Knowledge Graph Embedding with Multiple
Relation Projections

arXiv:1801.08641v1 [cs.AI] 26 Jan 2018

Kien Do, Truyen Tran, Svetha Venkatesh
Applied AI Institute, Deakin University
{dkdo,truyen.tran,svetha.venkatesh}@deakin.edu.au
continuous vector space, which naturally lends itself to simple
algebraic manipulations [8]. A well known method is TransE
[6], which embeds entities and relations into the same space
where the difference between head and tail is approximately the
relation. While this embedding permits very simple translationbased relational inference, it is too restrictive in dealing with
1-to-N, N-to-1 and N-to-N relations.
An effective solution is to consider two separate embedding
spaces for entities and relations. Entities are then mapped into
the relation space using relation–specific projections, such as
those in TransR [14]. This mapping strategy, however, causes
critical drawbacks. First, when the number of relations is large,
the whole projection matrices are expensive to model. Second,
treating each relation separately does not account for the latent
structure in the relation space, leading to waste of resources.
An example of such a latent structure is the correlation between
relations “nationality” and “place-of-birth”, as the latter may
infer about the former.
To this end we propose a new translation-based method
I. I NTRODUCTION
called TransF, which is inspired by TransR, but does not suffer
Current data–driven machine learning works well in an from these problems. Under TransF, projection matrices are
homogeneous domain, but may not scale to domains that members of a matrix space spanned by a fixed number of matrix
demand heterogeneous knowledge about entities and relations. bases. A relation–specific projection matrix is characterized by
Knowledge graphs (KGs), which encompass rich information a relation–specific coordinate in the space. Put in other way,
about structures of the world, offer a complementary approach. the relation projection tensor is factorized into product of a
Knowledge–augmented machine learning thus holds a promise relation coordinate matrix and a basis tensor. Hence, TransF is
to improve performance through knowledge reuse and to enable much more efficient and robust than TransR. Fig. 1 illustrates
explanability [27]. These benefits have been found in many the idea behind TransF.
We evaluate our TransF on the common link prediction
applications, ranging from vision [16], recommendation [9],
question answering [5], [17], [10] to language modeling [1]. task using two popular KGs: Freebase and WordNet. The
Despite huge efforts spent to build large-scale KGs such as experimental results show that TransF delivers significant
Freebase [3], YAGO [22] or DBpedia [2], a major problem improvements over state-of-the-art translation–based methods.
consistently remains: they are far from complete. Thus, it poses
II. P RELIMINARIES
a canonical task of automatic completion from the existing
knowledge base, which amounts to reasoning about unknown
Let us first define common notations. A knowledge graph
relations between entities.
(KG) is constructed from a set of entities E and a set of
A typical KG is represented as a graph whose nodes relations R. The basic unit representing a fact in KG is a
are entities and edges are relations between heads and tails. triple, denoted as (h, r, t) where h is head entity, r is relation
While this raw representation is adequate to store known and t is tail entity. We use bold letters with normal font to
knowledge, relating distant entities requires expensive graph indicate vectors and bold letters with capital font to indicate
traversal, possibly through multiple paths. Thus knowledge matrices. In this fashion, h, r, t are the embedding vectors of
graph completion calls for learning of a new representation h, r, t, respectively.
that supports scalable reasoning. The most successful approach
TransE:: TransE [6] is a simple yet scalable and effective
thus far is through embedding entities and relations into a method for knowledge graph representation. It treats entities
Abstract—Knowledge graphs contain rich relational structures
of the world, and thus complement data–driven machine learning
in heterogeneous data. One of the most effective methods in
representing knowledge graphs is to embed symbolic relations
and entities into continuous spaces, where relations are approximately linear translation between projected images of entities
in the relation space. However, state-of-art relation projection
methods such as TransR, TransD or TransSparse do not model
the correlation between relations, and thus are not scalable to
complex knowledge graphs with thousands of relations, both in
computational demand and in statistical robustness. To this end
we introduce TransF, a novel translation–based method which
mitigates the burden of relation projection by explicitly modeling
the basis subspaces of projection matrices. As a result, TransF is
far more light weight than the existing projection methods, and
is robust when facing a high number of relations. Experimental
results on the canonical link prediction task show that our
proposed model outperforms competing rivals by a large margin
and achieves state-of-the-art performance. Especially, TransF
improves by 9%/5% in the head/tail entity prediction task for Nto-1/1-to-N relations over the best performing translation-based
method.

of the relation hyperplane. However, TransR introduces a huge
number of additional parameters, causing poor robustness in
learning and scalability issues for large KGs.
III. O UR M ETHOD : T RANS F
A. Correlation Among Relations.
Relation space

Relation basis space

Entity space
Figure 1. Illustration of TransF where head embedding h and tail embedding
t are projected into multiple subspaces before combined by relation–specific
coefficients into the final vectors h⊥ and t⊥ in the relation space. In this space,
translation–based reasoning is assumed as in TransE [6], i.e., h⊥ + r ≈ t⊥ .

as points and relations as translation vectors in the same
embedding space Rd . Thus relational reasoning between any
entities is straightforward. The energy function of a particular
triple (h, r, t) is defined as:
E(h, r, t) = kh + r − tk`1/2
The energy should be low for true triples and high for incorrect
triples. TransE performs well when relations are 1-to-1 but
fails to handle relations of type 1-to-N, N-to-1 or N-to-N
[6]. For example, if r is an N-to-1 relation in which (h1 , r, t),
(h2 , r, t),..., (hn , r, t) hold, minimizing the energy function will
force h1 ≈ h2 ≈ ... ≈ hn . It is undesirable since h1 , h2 , ..., hn
are different entities.
TransH:: The main drawback of TransE is that an entity
exhibits identical characteristic despite involving in different
relations. To solve this problem, TransH [26] projects head and
tail entities onto a relation–specific hyperplane before doing
translation as follows:
h⊥ = h − w|r hwr ,

t⊥ = t − w|r twr

The energy function now becomes:
E(h, r, t) = kh⊥ + r − t⊥ k`1/2

(1)

where h⊥ , t⊥ ∈ Rd are head and tail projected vectors,
respectively; and wr ∈ Rd is the unit-length normal vector of
the hyperplane Hr with respect to r.
TransR:: Since entities and relations are separate objects,
it is intuitive to represent them in distinct spaces. TransR [14]
implements this idea by using a relation projection matrix
Mr ∈ Rdr ×de to map entity embeddings into the relation
space:
h⊥ = Mr h,

t⊥ = Mr t

TransR uses the same energy function as TransH but the
translation vector r is defined in the relation space instead

In several knowledge bases such as Freebase [3], relations are organized in hierarchies. Relations belonging to
the same subtree (e.g. containing similar prefixes) are correlated. Most relationships come from the semantic meaning of relations and some are partially independent of
the entities. For example, in the FB15k dataset, two relations “/people/person/.../major_field_of_study” and “/people/person/.../degree” are highly dependent as the field of
study is usually the main factor that affects the degree one
can receive (e.g. Computer Science → Bachelor of Computer
Science). Note that, in this case, we do not need any information
about the head entity (a particular person) to decide this
correlation. Another example is the pair of relations “/people/person/place_of_birth” and “/people/person/nationality”
where a person born in New York is likely to have the United
States nationality. Therefore, we argue that better modeling
of correlations among relations will lead to more accurate
representation of knowledge graphs.
B. TransF.
Motivated from the above observation, we now present
TransF, a new translation–based embedding method of knowledge graphs. Our model defines two factorized projection
matrices as follows:

Mr,h
Mr,t

=
=

s
X
i=1
s
X

αr(i) U(i) + I

(2)

βr(i) V(i) + I

(3)

i=1

where s ∈ R is the number of factors; U(i) , V(i) ∈ Rde ×dr
∀i = 1, s are relation space bases for projecting head and
(i)
(i)
tail entities, respectively; αr and βr are the corresponding
(i)
(i)
coefficients of U and V characterized by the relation r.
I is the identity matrix, which serves as the base case when
projections are not needed. It also provides a way to initialize
TransF from TransE.
With this formulation, the underlying relationships among
relations are explicitly encoded in the relation space bases
(i)
(i)
{U(i) |i = 1, s} and {V(i) |i = 1, s}. αr and βr , on the
other hand, adapt this commonness to specific relations. To
deal with 1-to-N and N-to-1 relations, we project head and tail
entities into spaces described by Mr,h and Mr,t , respectively:
h⊥ = Mr,h h,

t⊥ = Mr,t t

Since Mr,h and Mr,t are factorized, each entity is now
associated with multiple yet specific views rather than a single

Table I
S TATISTICS OF DATASETS USED IN THE EXPERIMENTS .
Dataset

#Train

#Valid

#Test

#Ent

#Rel

FB15k
FB15k-237
WN18
WN18RR

483,142
272,115
141,442
86,835

50,000
17,535
5,000
3,3034

59,071
20,466
5,000
3,134

14,951
14,541
40,943
40,943

1,345
237
18
11

general view as in TransR. The energy function is similar to
Eq. 1. To avoid trivial solution (e.g. all embedded vectors are
zeros) when minimizing the energy, we impose the following
constraints in our model: kh⊥ k2 = kt⊥ k2 = 1, krk2 ≤ 1.
Training loss:: We define the following margin-based loss
function:
X
X
L=
[E(h, r, t) + γ − E(h0 , r0 , t0 )]+
(h,r,t)∈T (h0 ,r 0 ,t0 )∈T 0

where [x]+ denotes max(0, x), γ is the margin, T is the set of
positive triples and T 0 is the set of negative triples. Since the
collection of all negative triples is huge, we need to focus on
negative triples which are close to the correct ones. Similar to
[6], given each correct triple (h, r, t) sampled during training,
we generate a negative example by replacing either head or
tail entities but not both. Thus, the form of T 0 is:
T 0 = {(h0 , r, t)|h0 ∈ E} ∪ {(h, r, t0 )|t0 ∈ E}

∀(h, r, t) ∈ T

We apply “bern” sampling trick suggested in [26] when
corrupting triples to reduce the false-negative rate. In this
setting, the probability of sampling head and tail entities are
not equal but depends on relation types. For each relation r,
denote hpt as the average number of head entities per tail entity
and tph as the number of tail entities per head entity. Then,
given a triple (h, r, t), the probability of corrupting h and t is
tph
hpt
tph+hpt and tph+hpt , respectively.
IV. E XPERIMENTS AND R ESULTS
A. Datasets.
For our experiments, we use two common datasets FB15k
and WN18 [6] and their corresponding updated version FB15k237 [23] and WN18RR [11]. According to [11], FB15k-237
and WN18RR do not contain reversible relations like FB15k
and WN18, thus, are more difficult for link prediction task.
Statistics of the datasets are provided in Table. I.
B. Link Prediction.
Given a test triple (h, r, t) with either h or t is missing, our
target is to complete this triple by finding the correct entity.
Similar to [6], we formularize this task as a ranking problem.
First, we replace the missing entity with every entity in the
knowledge graph and compute the energy of each candidate
triple in turn using Eq. 1. Next, we filter out all correct triples in
the knowledge graph different from the target one. Finally, we
rank the energy values over the remaining triples in ascending

order and use those ranks to decide which entity is the most
suitable.
We used grid search for hyper-parameter tuning with the
margin γ is among {1, 2, 4}, the size of entity embedding de
and relation embedding de are among {20, 50, 100, 150, 200},
the number of relation space bases s is among {3, 5, 10, 15}.
The optimizer is Adam [13] with the learning rate λ of 0.001.
Following other papers, we pretrained our model with TransE
by setting the relation coefficients to 0 for 1000 epochs then
continued training for a maximum of 150 epochs. The optimal
settings of our model on the validation set are γ = 4, de =
dr = 50, s = 5 for WN18 and WN18RR, γ = 2, de = dr =
150, s = 5 for FB15k and γ = 4, de = dr = 100, s = 5 for
FB15k-237.
There are three evaluation metrics for this task: (i) Mean
Rank (MR) (ii) Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) and (iii)
Hits@10. A better model would expect lower MR and higher
MRR/Hits@10. The overall results are shown in Table. II.
TransF outperforms all translation-based models by a large
margin on WN18 and FB15k, achieving the best results on all
evaluation metrics. Compared to methods belonging to other
disciplines, TransF also demonstrates good performance with
the best MR (3246) on WN18RR and the best Hits@10 (47.2%)
on FB15k-237. It suggests that factorizing the relation space as
a combination of multiple sub-spaces is critical for representing
different types of relations in knowledge graphs. This statement
is further supported when looking at Table. III. For 1-to-1 and
N-to-N relations, TransF produces higher accuracy than all
baseline models in both HEP and TEP. Specifically, for HEP
with N-to-1 relations and TEP with 1-to-N relations, our model
improves the results by about 9% and 5% over the second best
model TransSparse (us), respectively.
C. Relation Representation with TransF.
In Fig. 2, we show the t-SNE visualization [15] of all
relations in FB15. There are three main things to note here:
(i) Our model successfully captures the correlations among
relations as relations with similar semantic meaning usually stay
close in the embedded space. (ii) Correlated relations do not
necessarily belong to the same category but can span across
different categories. For example, in group 4 two relations
“/base/schemastaging/.../team” and “/sports/pro_athlete/.../team”
are from two categories “base” and “sports”, respectively.
(iii) Although most information of a relation is stored in
the translation vector due to its large size, the coefficient
vectors also provide certain amount of information to make
the relation representation more accurate. As in Fig. 2, when
relation representation does not contain coefficient vectors, the
relations in group 1 and 2 seem to merge together even though
they are not very similar. On the other hand, when coefficient
vectors are used, these two groups are more separately.
D. Complexity Analysis of TransF.
In Fig. 3 we plot the number of parameters and training time
of TransF in comparison with some other translation-based

Table II
L INK PREDICTION RESULTS ON WN18, FB15 K , WN18RR AND FB15 K -237.
*: T HE RESULT OF D IST M ULT AND C OMPL E X ON WN18RR AND FB15 K -237 ARE TAKEN FROM [11].
Method
TransE
TransH
TransR
CTransR
TransD
TransSparse (s)
TransSparse (us)
TransF
PTransE
KG2E
ManifoldE
DistMult*
ComplEx*
ConvE

MR
251
388
225
218
212
221
211
198
331
504

WN18
MRR
Hits@10
89.2
82.3
92.0
92.3
92.2
92.8
93.2
0.856
95.3
92.8
93.2
0.83
93.6
0.941
94.7
0.942
95.5

MR
125
87
77
75
91
82
82
62
58
59
64

FB15k
MRR
Hits@10
47.1
64.4
68.7
70.2
77.3
79.5
79.9
0.564
82.3
84.6
74.0
88.1
0.35
57.7
0.69
84.0
0.745
87.3

WN18RR
MRR
Hits@10
0.505
49.8
0.425
49.1
0.444
50.7
0.342
41.1

MR
3246
5110
5261
7323

MR
210
254
248
330

FB15k-237
MRR
Hits@10
0.286
47.2
0.241
41.9
0.240
41.9
0.301
45.8

Table III
Hits@10 RESULTS ON FB15 K ARRANGED BY DIFFERENT RELATION TYPES .
Method
TransE
TransH
TransR
CTransR
TransD
TransSparse (s)
TransSparse (us)
TransF

Head
1-to-1
43.7
66.8
78.8
81.5
86.1
86.8
87.1
88.1

Entity Prediction (HEP)
1-to-N
N-to-1
N-to-N
65.7
18.2
47.2
87.6
28.7
64.5
89.2
24.1
69.2
89.0
34.7
71.2
95.5
39.8
78.5
95.5
44.3
80.9
95.8
44.4
81.2
94.9
53.2
82.8

Tail Entity Prediction (TEP)
1-to-1
1-to-N
N-to-1
N-to-N
43.7
19.7
66.7
50.0
65.5
39.8
83.3
67.2
79.2
37.4
90.4
72.1
80.8
38.6
90.1
73.8
85.4
50.6
94.4
81.2
86.6
56.6
94.4
83.3
87.5
57.0
94.5
83.7
88.8
62.1
93.4
85.8

*
20

10

3
0

*

1
2

10

20

4

30

40

20

10

0

10

20

30

Figure 2. tSNE visualization of all relations in FB15k. For each relation r, the representation vector is constructed by concatenating the translation vector r
and two coefficient vectors αr and β r into a single vector. Some related relations are highlighted in red and are grouped together. To better understand the
meaning of these relations, they are zoomed with names. The small rectangle snapshot marked with * is the tSNE embedding of relations in group 1 and 2 by
using the translation vector r only.

Tensor based methods: Tensor based methods represent a
knowledge
graph as a 3D tensor X of shape Ne × Ne × Nr
1.4
14
where Ne and Nr are the number of entities and relations in
1.2
12
1.0
the knowledge graph, respectively. Each element Xi,j,k of the
10
0.8
tensor can be seen as probability that the triple (ei , rk , ej ) is
8
0.6
correct.
6
0.4
4
RESCAL [20] applies tensor factorization to estimate X .
0.2
2
Specifically,
each slice matrix X:,:,k (k = 1, Nr ) along the
0
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
0
50
100
150
200
Number of space bases
Number of space bases
relation axis is computed as X:,:,k = ERk E| where E ∈ RNe ×s
is a latent factor matrix of the entities, Rk ∈ Rs×s is an matrix
Figure 3. The number of parameters (left) and training time (right) of popular
that models the interactions of the components with respect to
translation-based methods on FB15k. In all methods, the entity and relation
embedded dimensions are both set to 100. The training time is recorded for the k-th relation. Compared to TransE with the same number
50 epochs and then taking average. Models are programmed by authors using
of hidden units, RESCAL requires far more parameters (as
Theano and run on a single GPU GTX 980Ti 12GB.
much as TransR). In addition, the three-way dot product make
this model more difficult to be trained. This is the reason why
methods on FB15k. When the number of space bases s is small, RESCAL is not comparable to TransE in many situations [6].
DistMult [28] is a simplified version of RESCAL with the
TransF has nearly the same number of parameters as TransE
energy
function E(h, r, t) = h| Wdiag
and TransH. Increasing s only grows the number of parameters
r t. Here, the interaction
between
head
and
tail
entities
is
captured
via a diagonal matrix
by a small constant rate. Not only consuming fewer parameters,
diag
de ×de
W
∈
R
instead
of
a
3D
tensor
like
in NTN. In fact,
TransF also runs faster than TransR and TransD. Specifically,
r
we
can
rewrite
the
energy
function
of
DistMult
as E(h, r, t) =
with s=5, TransF can be trained in roughly half amount of
de
sum(h
r
t)
where
r
∈
R
is
the
main
diagonal
of Wdiag
time compared to TransR. This difference reduces to about
r .
In
this
form,
DistMult
looks
very
similar
to
TransE
but
with
20% when s = 100. In this experiment, we also observe an
unexpected pattern: TransD is slower than TransR though its additive operators replaced by multiplicative ones.
projection matrix is factorized as product of two vectors. This
Holographic Embedding (HolE) [19], a novel method
is because TransD has to recompute its projection matrix for leveraging the holographic models of associative memory to
every triple while TransR can index its projection matrix based learn the compositional representations of knowledge graphs.
on relations. Our method does not suffer this problem, hence, The probability of a triple (ei , rk , ej ) to be correct is computed
is much more efficient than TransD. However, the training time as: Xi,j,k = σ(φi,j,k ) = σ(r|k (ei ? ej )) where φi,j,k is a
of TransF is still not comparable to TransE and TransH. It characteristic function over the triple, rk ∈ Rdr , ei , ej ∈ Rde
explains why pretraining with TransE is necessary.
are the relation and entity embeddings; ? is a circular correlation
operator. From the holography angle [21], we can see that the
association of rk and ei is, first, implicitly stored in ej via
V. R ELATED W ORK
training. Then, taking a circular correlation with ei will return
0
Translation based methods: Beside Trans(E, H, R, D, Sparse) rk - a noisy version of rk . And finally, the dot product with rk
that we have already discussed, there are other models falling will examine how similar this two vectors are. HolE has many
into this category. lppTransD [29] is an extension of TransD advantages such that computation efficiency (only calculating
that accounts for different roles of head and tail entities. They on vectors), scalability (the number of parameters is small)
showed that logical properties like transitivity and symmetry and capability of representing anti-symmetric relations (? is
cannot be represented by using the same projection matrix non-commutative).
Another model closely related to HolE is Complex Emfor both head and tail entities. This idea is also applied in
bedding
(ComplEx) [25]. It originates from the observation
our model as we use two separate sets of basis matrices
(i)
(i)
that
embedding
relations and entities into complex spaces
({U |i = 1, s} and {V |i = 1, s}) to compute the projection
would
be
better
than
into real spaces due to the non-symmetry
matrices for head and tail entities. STransE [18] combines
of
the
Hermitian
product.
The characteristic function φi,j,k
Structured Embedding (SE) [7] and TransE into a single model.
of
ComplEx
is
defined
as:
φ
i,j,k = Re(< rk , ei , ej >) where
Its energy function is E(h, r, t) = kWr,1 h+r−Wr,2 tk`1/2 . In
r
,
e
,
e
are
complex
vectors;
< a, b, c > is a trilinear product
k i j
fact, this model is similar to lppTransR [29]. KB2E [12] takes
between
a,
b,
c;
a
is
the
conjugate
of a. ComplEx and HolE
an interesting approach to handle non-injective relations by
have
been
proven
to
be
mathematically
equivalent [24]. Thus,
incorporating knowledge graph uncertainty into embedding.
both
models
provide
the
same
representation
power.
Specifically, it models entities and relations as Gaussian
distributions instead of single points in the embedding space:
x ∼ N (µx , Σx ) for x = h, t, r. The KL divergence between
Other related methods: One early work that applied the
two distributions h − t and r is selected to be an (asymmetric) embedding concept for knowledge graph completion is Strucenergy function very naturally: E = DKL (h − t, r) = tured Embedding (SE) [7]. The basic idea of this model is
DKL (N (µh − µt , Σh + Σt ), N (µr , Σr )).
that two entities of a correct triple should be close to each
#parameters of popular translation-based methods
TransE
TransH
TransR
TransD
TransF

18
16

seconds/epoch

1.6 1e7

Training time of popular translation-based methods
TransE
TransH
TransR
TransD
TransF

other in some relation spaces. Hence, its energy function is
defined as E(h, r, t) = kWr,1 h − Wr,2 tk`1/2 .
Semantic Matching Energy (SME) [4] introduces the
relation embedding r and treats it equally to the entity
embeddings h and t. This method is suitable for situations
when relations and entities are interchangable, for example, in
NLP, a verb typically corresponds to a relation but sometimes
can also be an entity. SME defines the energy function as
E(h, r, t) = −f (h, r)| g(t, r) where f and g are neural
networks. In case f and g are linear, this energy function
only captures two-way interactions of pairs (h, r), (t, r) and
(t, h) rather than the three-way interaction as in RESCAL. .
Both SE and RESCAL can be seen as special cases of
Neural Tensor Network (NTN) whose energy function is
E(h, r, , t) = u|r σ(h| W r t + Ur h + Vr t + b) where σ is
a nonlinear activation function (e.i. tanh), W r ∈ Rde ×de ×k
, Ur , Vr ∈ Rde ×k and ur ∈ Rk all depends on r. Despite
being expressive, NTN does not scale well to knowledge graphs
with large number of relations (e.g. FB15k) due to its high
computational cost.

VI. C ONCLUSION
We have proposed TransF, a new knowledge graph embedding method explicitly models the relationship between relations. Our model decomposes the relation–specific projection
spaces into a small number of spanning bases, which are shared
by all relations. We showed that this strategy not only leads to
better performance but is also more efficient than state-of-theart translation-based methods like TransR or TransD through
extensive experiments on link prediction and complexity
analysis. In addition, the visualization of learnt relations also
indicates that TransF models the relation correlations well. In
the future, we plan to explore better representation of relations.
One potential way is using additional information from larger
structures such as paths or subgraphs instead of triples only.
Another direction is to define class–specific model of relations.
R EFERENCES
[1] Sungjin Ahn, Heeyoul Choi, Tanel Pärnamaa, and Yoshua Bengio. A
neural knowledge language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00318,
2016.
[2] Sören Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard
Cyganiak, and Zachary Ives. Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open
data. The semantic web, pages 722–735, 2007.
[3] Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie
Taylor. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring
human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD
international conference on Management of data, pages 1247–1250.
ACM, 2008.
[4] Antoine Bordes, Xavier Glorot, Jason Weston, and Yoshua Bengio. A
semantic matching energy function for learning with multi-relational
data. Machine Learning, 94(2):233–259, 2014.
[5] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston.
Large-scale simple question answering with memory networks. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1506.02075, 2015.
[6] Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston,
and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multirelational data. In Advances in neural information processing systems,
pages 2787–2795, 2013.

[7] Antoine Bordes, Jason Weston, Ronan Collobert, Yoshua Bengio, et al.
Learning structured embeddings of knowledge bases. In AAAI, volume 6,
page 6, 2011.
[8] Léon Bottou. From machine learning to machine reasoning. Machine
Learning, 94(2):133–149, 2014.
[9] Sneha Chaudhari, Amos Azaria, and Tom Mitchell. An entity graph
based recommender system. AI Communications, (Preprint):1–9, 2017.
[10] Rajarshi Das, Manzil Zaheer, Siva Reddy, and Andrew McCallum.
Question answering on knowledge bases and text using universal schema
and memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08384, 2017.
[11] Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian
Riedel. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1707.01476, 2017.
[12] Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. Learning to represent
knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding. In Proceedings of the
24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management, pages 623–632. ACM, 2015.
[13] Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic
optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014.
[14] Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu.
Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion.
In AAAI, pages 2181–2187, 2015.
[15] Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using
t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(Nov):2579–2605, 2008.
[16] Kenneth Marino, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abhinav Gupta. The more
you know: Using knowledge graphs for image classification. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1612.04844, 2016.
[17] Alexander Miller, Adam Fisch, Jesse Dodge, Amir-Hossein Karimi,
Antoine Bordes, and Jason Weston. Key-value memory networks for
directly reading documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03126, 2016.
[18] Dat Quoc Nguyen, Kairit Sirts, Lizhen Qu, and Mark Johnson. Stranse:
a novel embedding model of entities and relationships in knowledge
bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08140, 2016.
[19] Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, Tomaso A Poggio, et al. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. In AAAI, pages 1955–1961,
2016.
[20] Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. A three-way
model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In Proceedings
of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11),
pages 809–816, 2011.
[21] T Poggio. On holographic models of memory. Biological Cybernetics,
12(4):237–238, 1973.
[22] Fabian M Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. Yago: a
core of semantic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 16th international
conference on World Wide Web, pages 697–706. ACM, 2007.
[23] Kristina Toutanova and Danqi Chen. Observed versus latent features for
knowledge base and text inference. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop
on Continuous Vector Space Models and their Compositionality, pages
57–66, 2015.
[24] Théo Trouillon and Maximilian Nickel. Complex and holographic
embeddings of knowledge graphs: A comparison. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1707.01475, 2017.
[25] Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and
Guillaume Bouchard. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction.
In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2071–2080,
2016.
[26] Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. Knowledge
graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI, pages 1112–
1119, 2014.
[27] Xander Wilcke, Peter Bloem, and Victor de Boer. The knowledge graph
as the default data model for learning on heterogeneous knowledge. Data
Science, (Preprint):1–19.
[28] Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng.
Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge
bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6575, 2014.
[29] Hee-Geun Yoon, Hyun-Je Song, Seong-Bae Park, and Se-Young Park. A
translation-based knowledge graph embedding preserving logical property
of relations. In HLT-NAACL, pages 907–916, 2016.

