Knowledge Fusion via Embeddings from Text,
Knowledge Graphs, and Images

arXiv:1704.06084v1 [] 20 Apr 2017

Steffen Thoma, Achim Rettinger, and Fabian Both
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany
{steffen.thoma,rettinger}@kit.edu
fabian.both@student.kit.edu

Abstract. We present a baseline approach for cross-modal knowledge fusion.
Different basic fusion methods are evaluated on existing embedding approaches
to show the potential of joining knowledge about certain concepts across modalities in a fused concept representation.

1 Introduction
This work intends to investigate the influence of modalities by means of tri-modal
knowledge representations that fuse information from (1) text documents, (2) image
collections and (3) large knowledge graphs (KGs). Intuitively, each one of these modalities provides complementing information.
Based on this intuition we hypothesize that there is potential for a joint latent knowledge
representation which is constructed from multiple embeddings. Such a representation
might come closer to the human perception of concepts compared to representations
extracted from a single modality alone.
To test this hypothesis, we propose an approach to integrate visual and textual latent
representations with embeddings of KG concepts. When evaluating the resulting latent
concept representations on standard similarity benchmarks, it indeed shows a higher
correlation with the human notion of concept similarity than uni- or bi-modal representations.
This convincingly demonstrates the great potential of a joint latent knowledge representation constructed from multiple embeddings, as detailed in the following sections.
First, we introduce existing uni-modal embeddings (Sec. 2), before explaining how they
are aligned (Sec. 3) and fused (Sec. 4). We demonstrate its potential on similarity benchmarks (Sec. 5.1 and Sec. 5.2) before we summarize our findings (Sec. 5.3), discuss
related work (Sec. 6) and conclude (Sec. 7).

2 Uni-Modal Vector Representations
Latent vector representations of various types have become quite popular in recent
years. The most common ones are latent textual representations, which are also called

word embeddings or distributed word representations. Created with unsupervised methods, they only rely on a huge text corpus as input. The information of co-occurrences
with other words is encoded in a dense vector representation and by calculating the
cosine similarity between two representations, a similarity score between two words
is obtained. Examples for such word representations are [2], SENNA [7], hierarchical
log-bilinear models [22], word2vec [19,20,21], and GloVe [26].
Similarly, images can be encoded in a latent vector space. For image representations,
deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) have shown promising results in recent
years. Deep CNNs transfer an image into a low dimensional vector space representation which for example can be used for image classification by applying a softmax
function. The latent vector representation for images correspond to layers in the deep
CNN before applying the softmax. For image classification with CNNs, Inception-V3
[31] which is used in TensorFlow [1] has shown good results on the ImageNet classification task [29].
The term ’Knowledge Graph’ was coined by Google in 2012 and is since then used
for any graph-based knowledge base, the most popular examples being DBpedia, Wikidata, and YAGO (see [8] for a survey). Again, knowledge graph embeddings can be
learned on those graphs consisting of entities and typed predicates between entities and
also abstract concepts. These entities and predicates can be encoded in a low dimensional vector space, facilitating the computation of probabilities for relations within the
knowledge graph which can be used for link prediction tasks [27]. Examples for learning latent vector representations of knowledge graphs are SE [5], RESCAL [24], LFM
[16], TransE [4], SME [3], HolE [23] and the SUNS framework [15].

3 Tri-Modal Concatenated Concept Space
For obtaining a consolidated tri-modal shared space, a data representation that is aligned
across multiple modalities is needed. Most existing bi-modal approaches rely on manually aligned documents. Since the manual creation of such datasets, containing a large
number of text documents aligned with images and entities, is prohibitively expensive, we build on existing pre-trained uni-modal representations and align them across
modalities after their respective training. This is achieved by relating modalities by
more abstract concepts instead of the raw text, images and KG-instances.
Thus, we combine embeddings from three different modalities: textual, visual and knowledge graph. We chose the well-established word2vec model for textual embeddings
and Inception-V3 for visual embeddings since they have shown state-of-the-art results
on their respective tasks and their pre-trained models are readily available online1 . For
knowledge graph embeddings, we could not find any suitable pre-trained model online
so we trained representations ourselves. For that we chose the TransE model which has
shown to be scalable to knowledge graphs with millions of vertices with good results
[18]. For showing the better captured notion of human similarity within our approach,
1

Please note, that any other embedding, like the ones listed in the previous section, could be
plugged-into our approach.

we evaluate on established human-made similarity datasets. Since the similarity datasets
are based on word pairs, we align the representations to word-level:
Word Matching of Word Embeddings
The embeddings of word2vec do not need to be adjusted since they are already on wordlevel. Only the intersection of words representable by all modalities has to be identified.
Concept Mapping of KG Embeddings
The latent vectors of TransE are representing concepts in the DBpedia graph. Thus, one
has to transform its representation to word-level. Each concept is uniquely addressable
through a DBpedia URI and several labels (surface forms) are known which refer to this
concept. For aligning the KG representations to word-level, we take for each concept
the most commonly used surface forms for referring to this concept.
WordNet Mapping of Visual Features
For visual representations, we use the images from ImageNet 1k [29]. Its 1000 ImageNet categories correspond to synsets from WordNet, where each of these synsets has
a set of at least 1300 images for the respective topic. By combining all image representations for a given synset, one can obtain a visual representation for the synset. Alike
to [17] we combine these image representations by taking the max-value for each vector index as we have also noticed that these yield better results compared to the mean
values. Additionally, more abstract synset representations can be built from synset representations: Utilizing the WordNet hierarchy, for example an embedding of ‘instrument’ can be created by combining embeddings of ‘violin’ and ’harp’. Therefore, we
build hierarchical subtrees in WordNet for each synset not contained in ImageNet 1k.
All synset representations in such a subtree, with a visual representation from ImageNet
1k, are then combined to form the abstract synset representation. In total, we abstract
396 additional synset representations. The alignment of the synset representations to the
word-level can be performed with WordNet lexemes (words) since lexemes are assigned
to at least one synset in WordNet. In the end, we extract 2574 lexeme representations by
utilizing our 1396 synset representations. The intersection with word2vec and TransE
leads to an aligned tri-modal concept space with 1523 concepts. Representations from
all modalities can be concatenated for each shared concept so that fusion techniques for
the resulting concept space can be applied.

4 Shared Cross-modal Concept Space
For obtaining the shared space from the vector representations, the modalities have to
be fused. Apart from simple concatenation we build on a set of existing methods like
SVD and PCA for dimensionality reduction. In addition, we propose a normalization
and weighting scheme for embeddings from multiple modalities. Our tri-modal concept
space of n different word-phrases is represented in three matrices: text T , knowledge
graph G, and visual V . For combination techniques, we use the whole information of all
three modalities and define matrix M ∈ R(t+g+v)×n as the vertically stacked matrices
of T , G, and V . The three latent vector representations vary drastically in their dimensions: Visual representations tend to have more than 1000 dimensions while knowledge

graph representations typically have around 50 to 100 dimensions. Thus, the representations with higher dimensionalities tend to dominate the combination techniques.
To circumvent this dimensionality bias, [11] combine only vectors of equal size. Furthermore, the value range of features can differ, depending on the underlying training
objective and method. To address these problems we tested pre-processing steps, comprising normalization (N) of each column vector of T , G, and V to unit length as well as
weighting (W) of the normalized matrices T , G, and V individually with weights wT ,
wG , and wV before stacking. Thus, we take into account that certain representations
might contain more useful information or might be better trained.
AVG The averaging method uses the cosine similarity of all three modalities which
are calculated separately. By averaging these three values, we get a combined similarity
measure which is also robust with respect to different vector dimensionalities.
CONC The vector representations can be combined by concatenation of single representations and the similarity is calculated by cosine similarity between two concatenated vectors. The similarities of the following techniques are also calculated with cosine similarity.
SVD Singular value decomposition factorizes the input matrix M into three matrices
such that M = U ΣV T . U and V are unitary matrices and Σ is a diagonal matrix
with the singular values of M in descending order on its diagonal. By taking the first
k columns of U and the k biggest singular values of Σ, we get a new combined kdimensional representation: M ← Mk = Uk Σk .
PCA Principal Component Analysis uses an orthogonal transformation to convert the
correlated variables into linearly uncorrelated variables. Fixing the number of uncorrelated principal components results in a projection into a lower dimensional vector space.
By taking the principal components with the highest variance, we create a representation with the most distinctive features. We also tested canonical correlation analysis
(CCA) but in our tests PCA always performed superior which is consistent with [11].
Thus, we omit further tests with CCA.

5 Empirical Evaluation
In our quantitative and qualitative assessments, we use the pre-trained representations
for text and images and newly trained knowledge graph representations. Textual representations were obtained from word2vec2, its vectors have 300 dimensions and were
trained with negative sampling on the Google News text corpus containing about 100
billion words. For visual representations, the Inception-V3 model3 , pre-trained on the
ImageNet 1k classification task, was applied to compute representations with 2048
dimensions. Knowledge graph representations were obtained with the TransE model
[4] which we created ourselves by running TransE on the DBpedia knowledge graph.
We trained TransE with local closed word assumption for type constraints, rank=50,
2
3

https://code.google.com/archive/p/word2vec/
http://download.tensorflow.org/models/image/imagenet/inception-v3-2016-03-01.tar.gz

gamma=0.3, learningrate-embeddings=0.2 and learningrate-parameters=0.5 on the DBpedia version 3.9. We made all used embeddings available online4 .

5.1 Quantitative Similarity Assessment
For evaluation, we utilize various word similarity datasets. The limiting factor are verbs,
abstract words and named entities (e.g. persons) for which there is no visual representation available. Thus, we provide the subsets of MEN [6], WS-353 [10], SimLex-999
[14], and MTurk-771 [13] which are covered in the combined space online. As aggregated measure, we also report the average performance over all evaluation datasets,
weighted by their respective size. Table 1 confirms that the subsets of the word evaluation datasets are similarly difficult to solve compared to the original datasets.

Table 1: Spearman rank correlation of subsets and complete datasets for word2vec.
MEN
complete
subset

0.762
0.740

WS353
0.700
0.707

SimLex999
0.442
0.423

MTurk771
0.671
0.594

weighted
∅
0.682
0.669

In Table 2, Spearman rank correlation on all subsets for raw stacking, normalization (N)
and weighting (W) are reported. Combination methods with dimensionality reduction
use 100 dimensions. For raw stacking, none of the combination methods is significantly
better than the single textual representation on the MEN, MTurk-771 and WS-353 subset.
Normalized representations allow for a fixed combination ratio, resembling an equal
weight of information from all modalities. We also conducted additional experiments
with different dimension parameters for SVD and PCA. Thereby, we concluded that
100 dimensions are sufficient to encode the useful information for the word similarity
task. However, combination methods with normalization (N) are also not significantly
and consistently outperforming the single textual representation as shown in Table 2.
Representations from different modalities are most likely not equally informative for the
word similarity task and hold different complementary information. We use weighting
(W) of representations after normalization in order to control the proportion of information induced by each representation. With grid search and a step size of 0.05 we
investigated the modality composition on the weighted average of all evaluation sets.
The optimal weights for (wT , wG , wV ) are: AVG (0.15, 0.10, 0.75), CONC (0.25, 0.15,
0.6), SVD (0.25, 0.1, 0.65), and PCA (0.3, 0.05, 0.65). Although some of the weighting
schemes only include small proportions of the KG representations, extracted complementary information from KGs improves performance significantly. Fig. 1 illustrates
that the combination of the three fused and weighted modalities produces better results than the single representations. Weighted combination methods substantially outperform uni- and bi-modal embeddings while best results are obtained with PCA and
4

https://people.aifb.kit.edu/sto/TriM1523

Table 2: Spearman rank correlation on subsets of evaluation datasets.
MEN
Visual
Textual
KG
AVG
CONC
SVD
PCA
AVG-N
CONC-N
SVD-N
PCA-N
AVG-W
CONC-W
SVD-W
PCA-W

0.619
0.740
0.423
0.763
0.620
0.740
0.483
0.763
0.763
0.747
0.691
0.807
0.806
0.847
0.836

WS353
0.526
0.707
0.425
0.691
0.521
0.646
0.392
0.691
0.691
0.606
0.427
0.715
0.726
0.687
0.760

SimLex999
0.522
0.423
0.246
0.436
0.522
0.588
0.591
0.436
0.436
0.397
0.336
0.585
0.586
0.616
0.586

MTurk771
0.308
0.594
0.275
0.524
0.310
0.325
0.272
0.524
0.524
0.500
0.415
0.594
0.589
0.618
0.568

weighted
∅
0.546
0.669
0.375
0.672
0.547
0.643
0.455
0.672
0.672
0.644
0.571
0.733
0.732
0.762
0.751

SVD. For combination methods without dimensionality reduction, a similar weighting
optimum and performance can be observed for CONC and AVG.

5.2 Qualitative Similarity Assessment
We conducted experiments for MEN, WS-353, SimLex-999, and MTurk-771 with normalization: In Fig. 1 you can see the weighted average of Spearman rank correlation
scores for different weightings between normalized textual, KG, and visual representations. For combination via AVG and CONC shown in Fig. 1a and 1b, we observed
similar behavior on all evaluation datasets in terms of weighting optimum and structure.
Further, we analyze PCA and SVD for 100 dimensions. It turns out that weighting after
normalization is even more crucial for those methods as it is for the AVG and CONC
method. Especially PCA exploits information from KG representations with very low
weight. Nonetheless, the combined representation of all three modalities is significantly
better than only a combination of bi-modal representations.
Optimal weights always include all three modalities. Further experiments with different TransE model parameterizations revealed that this finding is not depending on a
specifically trained TransE embedding, but attributes to information extracted from the
knowledge graph. Thus, we can improve concept representations from other modalities with complementary information encoded in TransE, Inception-V3, and word2vec
embeddings.

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8
0.7

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.4
0.4

X

0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2

0.2
0.4

(t e

0.4
0.6

xt

ua

0.6
0.8

0.8

w1

1.0

l)

(v

0.2

a
i su

l)

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

X
0.4

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.3

0.0

w2

0.7

1.0

w3 (KG)

w3 (KG)

1.0

w2

0.1

0.3

0.0
0.2

0.2
0.4

(t e

0.0

0.4
0.6

xt

ua

0.6
0.8

0.8
1.0

l)

(a) AVG

w1

(v

0.2

a
i su

l)

0.1
0.0

(b) CONC
1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8
0.7

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4
0.4

0.2

X

0.0
0.0

w2

0.3

0.0
0.2

0.2
0.4

(t e

0.4
0.6

xt

ua

0.6
0.8

l)

0.8
1.0

w1

i
(v

su

0.2

al

)

(c) PCA 100 dim

0.1
0.0

0.8

w3 (KG)

w3 (KG)

1.0

1.0

0.7

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4
0.4

X

0.2
0.0
0.0

w2

0.3

0.0
0.2

0.2
0.4

(t e

0.4
0.6

xt

ua

0.6
0.8

l)

0.8
1.0

w1

i
(v

su

0.2

al

)

0.1
0.0

(d) SVD 100 dim

Fig. 1: Weighting with normalization. Shown are average plots over all three evaluation
datasets, the colorbar indicates Spearman rank correlation and the black cross marks
the optimum.

5.3 Key Findings
– We successfully exploited pre-trained concept representations from different domains. This enables the re-usability of years of research in Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing and Semantic Web. Plugging new models into our approach and incorporating further modalities is straightforward.
– In our empirical evaluation, we could verify that there exists complementary information in visual, textual and KG embeddings, which can be exploited by fusing all
representations.
– The performance of embeddings in the word similarity task were improved significantly. The shared representations always performed best if information from all
three modalities was included.

6 Related Work on Fusion of Learned Representations
Recently, several researchers have tried to transfer learned knowledge from one task
to another or to combine different approaches. In image classification, it is important
that also new images can be classified such that visual representations from one image

classification task can be transferred to another with different classes. To this end, [25]
learn and transfer mid-level image representations of CNNs. [17] test the combination
of visual and textual representations via vector stacking which is similar to [30] who use
a stacked auto-encoder to combine visual and textual input. In contrast to our approach
they only evaluated simple vector stacking and neither evaluated more sophisticated
combination techniques nor the incorporation of structured resources like KGs.
In contrast, [11] uses textual information from a text corpus and WordNet. For this
purpose WordNet is transferred to text by performing random walks on the synset hierarchy and hereby storing the traversal path to text [12]. But, they neither use visual
representations nor do they work with the information of an expressive KG directly.
The transformation of a traversal path to text might lose characteristics of the underlying graph structure which is why we used latent vector representations from an explicit
KG model, learned on a complete KG.
Our approach also goes beyond current retrofitting ideas like [9]. They adjust learned
word embeddings by incorporating information from lexical databases. Firstly, we do
not slightly adapt one representation but learn a new combined representation. Secondly, we use much more information from a large expressive KG (DBpedia) instead
of a smaller lexical database. Lastly, we also use visual information.
The closest work to our word-level alignment in concept space is [28]5 . They used
autoencoders with rank 4 weight tensors to create vector representations for synsets
and lexemes in WordNet for which there was no learned vector representation before.
They achieve this by treating a word and a synset as the sum of its lexemes.

7 Conclusion and Future Work
This work demonstrates the potential of mining meaningful concept representations
from multi-modal data sources. Our approach builds on the aligned embeddings extracted from 1.3 million images, a text corpus of 100 billion words and 7 million KG
concepts by fusing all aligned embeddings in one shared cross-modal concept space.
We optimized for creating the most holistic representation of a concept by fusing knowledge from all available modalities. This is limited to a small set of concepts since there
are only few concepts which are available in all modalities so far. Currently visual embeddings pose a bottleneck compared to the exhaustive concept spaces of textual and
KG embeddings.
We introduced a two-step process of word-level alignment and fusion for different
modalities. We demonstrated that the fused embeddings of all three modalities can
outperform uni- and bi-modal embeddings. This confirms our hypothesis, that each
modality contributes complementing information and thus, a fusion of modalities in
one shared concept space can yield a more holistic view. This also advocates the importance of semantically meaningful embedding spaces. Further, our results indicate
that a shared multi-modal representation comes closer to the human notion of the concept which we demonstrated quantitatively with similarity benchmarks. It appears that
5

Please note, that they did not consider any combinations with visual or KG embeddings.

knowledge representations come closer to a human-like perception of concepts if all
modalities are considered.
Our findings open up a large number of future research directions by raising fundamental questions. First and foremost, it became obvious that knowledge representations
in general and knowledge graphs in particular can benefit greatly from integrating latent semantics from multiple modalities. Our approach is a first attempt to achieve that.
However, a pressing issue that remains for future work is how this can be scaled to a
larger number of concepts. Beyond that, there are numerous cross-disciplinary research
challenges in areas like sensory neuroscience, philosophy of perception or multimodality research that could benefit from advances in the area of learned cross-modal knowledge representations and vice versa.

