Static Knowledge Embedding

• Static knowledge embedding is a method that encodes entities, relations, or concepts into fixed vectors or functions, preserving their semantic and structural relationships.
• Techniques include vector-space lookups, entity-agnostic compositional encoders, and function-space methods that extend classic embedding models.
• Applications span link prediction, knowledge retrieval, and model distillation, offering efficient and interpretable representations for resource-constrained deployments.

Static knowledge embedding refers to the practice of representing entities, relations, facts, or conceptual structures as fixed (non-contextual) vectorial or functional objects within a geometric, semantic, or neural space. Unlike contextual or temporal knowledge representations, static embeddings do not vary based on inference-time context or time-evolving graph structure. They serve as parameter-efficient, reusable, and in many cases, interpretable reservoirs of structured or factual knowledge, suitable for a variety of downstream applications such as link prediction, knowledge retrieval, and model distillation.

1. Foundational Concepts and Definitions

Static knowledge embedding encodes symbolic or factual elements (entities, relations, or neuron semantics) into a fixed, typically low-dimensional space, aiming to preserve salient structural or semantic relationships inherent in the source. This process can be formalized as a mapping $f:\mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ (for entities $\mathcal{E}$), or more generally, as $f:\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$, where $\mathcal{Y}$ may be a vector or a function space.

Classic approaches assign one static embedding vector per entity and relation (e.g., TransE, DistMult, ComplEx), with the full collection of embeddings forming an implicit, indexable knowledge base. Such encodings are “static” in the sense that once learned, the representations are fixed and do not change with test-time input or context. In contrast, large pretrained LLMs (PLMs) or temporally-aware embedding methods may generate contextual or adaptive entity representations (Dufter et al., 2021, Chen et al., 2023).

Static embeddings have also been conceptualized not as parameter vectors, but as parameterized functions (e.g., polynomials or neural networks), extending the representational power of conventional vector spaces (Teyou et al., 2024).

2. Methodological Variants

Approaches to static knowledge embedding vary across several methodological axes:

Vector-Space Entity/Relation Embeddings

The standard paradigm constructs lookup tables of vectors for each entity and relation in a KG. These are trained—typically via margin-based or cross-entropy objectives on true/false triple pairs—to maximize plausibility scores of observed facts, such as

$$\phi_{\mathrm{TransE}}(s, p, o) = ||e_s + e_p - e_o||_q\,,$$

where $e_s, e_p, e_o \in \mathbb{R}^d$, and $q\in\{1,2\}$ (Radstok et al., 2021). The total parameter count grows linearly with the number of entities and relations.

Entity-Agnostic and Compositional Encoders

To control parameter growth, entity-agnostic methods such as EARL encode entities through shared encoders that compose local graph signals (incident relations, k-nearest reserved entities, multi-hop neighbors) (Chen et al., 2023). Rather than storing explicit per-entity vectors, embeddings are computed on-the-fly:

• Relational feature encoding (ConRel): counts of adjacent relations projected to $\mathbb{R}^d$;
• k-Nearest Reserved Entity (kNResEnt): attention-weighted sum over a small set of trainable reserved entity embeddings based on relational similarity;
• Multi-hop GNN encoding: message passing over the entity's $L$-hop subgraph, using shared GNN parameters.

This construction permits a strict decoupling of model size from KG scale, enabling static embedding of extremely large graphs.

Function-Space Embeddings

Recent developments embed entities and relations as elements in a function space rather than as finite-dimensional vectors. Polynomial and neural network parameterizations offer additional algebraic structure and operations:

• Polynomial embedding example: for $n$-degree, $d$-dimensional polynomials,

$$h(x) = \sum_{i=0}^n a_i^{(h)} x^i,\quad r(x) = \sum_{j=0}^n b_j^{(r)} x^j,\quad t(x) = \sum_{k=0}^n c_k^{(t)} x^k,$$

with a scoring function based on the $L^2$ inner product: $$\text{score}(h,r,t) = \int_{\Omega} h(x) r(x) t(x) dx.$$ Neural approaches generalize this by using MLPs per entity/relation and enabling function composition and differentiation (Teyou et al., 2024).

Static Neuron Semantics

Beyond symbolic knowledge, static knowledge embedding has been extended to neural interpretability. Here, one learns a set of fixed semantic vectors $e_i$ aligning the activation similarity of neurons (captured empirically) with their embedding-space similarity. Distillation can then proceed solely from these static vectors, externalizing latent knowledge for low-overhead transfer (Han et al., 2022).

3. Empirical Benchmarks and Efficiency Analyses

Static knowledge embedding approaches have undergone direct comparative evaluations against both contextualized and dynamic representation methods:

• Word-level factual retrieval: Static fastText embeddings (with $10^6$ vocabulary) outperformed BERT by $1.6$ points on LAMA precision-at-1 and did so at $0.3\%$ of BERT’s energy and CO$_2$ cost across ten languages (Dufter et al., 2021). Table of precision@1 and energy cost:

Model	Vocab Size	LAMA p1	Energy (kWh)	CO$_2$ (kg)
BERT-base	110K	39.6	1,507	1,438
fastText	1,000K	41.2	5	5

• Parameter-efficiency on KGs: EARL+RotatE matched or beat RotatE and NodePiece+RotatE on FB15k-237 and WN18RR benchmarks, with substantially lower parameter counts (e.g., EARL-150d: 1.8M params, MRR = 0.310 on FB15k-237 vs. RotatE-100d: 3M params, MRR = 0.296) (Chen et al., 2023).
• Function-space approaches: FMult (neural polynomials/MLPs) beat DistMult/ComplEx on UMLS and KINSHIP (e.g., MRR ≈ .97), and surpassed DistMult on NELL-995-h50 (Hits@1 ≈ .82) (Teyou et al., 2024).

A plausible implication is that carefully designed static embedding approaches are both more resource-efficient and more competitive than contextualized or highly parameterized alternatives for knowledge storage and retrieval.

4. Integration with Complex Knowledge Resources

Temporal Knowledge Graphs

Static embeddings have been leveraged for temporally-scoped KGs either by (i) extending the embedding model to include temporal parameters or (ii) transforming the data to fit static embedding models. The SpliMe framework exemplifies the latter: it transforms a temporal KG of valid-time facts into an expanded static predicate set via timestamping, splitting, and merging operations, after which any standard static KGE method is applied (Radstok et al., 2021).

The empirical results show that such static embeddings, trained with data-centric split/merge preprocessing, can match or outperform fully temporal KGE models (e.g., SpliMe's Merge approach achieved MRR = 0.358, Hits@10 = 61.0% on Wikidata12k, outperforming all TKG baselines and simple timestamping alternatives).

Static Neuron Embeddings in Neural Networks

Static knowledge embeddings have been constructed for neural network interpretability and distillation by aligning pairwise activation similarity distributions with static semantic vectors. This makes it possible to extract and transfer knowledge without per-sample teacher guidance. On CIFAR-100, static knowledge distillation matched or slightly outperformed contrastive or relation-based distillation techniques (Han et al., 2022).

5. Interpretability, Operations, and Theoretical Properties

• Interpretability: In neural contexts, static semantic vectors can be visualized and compositional analogies explored. Neurons grouped via proximity in the static embedding space consistently activate on semantically similar features or regions, and simple arithmetic manipulations in embedding space recover interpretable neuron analogies (Han et al., 2022).
• Operations in Function Space: Function-based static embeddings support operations such as composition (enabling non-commutative relational modeling), differentiation (useful for temporal/logical generalizations), and integration. The polynomial FMult approach generalizes classic DistMult and, when using function composition, breaks scoring symmetry, allowing richer relation modeling (Teyou et al., 2024).
• Theoretical Generalization: Polynomial function embeddings recover well-known models as special cases (e.g., degree 0 over $|\Omega|=1$ yields DistMult; using imaginary coefficients yields ComplEx).

6. Advantages, Limitations, and Future Directions

Advantages:

• Static embeddings provide constant, low-latency access to knowledge representations, critical for settings with strict compute/memory budgets or the need for deployment in resource-constrained environments (e.g., federated, mobile, or streaming KGs) (Chen et al., 2023).
• They enable efficient, “green” knowledge retrieval and storage (orders of magnitude less energy and carbon emissions versus large PLMs) (Dufter et al., 2021).
• In compositional and function-based forms, static embeddings can be extended to admit new entities or relations without retraining the entire model (Chen et al., 2023, Teyou et al., 2024).

Limitations:

• Atomic, non-compositional static embeddings may struggle with unseen entities/words and large KGs if vocabulary coverage is incomplete (Dufter et al., 2021).
• The quality of entity-agnostic methods can depend on the choice of reserved entities and the expressiveness of the encoder (Chen et al., 2023).
• Function-based embeddings may underfit data when hyperparameters are poorly tuned or for highly sparse graphs (Teyou et al., 2024).

Open Directions:

• Hybrid approaches: integrating static lookups with contextualized, dynamic, or compositional encoders (Dufter et al., 2021).
• Static embedding extraction from deep PLMs or via unsupervised feature distillation (Han et al., 2022).
• Further advances in function-space static embedding to exploit analytic properties (e.g., using derivatives for temporally-aware reasoning).
• More effective hyperparameterization and regularization of entity-agnostic or GNN-based static encoders for robustness across KG topologies.

7. Representative Methods and Comparative Table

Approach	Key Principle	Efficiency/Scalability
Static vector lookup	One vector per entity	Scales linearly with
Entity-agnostic encoder	Shared GNN/MLP aggregation	Constant for fixed params
Function-space embedding	Parametric polynomials/MLPs	Constant for fixed arch.
Static neuron embedding	Fixed semantic vectors	Per-layer, per-neuron vectors

Each provides a trade-off between storage, scalability, and expressiveness. The best choice depends on the application context (e.g., language retrieval, temporal KGs, neural model distillation) and operational constraints such as memory or energy budgets.

---

Static knowledge embedding has emerged as a central methodology within knowledge representation, KG completion, and neural model interpretability. The empirical and theoretical findings summarized here underscore the continued relevance and competitive potential of static—yet highly expressive and efficient—embedding schemes for both symbolic and neural domains (Dufter et al., 2021, Chen et al., 2023, Han et al., 2022, Teyou et al., 2024, Radstok et al., 2021).