WWW 2021

Knowledge Graph Reasoning with Relational Digraph

Yongqi Zhang, Quanming Yao

Main figure for Knowledge Graph Reasoning with Relational Digraph

Abstract

Reasoning on the knowledge graph (KG) aims to infer new facts from existing ones. Methods based on the relational path have shown strong, interpretable, and transferable reasoning ability. However, paths are naturally limited in capturing local evidence in graphs. In this paper, we introduce a novel relational structure, i.e., relational directed graph (r-digraph), which is composed of overlapped relational paths, to capture the KG's local evidence. Since the r-digraphs are more complex than paths, how to efficiently construct and effectively learn from them are challenging. Directly encoding the r-digraphs cannot scale well and capturing query-dependent information is hard in r-digraphs. We propose a variant of graph neural network, i.e., RED-GNN, to address the above challenges. Specifically, RED-GNN makes use of dynamic programming to recursively encodes multiple r-digraphs with shared edges, and utilizes query-dependent attention mechanism to select the strongly correlated edges. We demonstrate that RED-GNN is not only efficient but also can achieve significant performance gains in both inductive and transductive reasoning tasks over existing methods. Besides, the learned attention weights in RED-GNN can exhibit interpretable evidence for KG reasoning.. Correspondence is to Q. Yao.

Proposed method: RED-GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values 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
12
DRUM
actual #12 vs paper #14 2 places worse
0.7440
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #14 2 places worse
paper 0.6660
paper 0.6660 Δ today 0.0780
13
RED-GNN
0.7010
This paper
14
RuleN
0.6680
This paper
17
Neural LP
0.6490
This paper
19
GraIL
0.6270
This paper
48
QuatE
actual #48 vs paper #55 7 places worse
0.4880
best reported
actual #48 vs paper #55 7 places worse
paper 0.4800
paper 0.4800 Δ at pub 0.0080
51
RNNLogic
0.4830
This paper
53
DPMPN
0.4820
This paper
60
CompGCN
0.4790
This paper
62
RotatE
0.4770
This paper
82
MINERVA
0.4480
This paper
83
pLogicNet
0.4410
This paper
89
ConvE
0.4300
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
16
RED-GNN
0.3740
This paper
20
DPMPN
0.3690
This paper
23
QuatE
actual #23 vs paper #43 20 places worse
0.3660
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #43 20 places worse
paper 0.3500
paper 0.3500 Δ at pub 0.0160
25
RuleN
0.3630
This paper
35
CompGCN
0.3550
This paper
52
RNNLogic
0.3440
This paper
53
DRUM
0.3430
This paper
58
RotatE
actual #58 vs paper #58
0.3380
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #58
paper 0.3370
65
pLogicNet
0.3320
This paper
72
Neural LP
0.3250
This paper
71
ConvE
0.3250
This paper
80
MINERVA
0.2930
This paper
84
GraIL
0.2790
This paper
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