J. Cai, Y . Zhang, and J. Wang, “Learning hierarchy-aware knowledge graph embeddings for link prediction,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2020, pp. 3065–3072

2020
[60]

Knowledge graph representation via hierarchical hy- perbolic neural graph embedding,

S. Wang, X. Wei, C. N. Dos Santos, Z. Wang, R. Nallapati, A. Arnold, and P. S. Yu, “Knowledge graph representation via hierarchical hy- perbolic neural graph embedding,” in Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data , 2021, pp. 540–549

2021
[61]

Hyperbolic hierarchy-aware knowledge graph embedding for link prediction,

Z. Pan and P. Wang, “Hyperbolic hierarchy-aware knowledge graph embedding for link prediction,” in Findings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2021, pp. 2941– 2948. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 36

2021
[62]

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

Z. Sun, Z. H. Deng, J. Y . Nie, and J. Tang, “Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space,” in Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019, pp. 1–18

2019
[63]

Quaternion knowledge graph embedding,

S. Zhang, Y . Tay, L. Yao, and Q. Liu, “Quaternion knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2019, pp. 2731–2741

2019
[64]

Dual quaternion knowledge graph embeddings,

Z. Cao, Q. Xu, Z. Yang, and et al., “Dual quaternion knowledge graph embeddings,” in Proc. of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021, pp. 6894–6902

2021
[65]

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

B. Yang, W. T. Yih, X. He, J. Gao, and L. Deng, “Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases,” in Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015

2015
[66]

Complex embeddings for simple link prediction,

T. Trouillon, J. Welbl, S. Riedel, G. ´Eric, and G. Bouchard, “Complex embeddings for simple link prediction,” in Proc. of the 33rd Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning , 2016, pp. 2071–2080

2016
[67]

Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs,

M. Nickel, L. Rosasco, and T. Poggio, “Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2016, pp. 1955–1961

2016
[68]

A semantic matching energy function for learning with multi-relational data,

A. Bordes, X. Glorot, J. Weston, and Y . Bengio, “A semantic matching energy function for learning with multi-relational data,” Machine Learning, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 233–259, 2014

2014
[69]

Probabilistic reasoning via deep learning: Neural association models,

Q. Liu, H. Jiang, A. Evdokimov, Z. H. Ling, X. Zhu, S. Wei, and Y . Hu, “Probabilistic reasoning via deep learning: Neural association models,” 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.07704

2016 arXiv
[70]

Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings,

T. Dettmers, P. Minervini, P. Stenetorp, and S. Riedel, “Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings,” in Proc. of the 32nd AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence , 2018, pp. 1811–1818

2018
[71]

A novel embedding model for knowledge base completion based on convolutional neural network,

D. Q. Nguyen, T. D. Nguyen, D. Q. Nguyen, and D. Phung, “A novel embedding model for knowledge base completion based on convolutional neural network,” in Proc. of the 16th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018, p...

2018
[72]

End- to-end structure-aware convolutional networks for knowledge base completion,

C. Shang, Y . Tang, J. Huang, J. Bi, X. He, and B. Zhou, “End- to-end structure-aware convolutional networks for knowledge base completion,” in Proc. of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019, pp. 3060–3067

2019
[73]

Learning attention- based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs,

D. Nathani, J. Chauhan, C. Sharma, and M. Kaul, “Learning attention- based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 4710–4723

2019
[74]

Knowledge embedding based graph convolutional network,

D. Yu, Y . Yang, R. Zhang, and Y . Wu, “Knowledge embedding based graph convolutional network,” in Proc. of the Web Conference , 2021, pp. 1619–1628

2021
[75]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

J. Devlin, M. W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” inProc. of the 17th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2019, pp. 4171–4186

2019
[76]

A relational memory-based em- bedding model for triple classification and search personalization,

Q. N. Dai, D. N. Tu, and P. Dinh, “A relational memory-based em- bedding model for triple classification and search personalization,” in Proc. of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, pp. 3429–3435

2021
[77]

Coke: Contextualized knowledge graph embedding,

Q. Wang, P. Huang, H. Wang, S. Dai, W. Jiang, J. Liu, Y . Lyu, Y . Zhu, and H. Wu, “Coke: Contextualized knowledge graph embedding,” 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02168

2019 arXiv
[78]

Hitter: Hierarchical transformers for knowledge graph embeddings,

S. Chen, X. Liu, J. Gao, J. Jiao, R. Zhang, and Y . Ji, “Hitter: Hierarchical transformers for knowledge graph embeddings,” in Proc. of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021, pp. 10 395–10 407

2021
[79]

From discrimination to generation: Knowledge graph com- pletion with generative transformer,

X. Xie, N. Zhang, Z. Li, S. Deng, H. Chen, F. Xiong, M. Chen, and H. Chen, “From discrimination to generation: Knowledge graph com- pletion with generative transformer,” in Proc. of the Web Conference 2022 (WWW ’22) , 2022, pp. 162–165

2022
[80]

Pre- training transformers for knowledge graph completion,

S. X. Chen, H. Cheng, X. D. Liu, J. Jiao, Y . F. J. Ji, and J. F. Gao, “Pre- training transformers for knowledge graph completion,” 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15682

2023 arXiv
[81]

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

L. Wang, W. Zhao, Z. Wei, and J. Liu, “Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models,” in Proc. of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , 2022, pp. 4281–4294

2022
[82]

Structure-augmented text representation learning for efficient knowl- edge graph completion,

B. Wang, T. Shen, G. Long, T. Zhou, Y . Wang, and Y . Chang, “Structure-augmented text representation learning for efficient knowl- edge graph completion,” in Proc. of the Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21), 2021, pp. 1737–1748

2021
[83]

Relphormer: Relational graph transformer for knowledge graph rep- resentations,

Z. Bi, S. Cheng, J. Chen, X. Liang, F. Xiong, and N. Zhang, “Relphormer: Relational graph transformer for knowledge graph rep- resentations,” Neurocomputing, vol. 566, p. 127044, 2024

2024
[84]

Making large language models perform better in knowledge graph completion,

Y . C. Zhang, Z. Chen, L. B. Guo, Y . J. Xu, W. Zhang, and H. J. Chen, “Making large language models perform better in knowledge graph completion,” 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06671

2023 arXiv
[85]

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

Y . Wei, Q. Huang, Y . Zhang, and J. Kwok, “Kicgpt: Large language model with knowledge in context for knowledge graph completion,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 2023, pp. 8667–8683

2023
[86]

Factorizing yago: Scalable machine learning for linked data,

M. Nickel, V . Tresp, and H. P. Kriegel, “Factorizing yago: Scalable machine learning for linked data,” in Proc. of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, 2012, pp. 271–280

2012
[87]

Universal representa- tion learning of knowledge bases by jointly embedding instances and ontological concepts,

J. Hao, M. Chen, W. Yu, Y . Sun, and W. Wang, “Universal representa- tion learning of knowledge bases by jointly embedding instances and ontological concepts,” in Proc. of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2019, pp. 1709–1719

2019
[88]

Embedding two-view knowledge graphs with class inheritance and structural similarity,

K. H. Yeom, H. J. Yang, G. Y . Park, M. H. Jeon, Y . J. Ko, B. K. Oh, and K. H. Lee, “Embedding two-view knowledge graphs with class inheritance and structural similarity,” in Proc. of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2024, pp. 3931–3941

2024
[89]

An ontology-enhanced knowledge graph embedding method,

C. L. Wang, T. T. Gan, X. Y . Li, L. H. Zhang, and X. J. Wang, “An ontology-enhanced knowledge graph embedding method,” in Proc. of the 2023 12th International Conference on Computing and Pattern Recognition (ICCPR ’23) , 2024, pp. 51–57

2023
[90]

Concept2box: joint geometric embeddings for learning two-view knowledge graphs,

Z. J. Huang, D. H. Wang, B. X. Huang, C. W. Zhang, J. B. Shang, Y . Liang, Z. Y . Wang, X. Li, C. Faloutsos, Y . Z. Sun, and W. Wang, “Concept2box: joint geometric embeddings for learning two-view knowledge graphs,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics:...

2023
[91]

Cake: A scalable commonsense-aware framework for multi-view knowledge graph com- pletion,

G. L. Niu, B. Li, Y . F. Zhang, and S. L. Pu, “Cake: A scalable commonsense-aware framework for multi-view knowledge graph com- pletion,” in Proc. of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , 2022, pp. 2867– 2877

2022
[92]

Semantically smooth knowledge graph embedding,

S. Guo, Q. Wang, L. Wang, B. Wang, and L. Guo, “Semantically smooth knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2015

2015
[93]

Representation learning of knowledge graphs with hierarchical types,

R. Xie, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “Representation learning of knowledge graphs with hierarchical types,” in Proc. of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016, pp. 2965–2971

2016
[94]

Transet: Knowledge graph embedding with entity types,

P. Wang, J. Zhou, Y . Liu, and X. C. Zhou, “Transet: Knowledge graph embedding with entity types,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 1407, 2021

2021
[95]

Autoeter: Automated entity type representation for knowledge graph embedding,

G. L. Niu, B. Li, Y . F. Zhang, S. L. Pu, and J. Y . Li, “Autoeter: Automated entity type representation for knowledge graph embedding,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 2020, pp. 1172–1181

2020
[96]

Compositional vector space models for knowledge base completion,

A. Neelakantan, B. Roth, and A. McCallum, “Compositional vector space models for knowledge base completion,” in Proc. of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2015, pp. 156–166

2015
[97]

Modeling relation paths for representation learning of knowledge bases,

Y . Lin, Z. Liu, H. Luan, M. Sun, S. Rao, and S. Liu, “Modeling relation paths for representation learning of knowledge bases,” in Proc. of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2015, pp. 705–714

2015
[98]

A path-based relation networks model for knowledge graph completion,

W. K. Lee, W. C. Shin, B. Jagvaral, J. S. Roh, M. S. Kim, M. H. Lee, H. K. Park, and Y . T. Park, “A path-based relation networks model for knowledge graph completion,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 182, p. 115273, 2021

2021
[99]

Representation learning with ordered relation paths for knowledge graph completion,

Y . Zhu, H. Liu, Z. Wu, Y . Song, and T. Zhang, “Representation learning with ordered relation paths for knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Langu...

2019
[100]

Modeling relation paths for knowledge base completion via joint adversarial training,

C. Li, X. Peng, S. Zhang, H. Peng, P. S. Yu, M. He, L. Du, and L. Wang, “Modeling relation paths for knowledge base completion via joint adversarial training,” Knowledge Based Systems , vol. 201, p. 105865, 2020

2020
[101]

Harpa: hierarchical attention with relation paths for knowledge graph embedding adversarial learning,

N. Zhang, J. Wang, and J. He, “Harpa: hierarchical attention with relation paths for knowledge graph embedding adversarial learning,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , vol. 37, pp. 521–551, 2023

2023
[102]

Rule-guided compositional representation learning on knowl- edge graphs,

G. L. Niu, Y . F. Zhang, B. Li, P. Cui, S. Liu, J. Y . Li, and X. W. Zhang, “Rule-guided compositional representation learning on knowl- edge graphs,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020, pp. 2950–2958

2020
[103]

Attention-aware path- based relation extraction for medical knowledge graph,

D. Wen, Y . Liu, K. Yuan, S. Si, and Y . Shen, “Attention-aware path- based relation extraction for medical knowledge graph,” in Proc. of the JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 37 2nd International Conference on Smart Computing and Communica- tion, 2017,...

2021
[104]

Relation path embedding in knowledge graphs,

X. Lin, Y . Liang, F. Giunchiglia, X. Feng, and R. Guan, “Relation path embedding in knowledge graphs,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 31, pp. 5629–5639, 2019

2019
[105]

Chains of reasoning over entities, relations, and text using recurrent neural networks,

R. Das, A. Neelakantan, D. Belanger, and A. McCallum, “Chains of reasoning over entities, relations, and text using recurrent neural networks,” in Proc. of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2017, pp. 132–141

2017
[106]

Attentive path combination for knowledge graph completion,

X. Jiang, Q. Wang, B. Qi, Y . Qiu, P. Li, and B. Wang, “Attentive path combination for knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of Machine Learning Research, 2017, pp. 590–605

2017
[107]

A confidence-aware and path-enhanced con- volutional neural network embedding framework on noisy knowledge graph,

X. Yang and N. Wang, “A confidence-aware and path-enhanced con- volutional neural network embedding framework on noisy knowledge graph,” Neurocomputing, vol. 545, 2023

2023
[108]

Path-specific knowledge graph embedding,

Y . Jia, Y . Wang, X. Jin, and X. Cheng, “Path-specific knowledge graph embedding,” Knowledge-based Systems, vol. 151, pp. 37–44, 2018

2018
[109]

Path- based reasoning approach for knowledge graph completion using cnn- bilstm with attention mechanism,

B. Jagvaral, W. K. Lee, J. S. Roh, M. S. Kim, and Y . T. Park, “Path- based reasoning approach for knowledge graph completion using cnn- bilstm with attention mechanism,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 142, 2020

2020
[110]

Relational message passing for knowledge graph completion,

H. Wang, H. Ren, and J. Leskovec, “Relational message passing for knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2021, pp. 1697–1707

2021
[111]

Ptruste: A high-accuracy knowledge graph noise detection method based on path trustworthiness and triple embedding,

J. Ma, C. Zhou, Y . Wang, Y . Guo, G. Hu, Y . Qiao, and Y . Wang, “Ptruste: A high-accuracy knowledge graph noise detection method based on path trustworthiness and triple embedding,” Knowledge-based Systems, vol. 256, p. 109688, 2022

2022
[112]

Modeling relation paths for knowledge graph completion,

Y . Shen, N. Ding, H. T. Zheng, Y . Li, and M. Yang, “Modeling relation paths for knowledge graph completion,” IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2021

2021
[113]

Joint semantics and data-driven path representation for knowledge graph reasoning,

G. Niu, B. Li, Y . Zhang, Y . Sheng, C. Shi, J. Li, and S. Pu, “Joint semantics and data-driven path representation for knowledge graph reasoning,” Neurocomputing, vol. 483, pp. 249–261, 2022

2022
[114]

Predicting rdf triples in incomplete knowledge bases with tensor factorization,

L. Drumond, S. Rendle, and L. Schmidt-Thieme, “Predicting rdf triples in incomplete knowledge bases with tensor factorization,” in Proc. of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing , 2012, pp. 326–331

2012
[115]

Knowledge vault: A web scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion,

X. Dong, E. Gabrilovich, G. Heitz, W. Horn, N. Lao, K. Murphy, T. Strohmann, S. Sun, and W. Zhang, “Knowledge vault: A web scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion,” in Proc. of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2014, ...

2014
[116]

Negative sampling in knowledge graph representation learning: A review,

X. Zhang, Y . Liu, G. Zhao, and M. Sun, “Negative sampling in knowledge graph representation learning: A review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12345, 2023

2023 arXiv
[117]

Pytorch-biggraph: A large scale graph embedding system,

A. Lerer, L. Wu, J. Shen, T. Lacroix, L. Wehrstedt, A. Bose, and A. Peysakhovich, “Pytorch-biggraph: A large scale graph embedding system,” in Proc. of Machine Learning and Systems , 2019, pp. 120– 131

2019
[118]

An interpretable knowledge transfer model for knowledge base completion,

Q. Xie, X. Ma, Z. Dai, and E. Hovy, “An interpretable knowledge transfer model for knowledge base completion,” in Proc. of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2017, pp. 950–962

2017
[119]

A novel negative sample generating method for knowledge graph embedding,

Y . Zhang, W. Cao, and J. Liu, “A novel negative sample generating method for knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of the 2019 In- ternational Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks , 2019, pp. 401–406

2019
[120]

A novel negative sampling based on frequency of relational association entities for knowledge graph embedding,

Y . Zhang, W. Cao, J. Liu, and Z. Rao, “A novel negative sampling based on frequency of relational association entities for knowledge graph embedding,” Journal of Web Engineering , vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1867–1883, 2021

2021
[121]

Kbgan: Adversarial learning for knowledge graph embeddings,

L. Cai and W. Y . Wang, “Kbgan: Adversarial learning for knowledge graph embeddings,” in Proc. of the 16th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, 2018, pp. 1470–1480

2018
[122]

Generative adversarial networks,

I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde- Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial networks,” in Proc. of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2014

2014
[123]

Incorporating gan for negative sampling in knowledge representation learning,

P. Wang, S. Li, and R. Pan, “Incorporating gan for negative sampling in knowledge representation learning,” in Proc. of Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018, pp. 2005–2012

2018
[124]

Graphgan: Graph representation learning with generative adversarial nets,

H. Wang, J. Wang, J. Wang, M. Zhao, W. Zhang, F. Zhang, X. Xie, and M. Guo, “Graphgan: Graph representation learning with generative adversarial nets,” in Proc. of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018, pp. 2508–2515

2018
[125]

A knowledge selective adversarial network for link prediction in knowledge graph,

K. Hu, H. Liu, and T. Hao, “A knowledge selective adversarial network for link prediction in knowledge graph,” in Proc. of Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, 2019, pp. 171– 183

2019
[126]

Improving knowledge graph completion using soft rules and adversarial learning,

C. Tang, Y . Rao, H. Yu, L. Sun, J. Cheng, and Y . Wang, “Improving knowledge graph completion using soft rules and adversarial learning,” Chinese Journal of Electronics , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 623–633, 2021

2021
[127]

Adversarial knowledge representation learning without external model,

J. Lei, D. Ouyang, and Y . Liu, “Adversarial knowledge representation learning without external model,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 3512–3524, 2019

2019
[128]

Relation-aware graph attention model with adaptive self-adversarial training,

X. Qin, N. Sheikh, B. Reinwald, and L. Wu, “Relation-aware graph attention model with adaptive self-adversarial training,” in Proc. of Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2021, pp. 9368–9376

2021
[129]

Knowledge graph embedding based on adaptive negative sampling,

S. Qin, G. Rao, C. Bin, L. Chang, T. Gu, and W. Xuan, “Knowledge graph embedding based on adaptive negative sampling,” in Proc. of In- ternational Conference of Pioneering Computer Scientists, Engineers, and Educators, 2019, pp. 551–563

2019
[130]

Entity aware negative sampling with auxiliary loss of false negative prediction for knowledge graph embedding,

S. Je, “Entity aware negative sampling with auxiliary loss of false negative prediction for knowledge graph embedding,” 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06242

2022 arXiv
[131]

Fusing attribute character embeddings with truncated negative sampling for entity alignment,

H. Li, Z. Zhu, H. Zhu, and B. Jin, “Fusing attribute character embeddings with truncated negative sampling for entity alignment,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 1947, 2023

1947
[132]

Distributional negative sampling for knowl- edge base completion,

S. Dash and A. Gliozzo, “Distributional negative sampling for knowl- edge base completion,” 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06178

2019 arXiv
[133]

Entity similarity-based negative sampling for knowledge graph embedding,

N. Yao, Q. Liu, X. Li, Y . Yang, and Q. Bai, “Entity similarity-based negative sampling for knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2022, pp. 73– 87

2022
[134]

Kgboost: A classification- based knowledge base completion method with negative sampling,

Y . Wang, X. Ge, B. Wang, and C. Kuo, “Kgboost: A classification- based knowledge base completion method with negative sampling,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 157, pp. 104–111, 2022

2022
[135]

Conditional constraints for knowledge graph embeddings,

M. Weyns, P. Bonte, B. Steenwinckel, F. De Turck, and F. Ongenae, “Conditional constraints for knowledge graph embeddings,” in Proc. of Workshop on Deep Learning for Knowledge Graphs , 2020

2020
[136]

Lemon: Lan- guage model for negative sampling of knowledge graph embeddings,

M. Rony, M. Alam, S. Ali, J. Lehmann, and S. Vahdati, “Lemon: Lan- guage model for negative sampling of knowledge graph embeddings,” 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04703

2022 arXiv
[137]

Diffusion-based hierarchical negative sam- pling for multimodal knowledge graph completion,

G. Niu and X. Zhang, “Diffusion-based hierarchical negative sam- pling for multimodal knowledge graph completion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15393, 2025

2025 arXiv
[138]

Nscaching: Simple and efficient negative sampling for knowledge graph embedding,

Y . Zhang, Q. Yao, Y . Shao, and L. Chen, “Nscaching: Simple and efficient negative sampling for knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of the 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2019, pp. 614–625

2019
[139]

Mdncaching: A strategy to generate quality negatives for knowledge graph embedding,

T. Madushanka and R. Ichise, “Mdncaching: A strategy to generate quality negatives for knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of Inter- national Conference on Industrial, Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems , 2022, pp. 877–888

2022
[140]

Tuckerdncaching: high-quality negative sampling with tucker decomposition,

——, “Tuckerdncaching: high-quality negative sampling with tucker decomposition,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems , vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 739–763, 2023

2023
[141]

Op-trans: An optimization framework for negative sampling and triplet-mapping properties in knowledge graph embedding,

H. Han, X. Li, and K. Wu, “Op-trans: An optimization framework for negative sampling and triplet-mapping properties in knowledge graph embedding,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 2817, 2023

2023
[142]

Efficient non-sampling knowledge graph embedding,

Z. Li, J. Ji, Z. Fu, Y . Ge, S. Xu, C. Chen, and Y . Zhang, “Efficient non-sampling knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of the Web Conference, 2021, pp. 1727–1736

2021
[143]

OpenKE: An open toolkit for knowledge embedding,

X. Han, S. Cao, X. Lv, Y . Lin, Z. Liu, M. Sun, and J. Li, “OpenKE: An open toolkit for knowledge embedding,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, 2018, pp. 139–144

2018
[144]

AmpliGraph: a Library for Representation Learning on Knowledge Graphs,

L. Costabello, A. Bernardi, A. Janik, A. Creo, S. Pai, C. L. Van, R. McGrath, N. McCarthy, and P. Tabacof, “AmpliGraph: a Library for Representation Learning on Knowledge Graphs,” Mar. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2595043

2019 doi
[145]

Torchkge: Knowledge graph embedding in python and pytorch,

A. Boschin, “Torchkge: Knowledge graph embedding in python and pytorch,” in International Workshop on Knowledge Graph: Mining Knowledge Graph for Deep Insights , Aug 2020

2020
[146]

LibKGE - a knowledge graph embedding library for reproducible re- search,

S. Broscheit, D. Ruffinelli, A. Kochsiek, P. Betz, and R. Gemulla, “LibKGE - a knowledge graph embedding library for reproducible re- search,” in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations , 2020, pp. 165–174. ...

2020
[147]

Neuralkg: An open source library for diverse representation learning of knowledge graphs,

W. Zhang, X. Chen, Z. Yao, M. Chen, Y . Zhu, H. Yu, Y . Huang, Y . Xu, N. Zhang, Z. Xu, Z. Yuan, F. Xiong, and H. Chen, “Neuralkg: An open source library for diverse representation learning of knowledge graphs,” in Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on ...

2022
[148]

Pykeen 1.0: A python library for training and evaluating knowledge graph embeddings,

M. Ali, M. Berrendorf, C. T. Hoyt, L. Vermue, S. Sharifzadeh, V . Tresp, and J. Lehmann, “Pykeen 1.0: A python library for training and evaluating knowledge graph embeddings,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 82, pp. 1–6, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://jml...

2021
[149]

Pykg2vec: a python library for knowledge graph embedding,

S.-Y . Yu, S. R. Chhetri, A. Canedo, P. Goyal, and M. A. Al Faruque, “Pykg2vec: a python library for knowledge graph embedding,”J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 22, no. 1, 2021

2021
[150]

ϵkg: A library for multi-source knowledge graph embeddings and applications,

X. Luo, Z. Sun, and W. Hu, “ ϵkg: A library for multi-source knowledge graph embeddings and applications,” in The Semantic Web – ISWC 2022: 21st International Semantic Web Conference, Virtual Event, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings , 2022, p. 610–627

2022
[151]

Dgl-ke: Training knowledge graph embeddings at scale,

D. Zheng, X. Song, C. Ma, Z. Tan, Z. Ye, J. Dong, H. Xiong, Z. Zhang, and G. Karypis, “Dgl-ke: Training knowledge graph embeddings at scale,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2020, p. 739–748

2020
[152]

Graphvite: A high-performance cpu-gpu hybrid system for node embedding,

Z. Zhu, S. Xu, J. Tang, and M. Qu, “Graphvite: A high-performance cpu-gpu hybrid system for node embedding,” in The World Wide Web Conference, 2019, p. 2494–2504

2019
[153]

PyTorch-BigGraph: A Large-scale Graph Embed- ding System,

A. Lerer, L. Wu, J. Shen, T. Lacroix, L. Wehrstedt, A. Bose, and A. Peysakhovich, “PyTorch-BigGraph: A Large-scale Graph Embed- ding System,” in Proceedings of the 2nd SysML Conference , 2019

2019
[154]

Drum: End- to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs,

A. Sadeghian, M. Armandpour, P. Ding, and D. Wang, “Drum: End- to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019, pp. 15 321–15 331

2019
[155]

A critical review of inductive logic programming techniques for explainable ai,

Z. Zhang, L. Yilmaz, and B. Liu, “A critical review of inductive logic programming techniques for explainable ai,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 10 220– 10 236, 2024

2024
[156]

Learning logical definitions from relations,

J. Quinlan, “Learning logical definitions from relations,” Machine Learning, pp. 239–266, 1990

1990
[157]

Inverse entailment and progol,

S. Muggleton, “Inverse entailment and progol,” New Generation Com- puting, pp. 245–286, 1995

1995
[158]

Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation,

P. Sch ¨uller and M. Benz, “Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation,” Machine Learning, vol. 107, no. 7, pp. 1141–1169, 2018

2018
[159]

Differentiable learning of numerical rules in knowledge graphs,

P. Wang, D. Stepanova, C. Domokos, and J. Kolter, “Differentiable learning of numerical rules in knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

2020
[160]

Fast rule mining in ontological knowledge bases with amie+,

L. Gal ´arraga, C. Teflioudi, K. Hose, and F. Suchanek, “Fast rule mining in ontological knowledge bases with amie+,” VLDB Journal, vol. 26, pp. 707–730, 2015

2015
[161]

Scalekb: Scalable learning and inference over large knowledge bases,

Y . Chen, D. Wang, and S. Goldberg, “Scalekb: Scalable learning and inference over large knowledge bases,” VLDB Journal , vol. 25, pp. 893–918, 2016

2016
[162]

Rdf2rules: Learning rules from rdf knowledge bases by mining frequent predicate cycles,

Z. Wang and J. Li, “Rdf2rules: Learning rules from rdf knowledge bases by mining frequent predicate cycles,” 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.07734

2015 arXiv
[163]

Swarm: An approach for mining semantic association rules from semantic web data,

M. Barati, Q. Bai, and Q. Liu, “Swarm: An approach for mining semantic association rules from semantic web data,” in Proc. of the 14th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016, pp. 30–43

2016
[164]

Rudik: Rule discovery in knowledge bases,

S. Ortona, V . Meduri, and P. Papotti, “Rudik: Rule discovery in knowledge bases,” in PVLDB, vol. 11, 2018, pp. 1946–1949

2018
[165]

Rule learning from knowledge graphs guided by embedding models,

V . Ho, D. Stepanova, M. Gad-Elrab, E. Kharlamov, and G. Weikum, “Rule learning from knowledge graphs guided by embedding models,” in Proc. of the 15th European Semantic Web Conference , 2018, pp. 72–90

2018
[166]

Rule learning over knowledge graphs with genetic logic programming,

L. Wu, E. Sallinger, E. Sherkhonov, S. Vahdati, and G. Gottlob, “Rule learning over knowledge graphs with genetic logic programming,” in IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , 2022, pp. 3373–3385

2022
[167]

What you always wanted to know about datalog (and never dared to ask),

S. Ceri, G. Gottlob, and L. Tanca, “What you always wanted to know about datalog (and never dared to ask),” IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 146–166, 1989

1989
[168]

Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning,

F. Yang, Z. Yang, and W. Cohen, “Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning,” in Proc. of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017, pp. 2319–2328

2017
[169]

An embedding-based approach to rule learning in knowledge graphs,

P. Omran, K. Wang, and Z. Wang, “An embedding-based approach to rule learning in knowledge graphs,” IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pp. 1–12, 2019

2019
[170]

Rnnlogic: learning logic rules for reasoning on knowledge graphs,

M. Qu, J. Chen, L. Xhonneux, Y . Bengio, and J. Tang, “Rnnlogic: learning logic rules for reasoning on knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021

2021
[171]

Relatedness and tbox-driven rule learning in large knowledge bases,

G. Pirr `o, “Relatedness and tbox-driven rule learning in large knowledge bases,” in AAAI, 2020, pp. 2975–2982

2020
[172]

Ruleformer: context-aware rule mining over knowledge graph,

Z. Xu, P. Ye, H. Chen, M. Zhao, H. Chen, and W. Zhang, “Ruleformer: context-aware rule mining over knowledge graph,” in Proc. of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2022, pp. 2551–2560

2022
[173]

Rule-based knowledge graph completion with canonical models,

S. Ott, P. Betz, D. Stepanova, M. Gad-Elrab, C. Meilicke, and H. Stuckenschmidt, “Rule-based knowledge graph completion with canonical models,” in Proc. of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’23) , 2023, pp. 1971–1981

2023
[174]

Jointly embedding knowledge graphs and logical rules,

S. Guo, Q. Wang, L. Wang, B. Wang, and L. Guo, “Jointly embedding knowledge graphs and logical rules,” in Proc. of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2016, pp. 192– 202

2016
[175]

Knowledge graph embedding with iterative guidance from soft rules,

——, “Knowledge graph embedding with iterative guidance from soft rules,” in Proc. of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018, pp. 4816–4823

2018
[176]

H ´ajek, Metamathematics of fuzzy logic , ser

P. H ´ajek, Metamathematics of fuzzy logic , ser. Trends in Logic. Springer, 1998

1998
[177]

Rule: Knowledge graph reasoning with rule embedding,

X. Tang, S. Zhu, Y . Liang, and M. Zhang, “Rule: Knowledge graph reasoning with rule embedding,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 , 2024, pp. 4316–4335

2024
[178]

Iteratively learning embeddings and rules for knowledge graph reasoning,

W. Zhang, B. Paudel, L. Wang, J. Chen, H. Zhu, W. Zhang, A. Bern- stein, and H. Chen, “Iteratively learning embeddings and rules for knowledge graph reasoning,” in Proc. of the Web Conference , 2019, pp. 2366–2377

2019
[179]

Uniker: A unified framework for combining embedding and definite horn rule reasoning for knowledge graph inference,

K. Cheng, Z. Yang, M. Zhang, and Y . Sun, “Uniker: A unified framework for combining embedding and definite horn rule reasoning for knowledge graph inference,” in Proc. of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2021, pp. 9753– 9771

2021
[180]

Perform like an engine: A closed- loop neural-symbolic learning framework for knowledge graph infer- ence,

G. Niu, B. Li, Y . Zhang, and S. Pu, “Perform like an engine: A closed- loop neural-symbolic learning framework for knowledge graph infer- ence,” in Proc. of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. International Committee on Computational Linguistics, 2...

2022
[181]

Relational retrieval using a combination of path-constrained random walks,

N. Lao and W. Cohen, “Relational retrieval using a combination of path-constrained random walks,” Machine Learning, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 53–67, 2010

2010
[182]

Random walk inference and learning in a large scale knowledge base,

N. Lao, T. Mitchell, and W. Cohen, “Random walk inference and learning in a large scale knowledge base,” in Proc. of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011, pp. 529–539

2011
[183]

Reading the web with learned syntactic-semantic inference rules,

N. Lao, A. Subramanya, F. Pereira, and W. Cohen, “Reading the web with learned syntactic-semantic inference rules,” in Proc. of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing and Computational Natural Language Learning . Association for Computa...

2012
[184]

Knowledge base completion via coupled path ranking,

Q. Wang, J. Liu, Y . Luo, B. Wang, and C. Lin, “Knowledge base completion via coupled path ranking,” in Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2016, pp. 1308–1318

2016
[185]

Context-aware path ranking for knowledge base completion,

S. Mazumder and B. Liu, “Context-aware path ranking for knowledge base completion,” in Proc. of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17) . AAAI Press, 2017, pp. 1195– 1201

2017
[186]

A*net: a scalable path-based reasoning approach for knowledge graphs,

Z. Zhu, X. Yuan, M. Galkin, S. Xhonneux, M. Zhang, M. Gazeau, and J. Tang, “A*net: a scalable path-based reasoning approach for knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS ’23) , 2024, pp. 59 323– 59 336

2024
[187]

Efficient and expressive knowledge base completion using subgraph feature extraction,

M. Gardner and T. Mitchell, “Efficient and expressive knowledge base completion using subgraph feature extraction,” in Proc. of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015, pp. 1488–1498

2015
[188]

Go for a walk and arrive at the answer: Reasoning over paths in knowledge bases using reinforcement learning,

R. Das, S. Dhuliawala, M. Zaheer, L. Vilnis, I. Durugkar, A. Krishna- murthy, A. Smola, and A. McCallum, “Go for a walk and arrive at the answer: Reasoning over paths in knowledge bases using reinforcement learning,” in Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Learning Rep...

2018
[189]

Variational knowledge graph reasoning,

W. Chen, W. Xiong, X. Yan, and W. Wang, “Variational knowledge graph reasoning,” in Proc. of the 16th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2018, pp. 1823–1832

2018
[190]

Multi-hop knowledge graph reason- ing with reward shaping,

X. Lin, R. Socher, and C. Xiong, “Multi-hop knowledge graph reason- ing with reward shaping,” inProc. of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2018, pp. 3243–3253

2018
[191]

M-walk: Learning to walk over graphs using monte carlo tree search,

Y . Shen, J. Chen, P. Huang, Y . Guo, and J. Gao, “M-walk: Learning to walk over graphs using monte carlo tree search,” in Proc. of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2018, pp. 6786–6797

2018
[192]

Rule-aware reinforcement learning for knowledge graph reasoning,

Z. Hou, X. Jin, Z. Li, and L. Bai, “Rule-aware reinforcement learning for knowledge graph reasoning,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP , 2021, pp. 4687–4692

2021
[193]

Incorporating graph at- tention mechanism into knowledge graph reasoning based on deep reinforcement learning,

H. Wang, S. Li, R. Pan, and M. Mao, “Incorporating graph at- tention mechanism into knowledge graph reasoning based on deep reinforcement learning,” in Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference o...

2019
[194]

Divine: A generative adversarial imitation learn- ing framework for knowledge graph reasoning,

R. Li and X. Cheng, “Divine: A generative adversarial imitation learn- ing framework for knowledge graph reasoning,” in Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (E...

2019
[195]

Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap,

S. Pan, L. Luo, Y . Wang, C. Chen, J. Wang, and X. Wu, “Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap,” IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 3580–3599, 2024

2024
[196]

Structgpt: A general framework for large language model to reason over structured data,

J. Jiang, K. Zhou, Z. Dong, K. Ye, X. Zhao, and J. Wen, “Structgpt: A general framework for large language model to reason over structured data,” in Proc. of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023, pp. 9237–9251

2023
[197]

Knowledge solver: Teaching llms to search for domain knowledge from knowledge graphs,

C. Feng, X. Zhang, and Z. Fei, “Knowledge solver: Teaching llms to search for domain knowledge from knowledge graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03118, 2023

2023 arXiv
[198]

Knowledge-driven cot: Exploring faithful reasoning in llms for knowledge-intensive question answering,

K. Wang, F. Duan, S. Wang, P. Li, Y . Xian, C. Yin, W. Rong, and Z. Xiong, “Knowledge-driven cot: Exploring faithful reasoning in llms for knowledge-intensive question answering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13259, 2023

2023 arXiv
[199]

Think-on-graph: Deep and responsible reasoning of large language model on knowledge graph,

J. Sun, C. Xu, L. Tang, S. Wang, C. Lin, Y . Gong, L. Ni, H. Shum, and J. Guo, “Think-on-graph: Deep and responsible reasoning of large language model on knowledge graph,” in Proc. of the Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

2024
[200]

Knowledgenavigator: Leveraging large language models for enhanced reasoning over knowledge graph,

T. Guo, Q. Yang, C. Wang, Y . Liu, P. Li, J. Tang, D. Li, and Y . Wen, “Knowledgenavigator: Leveraging large language models for enhanced reasoning over knowledge graph,” Complex Intell. Syst. , vol. 10, pp. 7063–7076, 2024

2024
[201]

Direct evaluation of chain-of-thought in multi-hop reasoning with knowledge graphs,

T. Nguyen, L. Luo, F. Shiri, D. Phung, Y . Li, T. Vu, and G. Haffari, “Direct evaluation of chain-of-thought in multi-hop reasoning with knowledge graphs,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL, 2024, pp. 2862–2883

2024
[202]

Kg- agent: An efficient autonomous agent framework for complex reasoning over knowledge graph,

J. Jiang, K. Zhou, W. Zhao, Y . Song, C. Zhu, H. Zhu, and J. Wen, “Kg- agent: An efficient autonomous agent framework for complex reasoning over knowledge graph,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11163 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[203]

Agenttuning: Enabling generalized agent abilities for llms,

A. Zeng, M. Liu, R. Lu, B. Wang, X. Liu, Y . Dong, and J. Tang, “Agenttuning: Enabling generalized agent abilities for llms,” in Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL , 2024, pp. 3053–3077

2024
[204]

Glam: Fine-tuning large language models for domain knowledge graph alignment via neighborhood partitioning and generative subgraph encoding,

S. Dernbach, K. Agarwal, A. Zuniga, M. Henry, and S. Choudhury, “Glam: Fine-tuning large language models for domain knowledge graph alignment via neighborhood partitioning and generative subgraph encoding,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, vol. 3, no. 1, 2024, pp. 82–89

2024
[205]

Efficiently embedding dynamic knowledge graphs,

T. Wu, A. Khan, M. Yong, G. Qi, and M. Wang, “Efficiently embedding dynamic knowledge graphs,” Knowledge-based systems, vol. 250, pp. 109–124, 2022

2022
[206]

Non-parametric estimation of multiple embeddings for link prediction on dynamic knowledge graphs,

Y . Tay, A. Luu, and S. Hui, “Non-parametric estimation of multiple embeddings for link prediction on dynamic knowledge graphs,” inProc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 31, no. 1, 2017

2017
[207]

Heuristic-driven, type- specific embedding in parallel spaces for enhancing knowledge graph reasoning,

Y . Liu, Y . Zhang, X. Wang, and S. Yang, “Heuristic-driven, type- specific embedding in parallel spaces for enhancing knowledge graph reasoning,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 2024, ...

2024
[208]

Anchors- based incremental embedding for growing knowledge graphs,

L. Dong, D. Zhao, X. Zhang, X. Li, X. Kang, and H. Yao, “Anchors- based incremental embedding for growing knowledge graphs,” IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 3458– 3470, 2023

2023
[209]

Towards continual knowledge graph embedding via incremental dis- tillation,

J. Liu, W. Ke, P. Wang, Z. Shang, J. Gao, G. Li, K. Ji, and Y . Liu, “Towards continual knowledge graph embedding via incremental dis- tillation,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 8, 2024, pp. 8759–8768

2024
[210]

Lifelong embedding learning and transfer for growing knowledge graphs,

Y . Cui, Y . Wang, Z. Sun, W. Liu, Y . Jiang, K. Han, and W. Hu, “Lifelong embedding learning and transfer for growing knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artific...

2023
[211]

Air: Adaptive incremental embedding updating for dynamic knowledge graphs,

Z. Jia, H. Li, and L. Chen, “Air: Adaptive incremental embedding updating for dynamic knowledge graphs,” in Database Systems for Advanced Applications: 28th International Conference, DASFAA 2023, 2023, pp. 606–621

2023
[212]

Tie: A framework for embedding-based incremental temporal knowledge graph completion,

J. Wu, Y . Xu, Y . Zhang, C. Ma, M. Coates, and J. K. C. Cheung, “Tie: A framework for embedding-based incremental temporal knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’21), 20...

2021
[213]

Incremental update of knowledge graph embedding by rotating on hyperplanes,

Y . Wei, W. Chen, Z. Li, and L. Zhao, “Incremental update of knowledge graph embedding by rotating on hyperplanes,” in 2021 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Web Services (ICWS) , 2021, pp. 516–524

2021
[214]

Knowledge graph incremental embedding for unseen modalities,

Y . Wei, W. Chen, S. Wen, A. Liu, and L. Zhao, “Knowledge graph incremental embedding for unseen modalities,” Knowl. Inf. Syst. , vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 3611–3631, 2023

2023
[215]

Efficiently embedding dynamic knowledge graphs,

T. Wu, A. Khan, M. Yong, G. Qi, and M. Wang, “Efficiently embedding dynamic knowledge graphs,” Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 250, p. 17, 2022

2022
[216]

Dynamic knowledge graph embeddings via local embed- ding reconstructions,

F. Krause, “Dynamic knowledge graph embeddings via local embed- ding reconstructions,” in The Semantic Web: ESWC 2022 Satellite Events, 2022, pp. 215–223

2022
[217]

Online updates of knowledge graph embedding,

L. Fei, T. Wu, and A. Khan, “Online updates of knowledge graph embedding,” in In: Benito RM, Cherifi C, Cherifi H, Moro E, Rocha LM, Sales-Pardo M. Complex Networks & Their Applications X , 2021, p. 1073

2021
[218]

Temporal knowledge graph incremental construction model for recommendation,

C. Xiao, L. Sun, and W. Ji, “Temporal knowledge graph incremental construction model for recommendation,” in Proc. of Web and Big Data: 4th International Joint Conference, APWeb-WAIM 2020 , 2020, pp. 352–359

2020
[219]

Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion,

A. Garc ´ıa-Dur´an, S. Duman ˇci´c, and M. Niepert, “Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2018, pp. 4816–4821

2018
[220]

Deriving validity time in knowledge graph,

J. Leblay and M. W. Chekol, “Deriving validity time in knowledge graph,” in Proc. of the Web Conference , 2018, pp. 1771–1776

2018
[221]

Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding,

S. S. Dasgupta, S. N. Ray, and P. Talukdar, “Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding,” in Proc. of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2018, pp. 2001–2011

2018
[222]

Tero: A time-aware knowledge graph embedding via temporal rotation,

C. Xu, M. Nayyeri, F. Alkhoury, H. S. Yazdi, and J. Lehmann, “Tero: A time-aware knowledge graph embedding via temporal rotation,” in Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguis- tics, 2020, pp. 1583–1593

2020
[223]

Embedding models for episodic knowledge graphs,

Y . Ma, V . Tresp, and E. A. Daxberger, “Embedding models for episodic knowledge graphs,” Journal of Web Semantics , vol. 59, 2019

2019
[224]

Tensor decompositions for temporal knowledge base completion,

T. Lacroix, G. Obozinski, and N. Usunier, “Tensor decompositions for temporal knowledge base completion,” in Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

2020
[225]

Diachronic embedding for temporal knowledge graph completion,

R. Goel, S. M. Kazemi, M. Brubaker, and P. Poupart, “Diachronic embedding for temporal knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2020, pp. 3988–3995

2020
[226]

Temporal knowledge graph completion based on time series gaussian embed- ding,

C. Xu, M. Nayyeri, F. Alkhoury, H. Yazdi, and J. Lehmann, “Temporal knowledge graph completion based on time series gaussian embed- ding,” in Proc. of the 19th International Semantic Web Conference , 2020, pp. 654–671

2020
[227]

Targat: A time- aware relational graph attention model for temporal knowledge graph embedding,

Z. Xie, R. Zhu, J. Liu, G. Zhou, and J. X. Huang, “Targat: A time- aware relational graph attention model for temporal knowledge graph embedding,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 2023

2023
[228]

Logic and commonsense-guided temporal knowl- edge graph completion,

G. Niu and B. Li, “Logic and commonsense-guided temporal knowl- edge graph completion,” in Proc. of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence , 2023, pp. 4569–4577

2023
[229]

Know-evolve: deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs,

R. Trivedi, H. Dai, Y . Wang, and L. Song, “Know-evolve: deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 40 34th International Conference on Machine Learning , 2017, pp. 3462– 3471

2021
[230]

Recurrent event network: autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs,

W. Jin, M. Qu, X. Jin, and X. Ren, “Recurrent event network: autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2020, pp. 6669–6683

2020
[231]

Evolvegcn: Evolving graph convolutional networks for dynamic graphs,

A. Pareja, G. Domeniconi, J. Chen, T. Ma, T. Suzumura, H. Kanezashi, T. Kaler, T. Schardl, and C. Leiserson, “Evolvegcn: Evolving graph convolutional networks for dynamic graphs,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 34, no. 04, 2020, pp. 5363–5370

2020
[232]

Learning from history: modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks,

C. Zhu, M. Chen, C. Fan, G. Cheng, and Y . Zhang, “Learning from history: modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks,” in Proc. of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021, pp. 4732–4740

2021
[233]

Search from history and reason for future: two-stage reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs,

Z. Li, X. Jin, S. Guan, W. Li, J. Guo, Y . Wang, and X. Cheng, “Search from history and reason for future: two-stage reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2021, pp. 4732–4743

2021
[234]

Learning temporal rules from knowledge graph streams,

P. G. Omran, K. Wang, and Z. Wang, “Learning temporal rules from knowledge graph streams,” in AAAI Spring Symposium Combining Machine Learning with Knowledge Engineering , 2019

2019
[235]

Tlogic: temporal logical rules for explainable link forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs,

Y . Liu, Y . Ma, M. Hildebrandt, M. Joblin, and V . Tresp, “Tlogic: temporal logical rules for explainable link forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022, pp. 4120–4127

2022
[236]

Tilp: differentiable learning of temporal logical rules on knowledge graphs,

S. Xiong, Y . Yang, F. Fekri, and J. C. Kerce, “Tilp: differentiable learning of temporal logical rules on knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

2023
[237]

Teilp: time prediction over knowledge graphs via logical reasoning,

S. Xiong, Y . Yang, A. Payani, J. C. Kerce, and F. Fekri, “Teilp: time prediction over knowledge graphs via logical reasoning,” inProc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2024, pp. 16 112–16 119

2024
[238]

Neustip: a neuro-symbolic model for link and time prediction in temporal knowledge graphs,

I. Singh, N. Kaur, G. Gaur, and Mausam, “Neustip: a neuro-symbolic model for link and time prediction in temporal knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023, pp. 4497–4516

2023
[239]

Explainable subgraph reason- ing for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs,

Z. Han, P. Chen, Y . Ma, and V . Tresp, “Explainable subgraph reason- ing for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021

2021
[240]

Multi-hop reasoning over paths in temporal knowledge graphs using reinforcement learning,

L. Bai, W. Yu, M. Chen, and X. N. Ma, “Multi-hop reasoning over paths in temporal knowledge graphs using reinforcement learning,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 103, p. 107144, 2021

2021
[241]

Learning to walk across time for interpretable temporal knowledge graph completion,

J. Jung and U. Kang, “Learning to walk across time for interpretable temporal knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 2021, pp. 786–795

2021
[242]

Reinforcement learning with time intervals for temporal knowledge graph reasoning,

R. Liu, G. Yin, Z. Liu, and Y . Tian, “Reinforcement learning with time intervals for temporal knowledge graph reasoning,” Information Systems, vol. 120, 2024

2024
[243]

Timetraveler: Rein- forcement learning for temporal knowledge graph forecasting,

H. Sun, J. Zhong, Y . Ma, Z. Han, and K. He, “Timetraveler: Rein- forcement learning for temporal knowledge graph forecasting,” in Proc. of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021, pp. 8306–8319

2021
[244]

Pre-trained language model with prompts for temporal knowledge graph completion,

W. Xu, B. Liu, M. Peng, X. Jia, and M. Peng, “Pre-trained language model with prompts for temporal knowledge graph completion,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL , 2023, pp. 7790–7803

2023
[245]

Ecola: Enhancing temporal knowledge embeddings with contextualized language representations,

Z. Han, R. Liao, J. Gu, Y . Zhang, Z. Ding, Y . Gu, H. Koeppl, H. Sch ¨utze, and V . Tresp, “Ecola: Enhancing temporal knowledge embeddings with contextualized language representations,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL, 2023, pp. 5433– 5447

2023
[246]

Learning joint structural and temporal contextualized knowledge embeddings for temporal knowledge graph completion,

Y . F. Gao, Y . Q. He, Z. G. Kan, Y . Han, L. B. Qiao, and D. S. Li, “Learning joint structural and temporal contextualized knowledge embeddings for temporal knowledge graph completion,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL , 2023, pp. 417– 430

2023
[247]

K-bert: Enabling language representation with knowledge graph,

W. Liu, P. Zhou, Z. Zhao, Z. Wang, Q. Ju, H. Deng, and P. Wang, “K-bert: Enabling language representation with knowledge graph,” in AAAI, 2020, pp. 2901–2908

2020
[248]

Tempo- ral knowledge graph forecasting without knowledge using in-context learning,

D.-H. Lee, K. Ahrabian, W. Jin, F. Morstatter, and J. Pujara, “Tempo- ral knowledge graph forecasting without knowledge using in-context learning,” in Proc. of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023, pp. 544–557

2023
[249]

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

C. Chen, Y . Wang, A. Sun, B. Li, and K. Y . Lam, “Dipping plms sauce: Bridging structure and text for effective knowledge graph completion via conditional soft prompting,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , 2023, pp. 11 489–11 503

2023
[250]

zrllm: Zero-shot relational learning on temporal knowledge graphs with large language models,

Z. Ding, H. Cai, J. Wu, Y . Ma, R. Liao, B. Xiong, and V . Tresp, “zrllm: Zero-shot relational learning on temporal knowledge graphs with large language models,” in Proc. of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hum...

2024
[251]

Knowledge graph and text jointly embedding,

Z. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Feng, and Z. Chen, “Knowledge graph and text jointly embedding,” in Proc. of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2014, pp. 1591–1601

2014
[252]

Representation learning of knowledge graphs with entity descriptions,

R. Xie, Z. Liu, J. Jia, H. Luan, and M. Sun, “Representation learning of knowledge graphs with entity descriptions,” in Proc. of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016, pp. 2659–2665

2016
[253]

Text-enhanced representation learning for knowl- edge graph,

Z. Wang and J. Li, “Text-enhanced representation learning for knowl- edge graph,” in Proc. of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2016, pp. 1293–1299

2016
[254]

Image-embodied knowledge representation learning,

R. Xie, Z. Liu, H. Luan, and M. Sun, “Image-embodied knowledge representation learning,” in Proc. of the 26th International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence , 2017, pp. 3140–3146

2017
[255]

Multimodal data enhanced representation learning for knowledge graphs,

Z. Wang, L. Li, Q. Li, and D. Zeng, “Multimodal data enhanced representation learning for knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , 2019, pp. 1–8

2019
[256]

Is visual context really helpful for knowledge graph? a representation learning perspective,

M. Wang, S. Wang, H. Yang, Z. Zhang, X. Chen, and G. Qi, “Is visual context really helpful for knowledge graph? a representation learning perspective,” in Proc. of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2021, pp. 2735–2743

2021
[257]

Otkge: multi-modal knowledge graph embeddings via optimal transport,

Z. S. Cao, Q. Q. Xu, Z. Y . Yang, Y . He, X. C. Cao, and Q. M. Huang, “Otkge: multi-modal knowledge graph embeddings via optimal transport,” in Proc. of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS ’22) , 2024, pp. 39 090–39 102

2024
[258]

Hyper-node relational graph attention network for multi-modal knowledge graph completion,

S. Liang, A. Zhu, J. Zhang, and J. Shao, “Hyper-node relational graph attention network for multi-modal knowledge graph completion,” ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1–21, 2023

2023
[259]

Embedding multimodal relational data for knowledge base completion,

P. Pezeshkpour, L. Chen, and S. Singh, “Embedding multimodal relational data for knowledge base completion,” in Proc. of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, 2018, pp. 3208–3218

2018
[260]

Native: Multi-modal knowledge graph completion in the wild,

Y . Zhang, Z. Chen, L. Guo, Y . Xu, B. Hu, Z. Liu, W. Zhang, and H. Chen, “Native: Multi-modal knowledge graph completion in the wild,” in Proc. of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2024, pp. 91–101

2024
[261]

Mmkgr: multi-hop multi-modal knowledge graph reasoning,

S. F. Zheng, W. Q. Wang, J. F. Qu, H. Z. Yin, W. Chen, and L. Zhao, “Mmkgr: multi-hop multi-modal knowledge graph reasoning,” in 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , 2022, pp. 96–109

2023
[262]

Mose: modality split and ensemble for multimodal knowledge graph completion,

Y . Zhao, X. R. Cai, Y . Wu, H. W. Zhang, Y . Zhang, G. Q. Zhao, and N. Jiang, “Mose: modality split and ensemble for multimodal knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2022, pp. 10 527– 10 536

2022
[263]

Imf: interactive multimodal fusion model for link prediction,

X. H. Li, X. Y . Zhao, J. X. Xu, Y . Zhang, and C. X. Xing, “Imf: interactive multimodal fusion model for link prediction,” in Proc. of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (WWW ’23) , 2023, pp. 2572–2580

2023
[264]

Relation- enhanced negative sampling for multimodal knowledge graph com- pletion,

D. R. Xu, T. Xu, S. W. Wu, J. B. Zhou, and E. H. Chen, “Relation- enhanced negative sampling for multimodal knowledge graph com- pletion,” in Proc. of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2022, pp. 3857–3866

2022
[265]

Vl-bert: pre-training of generic visual-linguistic representations,

W. J. Su, X. Z. Zhu, Y . Cao, B. Li, L. W. Lu, F. R. Wei, and J. F. Dai, “Vl-bert: pre-training of generic visual-linguistic representations,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019

2019
[266]

Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language,

L. H. Li, M. Yatskar, D. Yin, C. J. Hsieh, and K. W. Chang, “Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03557, 2019

1908 arXiv
[267]

Unicoder-vl: A universal encoder for vision and language by cross-modal pre-training,

G. Li, N. Duan, Y . Fang, M. Gong, and D. Jiang, “Unicoder-vl: A universal encoder for vision and language by cross-modal pre-training,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2020, pp. 11 336–11 344

2020
[268]

Uniter: universal image-text representation learning,

Y . C. Chen, L. Li, L. Yu, A. El Kholy, F. Ahmed, Z. Gan, Y . Cheng, and J. J. Liu, “Uniter: universal image-text representation learning,” in SpringerLink, 2020

2020
[269]

Lxmert: learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers,

H. Tan and M. Bansal, “Lxmert: learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers,” in Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th Inter- JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 41 national Joint...

2019
[270]

Vilbert: pretraining task- agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,

J. Lu, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and L. Stefan, “Vilbert: pretraining task- agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

2019
[271]

Hybrid transformer with multi- level fusion for multimodal knowledge graph completion,

X. Chen, N. Y . Zhang, L. Li, S. M. Deng, C. Q. Tan, C. L. Xu, F. Huang, L. Si, and H. J. Chen, “Hybrid transformer with multi- level fusion for multimodal knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Infor...

2022
[272]

Vista: visual-textual knowledge graph representation learning,

A. J. Lee, C. Y . Chung, H. C. Lee, S. H. Jo, and J. Whang, “Vista: visual-textual knowledge graph representation learning,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , 2023, pp. 7314–7328

2023
[273]

Structure guided multi-modal pre-trained transformer for knowledge graph reasoning,

K. Liang, S. H. Zhou, Y . Liu, L. Y . Meng, M. Liu, and X. W. Liu, “Structure guided multi-modal pre-trained transformer for knowledge graph reasoning,” arXiv Preprint, 2023

2023
[274]

Mmkrl: a robust embedding approach for multi-modal knowledge graph repre- sentation learning,

X. Y . Lu, L. F. Wang, Z. J. Jiang, S. C. He, and S. Z. Liu, “Mmkrl: a robust embedding approach for multi-modal knowledge graph repre- sentation learning,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 52, pp. 7480–7497, 2022

2022
[275]

Mixture of modality knowledge experts for robust multi-modal knowledge graph completion,

Y . C. Zhang, Z. Chen, L. B. Guo, Y . J. Xu, B. B. Hu, Z. Q. Liu, W. Zhang, and H. J. Chen, “Mixture of modality knowledge experts for robust multi-modal knowledge graph completion,” arXiv Preprint, 2024

2024
[276]

A review of few-shot and zero-shot learning for node classification in social networks,

J. Chen, R. Mi, H. Wang, H. Wu, J. Mo, J. Guo, Z. Lai, L. Zhang, and V . C. M. Leung, “A review of few-shot and zero-shot learning for node classification in social networks,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, pp. 1–15, 2024

2024
[277]

A comprehensive survey of few-shot learning: evolution, applications, challenges, and opportunities,

Y . S. Song, T. Wang, P. Y . Cai, S. K. Mondal, and J. P. Sahoo, “A comprehensive survey of few-shot learning: evolution, applications, challenges, and opportunities,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 55, no. 13, p. 271, 2023

2023
[278]

One- shot relational learning for knowledge graphs,

W. Xiong, M. Yu, S. Chang, X. Guo, and W. Y . Wang, “One- shot relational learning for knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2018, pp. 1980–1990

2018
[279]

Few- shot knowledge graph completion,

C. Zhang, H. Yao, C. Huang, M. Jiang, Z. Li, and N. V . Chawla, “Few- shot knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 34, no. 03, 2020, pp. 3041–3048

2020
[280]

Adaptive attentional network for few-shot knowledge graph completion,

J. W. Sheng, S. Guo, Z. Y . Chen, J. W. Yue, L. H. Wang, T. W. Liu, and H. B. Xu, “Adaptive attentional network for few-shot knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , 2020, pp. 1681–1691

2020
[281]

Exploring entity interactions for few-shot relation learning (student abstract),

Y . Liang, S. Zhao, B. Cheng, Y . W. Yin, and H. Yang, “Exploring entity interactions for few-shot relation learning (student abstract),” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, no. 11, 2022, pp. 13 003–13 004

2022
[282]

Few-shot knowledge graph completion model based on relation learning,

W. Li, J. Gu, A. Li, Y . Gao, and X. Zhang, “Few-shot knowledge graph completion model based on relation learning,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, p. 9513, 2023

2023
[283]

Hmnet: hybrid matching network for few-shot link prediction,

S. Xiao, L. Duan, G. C. Xie, R. H. Li, Z. H. Chen, G. Deng, and J. Nummenmaa, “Hmnet: hybrid matching network for few-shot link prediction,” in Database Systems for Advanced Applications , 2021, pp. 307–322

2021
[284]

Metap: meta pattern learning for one-shot knowledge graph completion,

Z. Y . Jiang, J. L. Gao, and X. Q. Lv, “Metap: meta pattern learning for one-shot knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2021, pp. 2232–2236

2021
[285]

Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks,

C. Finn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 1126–1135

2017
[286]

Meta relational learning for few-shot link prediction in knowledge graphs,

M. Y . Chen, W. Zhang, W. Zhang, Q. Chen, and H. J. Chen, “Meta relational learning for few-shot link prediction in knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Lang...

2019
[287]

Relational learning with gated and attentive neighbor aggregator for few-shot knowledge graph completion,

G. Niu, Y . Li, C. Tang, R. Geng, J. Dai, Q. Liu, H. Wang, J. Sun, F. Huang, and L. Si, “Relational learning with gated and attentive neighbor aggregator for few-shot knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Developme...

2021
[288]

Simple and effective meta relational learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,

S. Chen, B. Yang, and C. Zhao, “Simple and effective meta relational learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,” Optim Eng, 2024

2024
[289]

Subgraph-aware few- shot inductive link prediction via meta-learning,

S. Zheng, S. Mai, Y . Sun, H. Hu, and Y . Yang, “Subgraph-aware few- shot inductive link prediction via meta-learning,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 6512–6517, 2022

2022
[290]

Hierarchical relational learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,

H. Wu, J. Yin, B. Rajaratnam, and J. Guo, “Hierarchical relational learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,” 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01205

2022 arXiv
[291]

Task- related network based on meta-learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,

X. Yang, D. Wei, L. Zhang, G. Ma, X. Xu, and H. Long, “Task- related network based on meta-learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,” Appl. Intell., vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 5961–5975, 2024

2024
[292]

Tackling long-tailed relations and uncommon entities in knowledge graph completion,

Z. Wang, K. Lai, P. Li, L. Bing, and W. Lam, “Tackling long-tailed relations and uncommon entities in knowledge graph completion,” in Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language...

2019
[293]

Generative adversarial zero-shot relational learning for knowledge graphs,

P. Qin, X. Wang, W. Chen, C. Zhang, W. Xu, and W. Wang, “Generative adversarial zero-shot relational learning for knowledge graphs,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020, pp. 8673– 8680

2020
[294]

Hapzsl: a hybrid attention prototype network for knowledge graph zero-shot relational learning,

X. Li, J. Ma, J. Yu, T. Xu, M. Zhao, H. Liu, M. Yu, and R. Yu, “Hapzsl: a hybrid attention prototype network for knowledge graph zero-shot relational learning,” Neurocomput., vol. 508, pp. 324–336, 2022

2022
[295]

Ontozsl: ontology-enhanced zero-shot learning,

Y . Geng, J. Chen, Z. Chen, J. Pan, Z. Ye, Z. Yuan, Y . Jia, and H. Chen, “Ontozsl: ontology-enhanced zero-shot learning,” in Proc. of the Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21) , 2021, pp. 3325–3336

2021
[296]

Disentangled ontology embedding for zero-shot learning,

Z. Liu, Z. Ding, M. Liu, X. Zhu, and J. Liu, “Disentangled ontology embedding for zero-shot learning,” in Proc. of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’18), 2018, pp. 3519– 3525

2018
[297]

De- coupling mixture-of-graphs: unseen relational learning for knowledge graph completion by fusing ontology and textual experts,

R. Song, S. He, S. Zheng, S. Gao, K. Liu, Z. Yu, and J. Zhao, “De- coupling mixture-of-graphs: unseen relational learning for knowledge graph completion by fusing ontology and textual experts,” in Proc. of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , 2022, ...

2022
[298]

P-int: a path-based interaction model for few-shot knowledge graph comple- tion,

J. Xu, J. Zhang, X. Ke, Y . Dong, H. Chen, C. Li, and Y . Liu, “P-int: a path-based interaction model for few-shot knowledge graph comple- tion,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP, 2021, pp. 385–394

2021
[299]

Enhancing path information with reinforcement learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,

R. Ma, M. Yu, B. Gao, J. Guo, Z. Chen, and L. Zhao, “Enhancing path information with reinforcement learning for few-shot knowledge graph completion,” in 2023 IEEE 29th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) , 2023, pp. 1603–1611

2023
[300]

Adapting meta knowledge graph information for multi-hop reasoning over few-shot relations,

X. Lv, Y . Gu, X. Han, L. Hou, J. Li, and Z. Liu, “Adapting meta knowledge graph information for multi-hop reasoning over few-shot relations,” in Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Confer- ence on Na...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

Knowledge graph embedding: a survey from the perspective of representation spaces,

J. Cao, J. Fang, Z. Meng, and S. Liang, “Knowledge graph embedding: a survey from the perspective of representation spaces,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1–42, 2024

2024

[2] [33]

A survey of knowledge graph reasoning on graph types: Static, dynamic, and multi-modal,

K. Liang, L. Meng, M. Liu, Y . Liu, W. Tu, S. Wang, S. Zhou, X. Liu, F. Sun, and K. He, “A survey of knowledge graph reasoning on graph types: Static, dynamic, and multi-modal,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 9456–9478, 2024

2024

[3] [1]

Knowl- edge graphs,

A. Hogan, E. Blomqvist, M. Cochez, C. D’Amato, G. De Melo, C. Gutierrez, S. Kirrane, J. E. Labra Gayo, R. Navigli, S. Neu- maier, A. C. Ngonga Ngomo, A. Polleres, S. M. Rashid, A. Rula, L. Schmelzeisen, J. Sequeda, S. Staab, and A. Zimmermann, “Knowl- edge graphs,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1–37, 2021

2021

[4] [2]

A survey on knowledge graphs: representation, acquisition, and applications,

S. X. Ji, S. R. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, and P. S. Yu, “A survey on knowledge graphs: representation, acquisition, and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 494–514, 2021

2021

[5] [3]

Free- base: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge,

K. Bollacker, C. Evans, P. Paritosh, T. Sturge, and J. Taylor, “Free- base: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Management of Data , 2008, pp. 1247–1250

2008

[6] [4]

Yago: a core of semantic knowledge,

F. M. Suchanek, G. Kasneci, and G. Weikum, “Yago: a core of semantic knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2007, pp. 697–706

2007

[7] [5]

Wordnet: a lexical database for english,

G. A. Miller, “Wordnet: a lexical database for english,” Communica- tions of the ACM , vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 39–41, 1995

1995

[8] [6]

Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning,

A. Carlson, J. Betteridge, B. Kisiel, B. Settles, E. R. Hruschka, and T. M. Mitchell, “Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning,” in Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2010, pp. 1306–1313

2010