1 Introduction
Current successful methods for automated knowledge base construction tasks heavily rely on learned distributed vector representations
[Nickel et al.2012, Riedel et al.2013, Socher et al.2013, Chang et al.2014, Neelakantan et al.2015, Toutanova et al.2015, Nickel et al.2015, Verga et al.2016, Verga and McCallum2016]. Although these models are able to learn robust representations from large amounts of data, they often lack commonsense knowledge. Such knowledge is rarely explicitly stated in texts but can be found in resources like PPDB [Ganitkevitch et al.2013] or WordNet [Miller1995].Combining neural methods with symbolic commonsense knowledge, for instance in the form of implication rules, is in the focus of current research [Rocktäschel et al.2014, Wang et al.2014, Bowman et al.2015, Wang et al.2015, Vendrov et al.2016, Hu et al.2016, Rocktäschel and Riedel2016, Cohen2016]. A recent approach [Rocktäschel et al.2015] regularizes entitytuple and relation embeddings via firstorder logic rules. To this end, every firstorder rule is propositionalized based on observed entitytuples, and a differentiable loss term is added for every propositional rule. This approach does not scale beyond only a few entitytuples and rules. For example, propositionalizing the rule would result in a very large number of loss terms on a large database.
In this paper, we present a method to incorporate simple rules while maintaining the computational efficiency of only modeling training facts.
This is achieved by minimizing an upper bound of the loss that encourages the implication between relations to hold, entirely independent from the number of entity pairs.
It only involves representations of the relations that are mentioned in rules, as well as a general ruleindependent constraint on the entitytuple embedding space.
In the example given above, if we require that every component of the vector representation of sMan }
s smaller than the corresponding component of relation sMortal }, then we can show that the rule holds for any \emph{nonnegat
ve representation of an entitytuple.
Hence our method avoids the need for separate loss terms for every ground atom resulting from propositionalizing rules.
In statistical relational learning this type of approach is often referred to as lifted inference or learning [Poole2003, Braz2007]
because it deals with groups of random variables at a firstorder level. In this sense our approach is a lifted form of rule injection. This allows for imposing large numbers of rules while learning distributed representations of relations and entitytuples. Besides drastically lower computation time, an important advantage of our method over rocktaschel2015injecting is that when these constraints are satisfied, the injected rules always hold, even for unseen but inferred facts. While the method presented here only deals with implications and not general firstorder rules, it does not rely on the assumption of independence between relations, and is hence more generally applicable.
Our contributions are fourfold: (i) we develop a very efficient way of regularizing relation representations to incorporate firstorder logic implications (§3), (ii) we reveal that, against expectation, mapping entitytuple embeddings to nonnegative space does not hurt but instead improves the generalization ability of our model (§5.1) (iii) we show improvements on a knowledge base completion task by injecting mined commonsense rules from WordNet (§5.3), and finally (iv) we give a qualitative analysis of the results, demonstrating that implication constraints are indeed satisfied in an asymmetric way and result in a substantially increased structuring of the relation embedding space (§5.6).
2 Background
In this section we revisit the matrix factorization relation extraction model by riedel2013relation and introduce the notation used throughout the paper. We choose the matrix factorization model for its simplicity as the base on which we develop implication injection.
riedel2013relation represent every relation (selected from Freebase [Bollacker et al.2008] or extracted as textual surface pattern) by a dimensional latent representation . A particular relation instance or fact is the combination of a relation and a tuple of entities that are engaged in that relation, and is written as . We write as the set of all such input facts available for training. Furthermore, every entitytuple is represented by a latent vector (with the set of all entitytuples in ).
Model F by riedel2013relation measures the compatibility between a relation and an entitytuple using the dot product of their respective vector representations. During training, the representations are learned such that valid facts receive high scores, whereas negative ones receive low scores. Typically no negative evidence is available at training time, and therefore a Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR) objective [Rendle et al.2009] is used. Given a pair of facts and , this objective requires that
(1) 
The embeddings can be trained by minimizing a convex loss function
that penalizes violations of that requirement when iterating over the training set. In practice, each positive training fact is compared with a randomly sampled unobserved fact for the same relation. The overall loss can hence be written as(2) 
and measures how well observed valid facts are ranked above unobserved facts, thus reconstructing the ranking of the training data. We will henceforth call the reconstruction loss, to make a distinction with the implication loss that we will introduce later. riedel2013relation use the logistic loss , where
denotes the sigmoid function. In order to avoid overfitting, an
regularization term on the and embeddings is added to the reconstruction loss. The overall objective to minimize hence is(3) 
where is the regularization strength.
3 Lifted Injection of Implications
In this section, we show how an implication
(4) 
can be imposed independently of the entitytuples. For simplicity, we abbreviate such implications as (e.g., ).
3.1 Grounded Loss Formulation
The implication rule can be imposed by requiring that every tuple is at least as compatible with relation as with . Written in terms of the latent representations, eq. (4) therefore becomes
(5) 
If is a true fact with a high score , and the fact has an even higher score, it must also be true, but not vice versa. We can therefore inject an implication rule by minimizing a loss term with a separate contribution from every , adding up to the total loss if the corresponding inequality is not satisfied. In order to make the contribution of every tuple to that loss independent of the magnitude of the tuple embedding, we divide both sides of the above inequality by . With , the implication loss for the rule can be written as
(6) 
for an appropriate convex loss function , similarly to eq. (2). In practice, the summation can be reduced to those tuples that occur in combination with or in the training data. Still, the propositionalization in terms of training facts leads to a heavy computational cost for imposing a single implication, similar to the technique introduced in rocktaschel2015injecting. Moreover, with that simplification there is no guarantee that the implication between both relations would generalize towards inferred facts not seen during training.
3.2 Lifted Loss Formulation
The problems mentioned above can be avoided if instead of , a tupleindependent upper bound is minimized. Such a bound can be constructed, provided all components of are restricted to a nonnegative embedding space, i.e., . If this holds, Jensen’s inequality allows us to transform eq. (6) as follows
(7)  
(8) 
where is the unit vector along dimension in tuplespace. This is allowed because the form convex coefficients (, and ), and is a convex function. If we define
(9) 
we can write
(10) 
in which is an upper bound on . One such bound is , but others are conceivable too. In practice we rescale to a hyperparameter that we use to control the impact of the upper bound to the overall loss. We call the lifted loss, as it no longer depends on any of the entitytuples; it is grounded over the unit tuples instead.
The implication can thus be imposed by minimizing the lifted loss . Note that by minimizing , the model is encouraged to satisfy the constraint on the relation embeddings, where denotes the componentwise comparison. In fact, a sufficient condition for eq. (5) to hold, is
(11) 
with the dimensional null vector. This corresponds to a single relationspecific loss term, and the general restriction on the tupleembedding space.
3.3 Approximately Boolean Entity Tuples
In order to impose implications by minimizing a lifted loss , the tupleembedding space needs to be restricted to . We have chosen to restrict the tuple space even more than required, namely to the hypercube , as approximately Boolean embeddings [Kruszewski et al.2015]. The tuple embeddings are constructed from realvalued vectors , using the componentwise sigmoid function
(12) 
For minimizing the loss, the gradients are hence computed with respect to , and the regularization is applied to the components of instead of .
Other choices for ensuring the restriction in eq. (11) are possible, but we found that our approach works better in practice than those (e.g., the exponential transformation proposed by demeester2016akbc). It can also be observed that the unit tuples over which the implication loss is grounded, form a special case of approximately Boolean embeddings.
In order to investigate the impact of this restriction even when not injecting any rules, we introduce model FS: the original model F, but with sigmoidal entitytuples:
(13) 
Here, and are the realvalued representations as in eq. (12), for tuples and , respectively.
With the above choice of a nonnegative tupleembedding space we can now state the full lifted rule injection model (FSL):
(14) 
denotes a lifted loss term for every rule in a set of implication rules that we want to inject.
3.4 Convex Implication Loss
The logistic loss (see §2) is not suited for imposing implications because once the inequality in eq. (11) is satisfied, the components of and do not need to be separated any further. However, with this would continue to happen due to the small nonzero gradient. In the reconstruction loss this is a desirable effect which further separates the scores for positive from negative examples. However, if an implication is imposed between two relations that are almost equivalent according to the training data, we still want to find almost equivalent embedding vectors. Hence, we propose to use the loss
(15) 
with a small positive margin to ensure that the gradient does not disappear before the inequality is actually satisfied. We use in all experiments.
The main advantage of the presented approach over earlier methods that impose the rules in a grounded way [Rocktäschel et al.2015, Wang et al.2015] is the computational efficiency of imposing the lifted loss. Evaluating or its gradient for one implication rule is comparable to evaluating the reconstruction loss for one pair of training facts. In typical applications there are much fewer rules than training facts and the extra computation time needed to inject these rules is therefore negligible.
4 Related Work
Recent research on combining rules with learned vector representations has been important for new developments in the field of knowledge base completion. rocktaschel2014low and rocktaschel2015injecting provided a framework to jointly maximize the probability of observed facts and propositionalized firstorder logic rules. wang2015kbc demonstrated how different types of rules can be incorporated using an Integer Linear Programming approach. WangCohen2016matfact learned embeddings for facts and firstorder logic rules using matrix factorization. Yet, all of these approaches ground the rules in the training data, limiting their scalability towards large rule sets and KBs with many entities. As argued in the introduction, this forms an important motivation for the lifted rule injection model put forward in this work, which by construction does not suffer from that limitation. Wei2015 proposed an alternative strategy to tackle the scalability problem by reasoning on a filtered subset of grounded facts.
WuAAAI2015 proposed to use a path ranking approach for capturing longrange interactions between entities, and to add these as an extra loss term, besides the loss that models pairwise relations. Our model FSL differs substantially from their approach, in that we consider tuples instead of separate entities, and we inject a given set of rules. Yet, by creating a partial ordering in the relation embeddings as a result of injecting implication rules, model FSL can also capture interactions beyond direct relations. This will be demonstrated in §5.3 by injecting rules between surface patterns only and still measuring an improvement on predictions for structured Freebase relations.
Combining logic and distributed representations is also an active field of research outside of automated knowledge base completion. Recent advances include the work by faruqui2014retrofitting, who injected ontological knowledge from WordNet into word representations. Furthermore, vendrov2016orderembeddings proposed to enforce a partial ordering in an embeddings space of images and phrases. Our method is related to such order embeddings since we define a partial ordering on relation embeddings. However, to ensure that implications hold for all entitytuples we also need a restriction on the entitytuple embedding space and derive bounds on the loss. Another important contribution is the recent work by hu2016harnessing, who proposed a framework for injecting rules into general neural network architectures, by jointly training on the actual targets and on the ruleregularized predictions provided by a teacher network. Although quite different at first sight, their work could offer a way to use our model in various neural network architectures, by integrating the proposed lifted loss into the teacher network.
This paper builds upon our previous workshop paper [Demeester et al.2016]
. In that work, we tested different tuple embedding transformations in an adhoc manner. We used approximately Boolean representations of relations instead of entitytuples, strongly reducing the model’s degrees of freedom. We now derive the FSL model from a carefully considered mathematical transformation of the grounded loss. The FSL model only restricts the tuple embedding space, whereby relation vectors remain real valued. Furthermore, previous experiments were performed on smallscale artificial datasets, whereas we now test on a realworld relation extraction benchmark.
Finally, we explicitly discuss the main differences with respect to the strongly related work from rocktaschel2015injecting. Their method is more general, as they cover a wide range of firstorder logic rules, whereas we only discuss implications. Lifted rule injection beyond implications will be studied in future research contributions. However, albeit less general, our model has a number of clear advantages:
Scalability – Our proposed model of lifted rule injection scales according to the number of implication rules, instead of the number of rules times the number of observed facts for every relation present in a rule.
Generalizability – Injected implications will hold even for facts not seen during training, because their validity only depends on the order relation imposed on the relation representations. This is not guaranteed when training on rules grounded in training facts by rocktaschel2015injecting.
Training Flexibility – Our method can be trained with various loss functions, including the rankbased loss as used in riedel2013relation. This was not possible for the model of rocktaschel2015injecting and already leads to an improved accuracy as seen from the zeroshot learning experiment in §5.2.
Independence Assumption – In rocktaschel2015injecting an implication of the form for two ground atoms and is modeled by the logical equivalence , and its probability is approximated in terms of the elementary probabilities and as . This assumes the independence of the two atoms and , which may not hold in practice. Our approach does not rely on that assumption and also works for cases of statistical dependence. For example, the independence assumption does not hold in the trivial case where the relations and in the two atoms are equivalent, whereas in our model, the constraints and would simply reduce to .
5 Experiments and Results
We now present our experimental results. We start by describing the experimental setup and hyperparameters. Before turning to the injection of rules, we compare model F with model FS, and show that restricting the tuple embedding space has a regularization effect, rather than limiting the expressiveness of the model (§
5.1). We then demonstrate that model FSL is capable of zeroshot learning (§5.2), and show that injecting highquality WordNet rules leads to an improved precision (§5.3). We proceed with a visual illustration of the relation embeddings with and without injected rules (§5.4), provide details on time efficiency of the lifted rule injection method (§5.5), and show that it correctly captures the asymmetry of implication rules (§5.6).All models were implemented in TensorFlow
[Abadi et al.2015]. We use the hyperparameters of riedel2013relation, with hidden dimensions and a weight of for the regularization loss. We use ADAM [Kingma and Ba2014] for optimization with an initial learning rate of 0.005 and a minibatch size of . The embeddings are initialized by sampling uniformly from and we use for the implication loss throughout our experiments.Test relation  #  R13F  F  FS  FSL 

person/company  106  0.75  0.73  0.74  0.77 
location/containedby  73  0.69  0.62  0.70  0.71 
person/nationality  28  0.19  0.20  0.20  0.21 
author/works_written  27  0.65  0.71  0.69  0.65 
person/place_of_birth  21  0.72  0.69  0.72  0.70 
parent/child  19  0.76  0.77  0.81  0.85 
person/place_of_death  19  0.83  0.85  0.83  0.85 
neighborhood/neighborhood_of  11  0.70  0.67  0.63  0.62 
person/parents  6  0.61  0.53  0.66  0.66 
company/founders  4  0.77  0.73  0.64  0.67 
sports_team/league  4  0.59  0.44  0.43  0.56 
team_owner/teams_owned  2  0.38  0.64  0.64  0.61 
team/arena_stadium  2  0.13  0.13  0.13  0.12 
film/directed_by  2  0.50  0.18  0.17  0.13 
broadcast/area_served  2  0.58  0.83  0.83  1.00 
structure/architect  2  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00 
composer/compositions  2  0.67  0.64  0.51  0.50 
person/religion  1  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00 
film/produced_by  1  0.50  1.00  1.00  0.33 
Weighted MAP  0.67  0.65  0.67  0.69 
5.1 Restricted Embedding Space
Model F (nonrestricted)  Model FS (restricted) 

nsubj<represent>dobj  rcmod>return>prep>to>pobj 
appos>member>prep>of>pobj>team>nn  nn<return>prep>to>pobj 
nsubj<die>dobj  nsubj<return>prep>to>pobj 
nsubj<speak>prep>about>pobj  rcmod>leave>dobj 
appos>champion>poss  nsubj<quit>dobj 
Before incorporating external commonsense knowledge into relation representations, we were curious how much we lose by restricting the entitytuple space to approximately Boolean embeddings. We evaluate our models on the New York Times dataset introduced by riedel2013relation. Surprisingly, we find that the expressiveness of the model does not suffer from this strong restriction. From Table 1 we see that restricting the tupleembedding space seems to perform slightly better (FS) as opposed to a realvalued tupleembedding space (F), suggesting that this restriction has a regularization effect that improves generalization. We also provide the original results for model F by riedel2013relation (denoted as R13F) for comparison. Due to a different implementation and optimization procedure, the results for our model F and R13F are not identical.
Inspecting the top relations for a sampled dimension in the embedding space reveals that the relation space of model FS more closely resembles clusters than that of model F (Table 2). We hypothesize that this might be caused by approximately Boolean entitytuple representations in model FS, resulting in attributelike entitytuple vectors that capture which relation clusters they belong to.
5.2 Zeroshot Learning
The zeroshot learning experiment performed in rocktaschel2015injecting leads to an important finding: when injecting implications with righthand sides for Freebase relations for which no or very limited training facts are available, the model should be able to infer the validity of Freebase facts for those relations based on rules and correlations between textual surface patterns.
We inject the same handpicked relations as used by rocktaschel2015injecting, after removing all Freebase training facts. The lifted rule injection (model FSL) reaches a weighted MAP of , comparable with by the Joint model from rocktaschel2015injecting (denoted R15Joint). Note that for this experiment we initialized the Freebase relations implied by the rules with negative random vectors (sampled uniformly from ). The reason is that without any negative training facts for these relations, their components can only go up due to the implication loss, and we do not want to get values that are too high before optimization.
Figure 1 shows how the relation extraction performance improves when more Freebase relation training facts are added. It effictively measures how well the proposed models, matrix factorization (F), propositionalized rule injection (R15Joint), and our model (FSL), can make use of the provided rules and correlations between textual surface form patterns and increased fractions of Freebase training facts. Although FSL starts at a lower performance than R15Joint when no Freebase training facts are present, it outperforms R15Joint and a plain matrix factorization model by a substantial margin when provided with more than of Freebase training facts. This indicates that, in addition to being much faster than R15Joint, it can make better use of provided rules and few training facts. We attribute this to the Bayesian personalized ranking loss instead of the logistic loss used in rocktaschel2015injecting. The former is compatible with our ruleinjection method, but not with the approach of maximizing the expectation of propositional rules used by R15Joint.
5.3 Injecting Knowledge from WordNet
The main purpose of this work is to be able to incorporate rules from external resources for aiding relation extraction.
We use WordNet hypernyms to generate rules for the NYT dataset.
To this end we iterate over all surface form patterns in the dataset and attempt to replace words in the pattern by their hypernyms. If the resulting pattern is contained in the dataset, we generate the corresponding rule. For instance, we generate a rule appos>diplomat>amod
appos>official>amod
since both patterns are contained in the NYT dataset and we know from WordNet that a diplomat is an official.
This leads to rules from WordNet that we subsequently annotate manually to obtain highquality rules.
Note that none of these rules directly imply a Freebase relation. Although the test relations all originate from Freebase, we still hope to see improvements by transitive effects, i.e., better surface form representations that in turn help to predict Freebase facts.
We show results obtained by injecting these WordNet rules in Table 1 (column FSL). The weighted MAP measure increases by 2% with respect to model FS, and 4% compared to our reimplementation of the matrix factorization model F.
This demonstrates that imposing a partial ordering based on implication rules can be used to incorporate logical commonsense knowledge and increase the quality of information extraction systems.
Note that our evaluation setting guarantees that only indirect effects of the rules are measured, i.e., we do not use any rules directly implying test relations.
This shows that injecting such rules influences the relation embedding space beyond only the relations explicitly stated in the rules.
For example, injecting the rule appos<father>appos
poss<parent>appos
can contribute to improved predictions for the test relation parent/child
.
5.4 Visualizing Relation Embeddings
We provide a visual inspection of how the structure of the relation embedding space changes when rules are imposed. We select all relations involved in the WordNet rules, and gather them as columns in a single matrix, sorted by increasing norm (values in the dimensions are similarly sorted). Figures (a)a and (b)b show the difference between model F (without injected rules) and FSL (with rules). The values of the embeddings in model FSL are more polarized, i.e., we observe stronger negative or positive components than for model F. Furthermore, FSL also reveals a clearer difference between the leftmost (mostly negative, more specific) and rightmost (predominantly positive, more general) embeddings (i.e., a clearer separation between positive and negative values in the plot), which results from imposing the order relation in eq. (11) when injecting implications.
5.5 Efficiency of Lifted Injection of Rules
In order to get an idea of the time efficiency of injecting rules, we measure the time per epoch when restricting the program execution to a single 2.4GHz CPU core. We measure on average 6.33s per epoch without rules (model FS), against 6.76s and 6.97s when injecting the 36 highquality WordNet rules and the unfiltered 427 rules (model FSL), respectively. Increasing the amount of injected rules from 36 to 427 leads to an increase of only 3% in computation time, even though in our setup all rule losses are used in every training batch. This confirms the high efficiency of our lifted rule injection method.
5.6 Asymmetric Character of Implications
rule  model FSL  model FS  

appos>party>amod  appos>organization>amod  0.99  0.22  0.70  0.86  
poss<father>appos  poss<parent>appos  0.96  0.00  0.72  0.89  
appos>prosecutor>nn  appos>lawyer>nn  0.99  0.01  0.87  0.80  
appos>daily>amod  appos>newspaper>amod  0.98  0.79  0.90  0.86  
appos>ambassador>amod  appos>diplomat>amod  0.31  0.05  0.93  0.84  
average over 36 highquality Wordnet rules  0.95  0.28  0.74  0.70 
In order to demonstrate that injecting implications conserves their asymmetric nature, we perform the following experiment. After incorporating highquality Wordnet rules into model FSL we select all of the tuples that occur with relation in a training fact . Matching these with relation should result in high values for the scores , if the implication holds. If however the tuples are selected from the training facts , and matched with relation , the scores should be much lower if the inverse implication does not hold (in other words, if and are not equivalent). Table 3 lists the averaged results for 5 example rules, and the average over all relations in WordNet rules, both for the case with injected rules (model FSL), and without rules (model FS). For easier comparison, the scores are mapped to the unit interval via the sigmoid function. This quantity is often interpreted as the probability that the corresponding fact holds [Riedel et al.2013], but because of the BPRbased training, only differences between scores play a role here. After injecting rules, the average scores of facts inferred by these rules (i.e., column for model FSL) are always higher than for facts (incorrectly) inferred by the inverse rules (column for model FSL). In the fourth example, the inverse rule leads to high scores as well (on average 0.79, vs. 0.98 for the actual rule). This is due to the fact that the daily and newspaper relations are more or less equivalent, such that the components of are not much below those of . For the last example (the ambassador diplomat rule), the asymmetry in the implication is maintained, although the absolute scores are rather low for these two relations.
The results for model FS reflect how strongly the implications in either direction are latently present in the training data. We can only conclude that model FS manages to capture the similarity between relations, but not the asymmetric character of implications. For example, purely based on the training data, it appears to be more likely that the parent relation implies the father relation, than vice versa. This again demonstrates the importance and added value of injecting external rules capturing commonsense knowledge.
6 Conclusions
We presented a novel, fast approach for incorporating firstorder implication rules into distributed representations of relations. We termed our approach ‘lifted rule injection’, as it avoids the costly grounding of firstorder implication rules and is thus independent of the size of the domain of entities. By construction, these rules are satisfied for any observed or unobserved fact. The presented approach requires a restriction on the entitytuple embedding space. However, experiments on a realworld dataset show that this does not impair the expressiveness of the learned representations. On the contrary, it appears to have a beneficial regularization effect.
By incorporating rules generated from WordNet hypernyms, our model improved over a matrix factorization baseline for knowledge base completion. Especially for domains where annotation is costly and only small amounts of training facts are available, our approach provides a way to leverage external knowledge sources for inferring facts.
In future work, we want to extend the proposed ideas beyond implications towards general firstorder logic rules. We believe that supporting conjunctions, disjunctions and negations would enable to debug and improve representation learning based knowledge base completion. Furthermore, we want to integrate these ideas into neural methods beyond matrix factorization approaches.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Research Foundation  Flanders (FWO), Ghent University  iMinds, Microsoft Research through its PhD Scholarship Programme, an Allen Distinguished Investigator Award, and a Marie Curie Career Integration Award.
References

[Abadi et al.2015]
Martín Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen,
Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin,
Sanjay Ghemawat, Ian Goodfellow, Andrew Harp, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard,
Yangqing Jia, Rafal Jozefowicz, Lukasz Kaiser, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh
Levenberg, Dan Mané, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek Murray, Chris Olah,
Mike Schuster, Jonathon Shlens, Benoit Steiner, Ilya Sutskever, Kunal Talwar,
Paul Tucker, Vincent Vanhoucke, Vijay Vasudevan, Fernanda Viégas, Oriol
Vinyals, Pete Warden, Martin Wattenberg, Martin Wicke, Yuan Yu, and Xiaoqiang
Zheng.
2015.
TensorFlow: Largescale machine learning on heterogeneous systems.
Software available from tensorflow.org.  [Bollacker et al.2008] Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. 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.
 [Bowman et al.2015] Samuel R Bowman, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Recursive neural networks can learn logical semantics. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Continuous Vector Space Models and their Compositionality (CVSC).
 [Braz2007] Rodrigo De Salvo Braz. 2007. Lifted Firstorder Probabilistic Inference. Ph.D. thesis, Champaign, IL, USA. AAI3290183.

[Chang et al.2014]
KaiWei Chang, Wentau Yih, Bishan Yang, and Christopher Meek.
2014.
Typed tensor decomposition of knowledge bases for relation extraction.
In EMNLP, pages 1568–1579.  [Cohen2016] William. W. Cohen. 2016. TensorLog: A Differentiable Deductive Database. ArXiv eprints, May.
 [Demeester et al.2016] Thomas Demeester, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. 2016. Regularizing relation representations by firstorder implications. In NAACL Workshop on Automated Knowledge Base Construction (AKBC).
 [Faruqui et al.2014] Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay K Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A Smith. 2014. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4166.
 [Ganitkevitch et al.2013] Juri Ganitkevitch, Benjamin Van Durme, and Chris CallisonBurch. 2013. Ppdb: The paraphrase database. In Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLTNAACL), pages 758–764.
 [Hu et al.2016] Zhiting Hu, Xuezhe Ma, Zhengzhong Liu, Eduard Hovy, and Eric Xing. 2016. Harnessing deep neural networks with logic rules. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.06318.
 [Kingma and Ba2014] Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.
 [Kruszewski et al.2015] German Kruszewski, Denis Paperno, and Marco Baroni. 2015. Deriving boolean structures from distributional vectors. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:375–388.
 [Miller1995] George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39–41.
 [Neelakantan et al.2015] Arvind Neelakantan, Benjamin Roth, and Andrew McCallum. 2015. Compositional vector space models for knowledge base completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.06662.
 [Nickel et al.2012] Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and HansPeter Kriegel. 2012. Factorizing yago: scalable machine learning for linked data. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, pages 271–280. ACM.
 [Nickel et al.2015] Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, Volker Tresp, and Evgeniy Gabrilovich. 2015. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs: From multirelational link prediction to automated knowledge graph construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00759.

[Poole2003]
David Poole.
2003.
Firstorder probabilistic inference.
In
Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)
, pages 985–991, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.  [Rendle et al.2009] Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars SchmidtThieme. 2009. BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the TwentyFifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pages 452–461, Arlington, Virginia, United States. AUAI Press.
 [Riedel et al.2013] Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, Andrew McCallum, and Benjamin M Marlin. 2013. Relation extraction with matrix factorization and universal schemas. In Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLTNAACL), pages 74–84.
 [Rocktäschel and Riedel2016] Tim Rocktäschel and Sebastian Riedel. 2016. Learning knowledge base inference with neural theorem provers. In NAACL Workshop on Automated Knowledge Base Construction (AKBC).
 [Rocktäschel et al.2014] Tim Rocktäschel, Matko Bosnjak, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2014. Lowdimensional embeddings of logic. In ACL Workshop on Semantic Parsing.
 [Rocktäschel et al.2015] Tim Rocktäschel, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2015. Injecting Logical Background Knowledge into Embeddings for Relation Extraction. In Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLTNAACL).
 [Socher et al.2013] Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2013. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS).
 [Toutanova et al.2015] Kristina Toutanova, Danqi Chen, Patrick Pantel, Hoifung Poon, Pallavi Choudhury, and Michael Gamon. 2015. Representing text for joint embedding of text and knowledge bases. In EMNLP.
 [Vendrov et al.2016] Ivan Vendrov, Ryan Kiros, Sanja Fidler, and Raquel Urtasun. 2016. Orderembeddings of images and language. arXiv preprint, abs/1511.06361.
 [Verga and McCallum2016] Patrick Verga and Andrew McCallum. 2016. Rowless universal schema. In NAACL Workshop on Automated Knowledge Base Construction (AKBC).
 [Verga et al.2016] Patrick Verga, David Belanger, Emma Strubell, Benjamin Roth, and Andrew McCallum. 2016. Multilingual relation extraction using compositional universal schema. In Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLTNAACL), pages 886–896. ACL.
 [Wang and Cohen2016] William Yang Wang and William W. Cohen. 2016. Learning firstorder logic embeddings via matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), New York, NY, July. AAAI.
 [Wang et al.2014] William Yang Wang, Kathryn Mazaitis, and William W Cohen. 2014. Structure learning via parameter learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1199–1208. ACM.
 [Wang et al.2015] Quan Wang, Bin Wang, and Li Guo. 2015. Knowledge base completion using embeddings and rules. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 1859–1865. AAAI Press.
 [Wei et al.2015] Zhuoyu Wei, Jun Zhao, Kang Liu, Zhenyu Qi, Zhengya Sun, and Guanhua Tian. 2015. Largescale knowledge base completion: Inferring via grounding network sampling over selected instances. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 1331–1340. ACM.
 [Wu et al.2015] Fei Wu, Jun Song, Yi Yang, Xi Li, Zhongfei Zhang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2015. Structured embedding via pairwise relations and longrange interactions in knowledge base. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1663–1670.