AAAI 2017

Knowledge Graphs

Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, Sebastian Riedel

Main figure for Knowledge Graphs

Abstract

Link prediction for knowledge graphs is the task of predicting missing relationships between entities. Previous work on link prediction has focused on shallow, fast models which can scale to large knowledge graphs. However, these models learn less expressive features than deep, multi-layer models -- which potentially limits performance. In this work we introduce ConvE, a multi-layer convolutional network model for link prediction, and report state-of-the-art results for several established datasets. We also show that the model is highly parameter efficient, yielding the same performance as DistMult and R-GCN with 8x and 17x fewer parameters. Analysis of our model suggests that it is particularly effective at modelling nodes with high indegree -- which are common in highly-connected, complex knowledge graphs such as Freebase and YAGO3. In addition, it has been noted that the WN18 and FB15k datasets suffer from test set leakage, due to inverse relations from the training set being present in the test set -- however, the extent of this issue has so far not been quantified. We find this problem to be severe: a simple rule-based model can achieve state-of-the-art results on both WN18 and FB15k. To ensure that models are evaluated on datasets where simply exploiting inverse relations cannot yield competitive results, we investigate and validate several commonly used datasets -- deriving robust variants where necessary. We then perform experiments on these robust datasets for our own and several previously proposed models, and find that ConvE achieves state-of-the-art Mean Reciprocal Rank across most datasets.

Proposed method: ConvE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Knowledge Graphs

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
FedSage
0.8426 ±0.0026
2
FED-PUB
0.8348 ±0.0025
3
FedAvg
0.8252 ±0.0023
7
GCN
0.8171 ±0.0030
79
DistMult
actual #79 vs paper #87 8 places worse
0.4550
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #87 8 places worse
paper 0.4300
paper 0.4300 Δ today 0.0250
84
ComplEx
0.4400
This paper
89
ConvE
0.4300
This paper
96
Inverse Model
0.3500
This paper
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
sum, Msg_r^3, f(t)=0
0.8500
2
sum, Msg_r^3, f(t)=t
0.8440
3
PNA, Msg_r^1, f(t)=0
0.8010
33
DistMult
actual #33 vs paper #92 59 places worse
0.3580
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #92 59 places worse
paper 0.2410
paper 0.2410 Δ today 0.1170
47
ComplEx
actual #47 vs paper #91 44 places worse
0.3460
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #91 44 places worse
paper 0.2470
71
ConvE
0.3250
This paper
89
R-GCN
actual #89 vs paper #90 1 place worse
0.2490
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #90 1 place worse
paper 0.2480
paper 0.2480 Δ today 0.0010
96
Inverse Model
0.0100
This paper
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
Inverse Model
0.9630
This paper
2
RotatE
0.9490
3
ConvE
0.9430
This paper
4
ANALOGY
0.9420
This paper
5
ComplEx
0.9410
This paper
8
DistMult
0.8220
This paper
9
R-GCN
actual #9 vs paper #9
0.8190
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #9
paper 0.8140
paper 0.8140 Δ at pub 0.0050
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere