Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
102 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

GNN2R: Weakly-Supervised Rationale-Providing Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs (2312.02317v3)

Published 4 Dec 2023 in cs.CL and cs.AI

Abstract: Most current methods for multi-hop question answering (QA) over knowledge graphs (KGs) only provide final conclusive answers without explanations, such as a set of KG entities that is difficult for normal users to review and comprehend. This issue severely limits the application of KG-based QA in real-world scenarios. However, it is non-trivial to solve due to two challenges: First, annotations of reasoning chains of multi-hop questions, which could serve as supervision for explanation generation, are usually lacking. Second, it is difficult to maintain high efficiency when explicit KG triples need to be retrieved to generate explanations. In this paper, we propose a novel Graph Neural Network-based Two-Step Reasoning model (GNN2R) to solve this issue. GNN2R can provide both final answers and reasoning subgraphs as a rationale behind final answers efficiently with only weak supervision that is available through question-final answer pairs. We extensively evaluated GNN2R with detailed analyses in experiments. The results demonstrate that, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of generated explanations, GNN2R outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods that are applicable to this task. Our code and pre-trained models are available at https://github.com/ruijie-wang-uzh/GNN2R.

In the field of artificial intelligence, one area that continues to grow in importance is the ability of systems to not only provide answers based on large sets of data but also to explain the rationale behind those answers. This is particularly critical when dealing with complex data structures like Knowledge Graphs (KGs), which are a form of storing information that connects entities through relationships, resembling a network of interconnected data points.

The recent innovative model dubbed GNN2R (Graph Neural Network-based Two-Step Reasoning), addresses two key challenges in Knowledge Graph-based Question Answering (KG-based QA): how to generate explanations for the provided answers and how to do this with limited training data—referred to as weak supervision. Moreover, the model emphasizes the need for high efficiency, recognizing that speed is a crucial factor in real-world applications.

The essence of GNN2R lies in its two-step process. In the first step, called GNN-based coarse reasoning, a newly devised graph neural network (GNN) is employed to encode the question and entities from a KG into a joint space where questions can be effectively matched with their answers. This is critical for quickly narrowing down potential responses and associated justifications. In the second step, dubbed LM-based explicit reasoning, a LLM (LM) is refined through custom algorithms to sift through candidate reasoning subgraphs. It selects those that semantically align with the posed question, thereby concluding with both the correct answer and a clear justification based on the knowledge graph's structure.

An extensive series of experiments conducted on commonly adopted benchmark datasets reveal that GNN2R outperforms state-of-the-art methods in KG-based QA, providing both accurate answers and more importantly, rationales that are understandable to users. On datasets that benchmark multi-hop QA, where understanding relationships across multiple layers is necessary, GNN2R presents significant improvements. Moreover, it also performs efficiently, with the ability to answer questions within the time ranges that are considered non-disruptive in interactive user experiences.

An interesting component of the GNN2R approach is the weakly supervised learning aspect, in which only question-answer pairs are used for training rather than requiring fully annotated reasoning paths or explanations. This is an important feature considering that, in real-world scenarios, obtaining full annotations can be costly or infeasible.

A unique contribution of GNN2R to the field of explainable AI and KGs is the quality of its generated explanations. Unlike previous approaches, which might provide reasoning chains that are either too general or not semantically aligned with the user's query, GNN2R ensures that its generated rationalizations are both concise and relevant, addressing the user's intent accurately. This brings a substantial improvement in terms of the precision, recall, and overall quality of explanations compared to other reasoning-based methods.

The model's potential extends beyond simply answering the question of which entity or entities satisfy the query. It could pave the way for building KG chatbots—systems capable of holding conversations with users while providing justifiable and transparent responses generated from vast interconnected datasets.

In conclusion, GNN2R represents a significant step forward in the integration of knowledge graphs and artificial intelligence. Not only does it provide a method for efficiently and correctly answering complex multi-hop questions, but it also enhances user trust and understanding by offering clear and justifiable reasoning paths. As the authors look toward future work, they envision generating even more natural explanations and putting them to the test in real-world scenarios, continuing the advancement towards more transparent and user-friendly AI systems.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. Y. Lan, G. He, J. Jiang, J. Jiang, W. X. Zhao, and J. Wen, “Complex knowledge base question answering: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 11 196–11 215, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2022.3223858
  2. J. Pérez, M. Arenas, and C. Gutierrez, “Semantics and complexity of SPARQL,” ACM Trans. Database Syst., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 16:1–16:45, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1567274.1567278
  3. S. Seo, B. Oh, E. Jo, S. Lee, D. Lee, K. Lee, D. Shin, and Y. Lee, “Active learning for knowledge graph schema expansion,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 5610–5620, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2021.3070317
  4. R. Das, M. Zaheer, D. Thai, A. Godbole, E. Perez, J. Lee, L. Tan, L. Polymenakos, and A. McCallum, “Case-based reasoning for natural language queries over knowledge bases,” CoRR, vol. abs/2104.08762, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08762
  5. S. Ravishankar, J. Thai, I. Abdelaziz, N. Mihindukulasooriya, T. Naseem, P. Kapanipathi, G. Rossillo, and A. Fokoue, “A two-stage approach towards generalization in knowledge base question answering,” CoRR, vol. abs/2111.05825, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05825
  6. D. Thai, S. Ravishankar, I. Abdelaziz, M. Chaudhary, N. Mihindukulasooriya, T. Naseem, R. Das, P. Kapanipathi, A. Fokoue, and A. McCallum, “Cbr-ikb: A case-based reasoning approach for question answering over incomplete knowledge bases,” CoRR, vol. abs/2204.08554, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.08554
  7. S. Cao, J. Shi, Z. Yao, X. Lv, J. Yu, L. Hou, J. Li, Z. Liu, and J. Xiao, “Program transfer for answering complex questions over knowledge bases,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022, pp. 8128–8140. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.559
  8. Y. Shu, Z. Yu, Y. Li, B. F. Karlsson, T. Ma, Y. Qu, and C. Lin, “TIARA: multi-grained retrieval for robust question answering over large knowledge bases,” CoRR, vol. abs/2210.12925, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.12925
  9. K. Affolter, K. Stockinger, and A. Bernstein, “A comparative survey of recent natural language interfaces for databases,” VLDB J., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 793–819, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-019-00567-8
  10. Y. Chen, H. Li, G. Qi, T. Wu, and T. Wang, “Outlining and filling: Hierarchical query graph generation for answering complex questions over knowledge graphs,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 8343–8357, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2022.3207477
  11. A. Saha, G. A. Ansari, A. Laddha, K. Sankaranarayanan, and S. Chakrabarti, “Complex program induction for querying knowledge bases in the absence of gold programs,” Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, vol. 7, pp. 185–200, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00262
  12. A. Bordes, N. Usunier, S. Chopra, and J. Weston, “Large-scale simple question answering with memory networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1506.02075, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02075
  13. H. Sun, B. Dhingra, M. Zaheer, K. Mazaitis, R. Salakhutdinov, and W. W. Cohen, “Open domain question answering using early fusion of knowledge bases and text,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018, pp. 4231–4242. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/d18-1455
  14. H. Sun, T. Bedrax-Weiss, and W. W. Cohen, “Pullnet: Open domain question answering with iterative retrieval on knowledge bases and text,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 2380–2390.
  15. A. Saxena, A. Tripathi, and P. P. Talukdar, “Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020, pp. 4498–4507. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.412
  16. R. Wang, L. Rossetto, M. Cochez, and A. Bernstein, “QAGCN: A graph convolutional network-based multi-relation question answering system,” CoRR, vol. abs/2206.01818, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.01818
  17. Y. Yan, R. Li, S. Wang, H. Zhang, Z. Daoguang, F. Zhang, W. Wu, and W. Xu, “Large-scale relation learning for question answering over knowledge bases with pre-trained language models,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, pp. 3653–3660. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.296
  18. R. Das, S. Dhuliawala, M. Zaheer, L. Vilnis, I. Durugkar, A. Krishnamurthy, A. Smola, and A. McCallum, “Go for a walk and arrive at the answer: Reasoning over paths in knowledge bases using reinforcement learning,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings.   OpenReview.net, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=Syg-YfWCW
  19. M. Zhou, M. Huang, and X. Zhu, “An interpretable reasoning network for multi-relation question answering,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2018, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, August 20-26, 2018.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018, pp. 2010–2022. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/C18-1171/
  20. Y. Qiu, Y. Wang, X. Jin, and K. Zhang, “Stepwise reasoning for multi-relation question answering over knowledge graph with weak supervision,” in WSDM ’20: The Thirteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Houston, TX, USA, February 3-7, 2020.   ACM, 2020, pp. 474–482.
  21. J. Shi, S. Cao, L. Hou, J. Li, and H. Zhang, “Transfernet: An effective and transparent framework for multi-hop question answering over relation graph,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, pp. 4149–4158. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.341
  22. Y. Wang, V. Srinivasan, and H. Jin, “A new concept of knowledge based question answering (KBQA) system for multi-hop reasoning,” in Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022, pp. 4007–4017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.294
  23. G. He, Y. Lan, J. Jiang, W. X. Zhao, and J. Wen, “Improving multi-hop knowledge base question answering by learning intermediate supervision signals,” in WSDM ’21, The Fourteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Israel, March 8-12, 2021.   ACM, 2021, pp. 553–561.
  24. R. Omar, O. Mangukiya, P. Kalnis, and E. Mansour, “Chatgpt versus traditional question answering for knowledge graphs: Current status and future directions towards knowledge graph chatbots,” CoRR, vol. abs/2302.06466, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.06466
  25. Y. Tan, D. Min, Y. Li, W. Li, N. Hu, Y. Chen, and G. Qi, “Can chatgpt replace traditional KBQA models? an in-depth analysis of the question answering performance of the GPT LLM family,” in The Semantic Web - ISWC 2023 - 22nd International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, Greece, November 6-10, 2023, Proceedings, Part I, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14265.   Springer, 2023, pp. 348–367. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47240-4_19
  26. K. Sun, Y. E. Xu, H. Zha, Y. Liu, and X. L. Dong, “Head-to-tail: How knowledgeable are large language models (llm)? A.K.A. will llms replace knowledge graphs?” CoRR, vol. abs/2308.10168, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.10168
  27. K. Andriopoulos and J. Pouwelse, “Augmenting llms with knowledge: A survey on hallucination prevention,” CoRR, vol. abs/2309.16459, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.16459
  28. H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, A. Rodriguez, A. Joulin, E. Grave, and G. Lample, “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” CoRR, vol. abs/2302.13971, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.13971
  29. N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 3980–3990. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1410
  30. T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean, “Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, 2013, pp. 3111–3119. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2013/hash/9aa42b31882ec039965f3c4923ce901b-Abstract.html
  31. J. Pennington, R. Socher, and C. D. Manning, “Glove: Global vectors for word representation,” in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar.   ACL, 2014, pp. 1532–1543. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/d14-1162
  32. J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers).   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 4171–4186.
  33. M. Zhu, Z. Deng, W. Xiong, M. Yu, M. Zhang, and W. Y. Wang, “Neural correction model for open-domain named entity recognition,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06058
  34. K. Cho, B. van Merrienboer, Ç. Gülçehre, D. Bahdanau, F. Bougares, H. Schwenk, and Y. Bengio, “Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation,” in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar.   ACL, 2014, pp. 1724–1734. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/d14-1179
  35. W. Yih, M. Richardson, C. Meek, M. Chang, and J. Suh, “The value of semantic parse labeling for knowledge base question answering,” in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 2: Short Papers.   The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p16-2033
  36. A. Talmor and J. Berant, “The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 1 (Long Papers).   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018, pp. 641–651. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-1059
  37. K. D. Bollacker, C. Evans, P. K. Paritosh, T. Sturge, and J. Taylor, “Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 10-12, 2008.   ACM, 2008, pp. 1247–1250. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1376616.1376746
  38. W. Yih, M. Chang, X. He, and J. Gao, “Semantic parsing via staged query graph generation: Question answering with knowledge base,” in Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers.   The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2015, pp. 1321–1331. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/p15-1128
  39. T. H. Haveliwala, “Topic-sensitive pagerank,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2002, May 7-11, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.   ACM, 2002, pp. 517–526. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/511446.511513
  40. J. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Yu, J. Tang, J. Tang, C. Li, and H. Chen, “Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022.   Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022, pp. 5773–5784. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.396
  41. J. Berant, A. Chou, R. Frostig, and P. Liang, “Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2013, 18-21 October 2013, Grand Hyatt Seattle, Seattle, Washington, USA.   ACL, 2013, pp. 1533–1544. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/D13-1160/
  42. T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” in 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings.   OpenReview.net, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=SJU4ayYgl
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Ruijie Wang (43 papers)
  2. Luca Rossetto (21 papers)
  3. Michael Cochez (40 papers)
  4. Abraham Bernstein (25 papers)