Papers › Learning from Both Structural and Textual Knowledge for Inductive Knowledge Graph Completion
Learning from Both Structural and Textual Knowledge for Inductive Knowledge Graph Completion
Learning rule-based systems plays a pivotal role in knowledge graph completion (KGC). Existing rule-based systems restrict the input of the system to structural knowledge only, which may omit some useful knowledge for reasoning, e.g., textual knowledge. In this paper, we propose a two-stage framework that imposes both structural and textual knowledge to learn rule-based systems. In the first stage, we compute a set of triples with confidence scores (called \emph{soft triples}) from a text corpus by distant supervision, where a textual entailment model with multi-instance learning is exploited to estimate whether a given triple is entailed by a set of sentences. In the second stage, these soft triples are used to learn a rule-based model for KGC. To mitigate the negative impact of noise from soft triples, we propose a new formalism for rules to be learnt, named \emph{text enhanced rules} or \emph{TE-rules} for short. To effectively learn TE-rules, we propose a neural model that simulates the inference of TE-rules. We theoretically show that any set of TE-rules can always be interpreted by a certain parameter assignment of the neural model. We introduce three new datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of our method. Experimental results demonstrate that the introduction of soft triples and TE-rules results in significant performance improvements in inductive link prediction.Submission Number: 11081
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections