Rule2Text: Natural Language Explanation of Logical Rules in Knowledge Graphs

Knowledge graphs (KGs) often contain sufficient information to support the inference of new facts. Identifying logical rules not only improves the completeness of a knowledge graph but also enables the detection of potential errors, reveals subtle data patterns, and enhances the overall capacity for reasoning and interpretation. However, the complexity of such rules, combined with the unique labeling conventions of each KG, can make them difficult for humans to understand. In this paper, we explore the potential of large language models to generate natural language explanations for logical rules. Specifically, we extract logical rules using the AMIE 3.5.1 rule discovery algorithm from the benchmark dataset FB15k-237 and two large-scale datasets, FB-CVT-REV and FB+CVT-REV. We examine various prompting strategies, including zero- and few-shot prompting, including variable entity types, and chain-of-thought reasoning. We conduct a comprehensive human evaluation of the generated explanations based on correctness, clarity, and hallucination, and also assess the use of large language models as automatic judges. Our results demonstrate promising performance in terms of explanation correctness and clarity, although several challenges remain for future research. All scripts and data used in this study are publicly available at https://github.com/idirlab/KGRule2NL}{https://github.com/idirlab/KGRule2NL.

On Large-scale Evaluation of Embedding Models for Knowledge Graph Completion

Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models are extensively studied for knowledge graph completion, yet their evaluation remains constrained by unrealistic benchmarks. Commonly used datasets are either faulty or too small to reflect real-world data. Few studies examine the role of mediator nodes, which are essential for modeling n-ary relationships, or investigate model performance variation across domains. Standard evaluation metrics rely on the closed-world assumption, which penalizes models for correctly predicting missing triples, contradicting the fundamental goals of link prediction. These metrics often compress accuracy assessment into a single value, obscuring models' specific strengths and weaknesses. The prevailing evaluation protocol operates under the unrealistic assumption that an entity's properties, for which values are to be predicted, are known in advance. While alternative protocols such as property prediction, entity-pair ranking and triple classification address some of these limitations, they remain underutilized. This paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of four representative KGE models on large-scale datasets FB-CVT-REV and FB+CVT-REV. Our analysis reveals critical insights, including substantial performance variations between small and large datasets, both in relative rankings and absolute metrics, systematic overestimation of model capabilities when n-ary relations are binarized, and fundamental limitations in current evaluation protocols and metrics.