References
1. Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado, G.S., Davis,
A., Dean, J., Devin, M., et al.: TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous
Distributed Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04467 (2016)
2. Bengio, Y., Ducharme, R., Vincent, P.: A neural probabilistic language model. Journal of
Machine Learning Research, 3 pp. 1137–1155 (2003)
3. Bordes, A., Glorot, X., Weston, J., Bengio, Y.: A semantic matching energy function for
learning with multi-relational data. Machine Learning 94(2), 233–259 (2014)
4. Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J., Yakhnenko, O.: Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems. pp. 2787–2795 (2013)
5. Bordes, A., Weston, J., Collobert, R., Bengio, Y.: Learning structured embeddings of knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
pp. 301–306 (2011)
6. Bruni, E., Tran, N.K., Baroni, M.: Multimodal Distributional Semantics. Journal of Artificial
Intelligence Research (JAIR) 49(1-47) (2014)
7. Collobert, R., Weston, J.: A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural
networks with multitask learning. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on
Machine learning. pp. 160–167 (2008)
8. Färber, M., Bartscherer, F., Menne, C., Rettinger, A.: Linked Data Quality of DBpedia, Freebase, OpenCyc, Wikidata, and YAGO. Semantic Web Journal (to be published) (2017)
9. Faruqui, M., Dodge, J., Jauhar, S.K., Dyer, C., Hovy, E., Smith, N.A.: Retrofitting Word Vectors to Semantic Lexicons. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American
Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.
pp. 1606–1615 (2015)
10. Finkelstein, L., Gabrilovich, E., Matias, Y., Rivlin, E., Solan, Z., Wolfman, G., Ruppin, E.:
Placing search in context: The concept revisited. In: Proceedings of the 10th international
conference on World Wide Web. pp. 406–414 (2001)
11. Goikoetxea, J., Agirre, E., Soroa, A.: Single or Multiple? Combining Word Representations
Independently Learned from Text and WordNet. In: Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial
Intelligence. pp. 2608–2614 (2016)
12. Goikoetxea, J., Soroa, A., Agirre, E., Donostia, B.C.: Random walks and neural network
language models on knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North
American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language
Technologies. pp. 1434–1439 (2015)

13. Halawi, G., Dror, G., Gabrilovich, E., Koren, Y.: Large-scale learning of word relatedness
with constraints. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on
Knowledge discovery and data mining. pp. 1406–1414 (2012)
14. Hill, F., Reichart, R., Korhonen, A.: Simlex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine)
similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics pp. 665–695 (2015)
15. Huang, Y., Tresp, V., Nickel, M., Rettinger, A., Kriegel, H.P.: A scalable approach for statistical learning in semantic graphs. Semantic Web 5(1), 5–22 (2014)
16. Jenatton, R., Roux, N.L., Bordes, A., Obozinski, G.R.: A latent factor model for highly
multi-relational data. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. pp. 3167–
3175 (2012)
17. Kiela, D., Bottou, L.: Learning Image Embeddings using Convolutional Neural Networks for
Improved Multi-Modal Semantics. In: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
(EMNLP). pp. 36–45 (2014)
18. Krompaß, D., Baier, S., Tresp, V.: Type-constrained representation learning in knowledge
graphs. In: The Semantic Web-ISWC 2015, pp. 640–655. Springer (2015)
19. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Efficient estimation of word representations in
vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013)
20. Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S., Dean, J.: Distributed representations of
words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Advances in neural information processing
systems. pp. 3111–3119 (2013)
21. Mikolov, T., Yih, W.t., Zweig, G.: Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations. In: NAACL-HLT. pp. 746–751 (2013)
22. Mnih, A., Hinton, G.E.: A Scalable Hierarchical Distributed Language Model. In: Advances
in Neural Information Processing Systems. pp. 1081–1088 (2008)
23. Nickel, M., Rosasco, L., Poggio, T.A.: Holographic Embeddings of Knowledge Graphs. In:
Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17,
2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. pp. 1955–1961 (2016)
24. Nickel, M., Tresp, V., Kriegel, H.P.: A three-way model for collective learning on multirelational data. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning
(ICML-11). pp. 809–816 (2011)
25. Oquab, M., Bottou, L., Laptev, I., Sivic, J.: Learning and transferring mid-level image representations using convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1717–1724 (2014)
26. Pennington, J., Socher, R., Manning, C.D.: GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation.
In: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). pp. 1532–1543 (2014)
27. Rettinger, A., Lösch, U., Tresp, V., d’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N.: Mining the Semantic Web Statistical learning for next generation knowledge bases. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 24(3), 613–662 (2012)
28. Rothe, S., Schütze, H.: AutoExtend: Extending word embeddings to embeddings for synsets
and lexemes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.01127 (2015)
29. Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A.,
Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., Berg, A.C., Fei-Fei, L.: ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition
Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV) 115(3), 211–252 (2015)
30. Silberer, C., Lapata, M.: Learning Grounded Meaning Representations with Autoencoders.
In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). pp. 721–732 (2014)
31. Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., Wojna, Z.: Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.00567 (2015)

