Knowledge Graph Contrastive Learning based on Relation-Symmetrical Structure

K. Liang, Yue Liu, Sihang Zhou, Wenxuan Tu, Yi Wen, Xihong Yang, Xiang Dong, Xinwang Liu

Main figure for Knowledge Graph Contrastive Learning based on Relation-Symmetrical Structure

Abstract

Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) aims at learning powerful representations to benefit various artificial intelligence applications. Meanwhile, contrastive learning has been widely leveraged in graph learning as an effective mechanism to enhance the discriminative capacity of the learned representations. However, the complex structures of KG make it hard to construct appropriate contrastive pairs. Only a few attempts have integrated contrastive learning strategies with KGE. But, most of them rely on language models (e.g., Bert) for contrastive pair construction instead of fully mining information underlying the graph structure, hindering expressive ability. Surprisingly, we find that the entities within a relational symmetrical structure are usually similar and correlated. To this end, we propose a knowledge graph contrastive learning framework based on relation-symmetrical structure, KGE-SymCL, which mines symmetrical structure information in KGs to enhance the discriminative ability of KGE models. Concretely, a plug-and-play approach is proposed by taking entities in the relation-symmetrical positions as positive pairs. Besides, a self-supervised alignment loss is designed to pull together positive pairs. Experimental results on link prediction and entity classification datasets demonstrate that our KGE-SymCL can be easily adopted to various KGE models for performance improvements. Moreover, extensive experiments show that our model could outperform other state-of-the-art baselines.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 6 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
15
SimKGC
actual #15 vs paper #16 1 place worse
0.6660
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #16 1 place worse
paper 0.6520
paper 0.6520 Δ today 0.0140
16
SimKGC-SymCL
0.6570
This paper
41
HAKE-SymCL
0.4970
This paper
40
HAKE
actual #40 vs paper #40
0.4970
actual #40 vs paper #40
paper 0.4970
paper 0.4970 Δ at pub 0.0010
45
ComplEX-DURA-SymCL
0.4910
This paper
47
ComplEX-DURA
0.4890
This paper
60
CompGCN
actual #60 vs paper #69 9 places worse
0.4790
best reported
actual #60 vs paper #69 9 places worse
paper 0.4690
paper 0.4690 Δ at pub 0.0100 Δ today 0.0100
67
COMPGCN-SymCL
0.4710
This paper
87
RGCN-SymCL
0.4320
This paper
88
DisMult
actual #88 vs paper #93 5 places worse
0.4300
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #93 5 places worse
paper 0.4200
paper 0.4200 Δ at pub 0.0100
92
RGCN
actual #92 vs paper #92
0.4270
actual #92 vs paper #92
paper 0.4270
93
DisMult-SymCL
0.4210
This paper
99
TransE-SymCL
0.2330
This paper
100
TransE
actual #100 vs paper #100
0.2310
actual #100 vs paper #100
paper 0.2310
paper 0.2310 Δ at pub 0.0050
#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
18
ComplEX-DURA-SymCL
0.3710
This paper
19
ComplEX-DURA
0.3700
This paper
35
CompGCN
actual #35 vs paper #38 3 places worse
0.3550
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #38 3 places worse
paper 0.3520
paper 0.3520 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0030
37
COMPGCN-SymCL
0.3540
This paper
48
HAKE-SymCL
0.3460
This paper
55
HAKE
actual #55 vs paper #60 5 places worse
0.3410
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #60 5 places worse
paper 0.3350
paper 0.3350 Δ at pub 0.0060
60
SimKGC
actual #60 vs paper #77 17 places worse
0.3360
best reported
actual #60 vs paper #77 17 places worse
paper 0.3220
paper 0.3220 Δ today 0.0140
67
TransE
actual #67 vs paper #82 15 places worse
0.3300
best reported
actual #67 vs paper #82 15 places worse
paper 0.2890
paper 0.2890 Δ at pub 0.0050 Δ today 0.0410
75
SimKGC-SymCL
0.3240
This paper
82
TransE-SymCL
0.2900
This paper
87
RGCN
actual #87 vs paper #90 3 places worse
0.2730
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #90 3 places worse
paper 0.2480
88
DisMult-SymCL
0.2600
This paper
90
RGCN-SymCL
0.2490
This paper
92
DisMult
actual #92 vs paper #92
0.2430
actual #92 vs paper #92
paper 0.2430
paper 0.2430 Δ at pub 0.0020
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere