Unifying Post-hoc Explanations of Knowledge Graph Completions

Alessandro Lonardi, Samy Badreddine, Tarek R. Besold, Pablo Sanchez Martin
7/29/2025
cs.AIcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 5 possible matches can be shown below.

Abstract

Post-hoc explainability for Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) lacks formalization and consistent evaluations, hindering reproducibility and cross-study comparisons. This paper argues for a unified approach to post-hoc explainability in KGC. First, we propose a general framework to characterize post-hoc explanations via multi-objective optimization, balancing their effectiveness and conciseness. This unifies existing post-hoc explainability algorithms in KGC and the explanations they produce. Next, we suggest and empirically support improved evaluation protocols using popular metrics like Mean Reciprocal Rank and Hits@$k$. Finally, we stress the importance of interpretability as the ability of explanations to address queries meaningful to end-users. By unifying methods and refining evaluation standards, this work aims to make research in KGC explainability more reproducible and impactful.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 5 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{lonardi2025unifying,
  title  = {Unifying Post-hoc Explanations of Knowledge Graph Completions},
  author = {Alessandro Lonardi and Samy Badreddine and Tarek R. Besold and Pablo Sanchez Martin},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2507.22951},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22951v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2507.22951.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2507.22951)

Discussion