Join Bayes Nets: A new type of Bayes net for relational data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many databases store data in relational format, with different types of entities and information about links between the entities. The field of statistical-relational learning has developed a number of new statistical models for such data. Instead of introducing a new model class, we propose using a standard model class—Bayes nets—in a new way: Join Bayes nets contain nodes that correspond to the descriptive attributes of the database tables, plus Boolean relationship nodes that indicate the presence of a link. Join Bayes nets are class-level models whose random variables describe attributes of generic individuals (e.g., age(P) rather than age(Jack) where P stands for a randomly selected person). As Join Bayes nets are just a special type of Bayes net, their semantics is standard (edges denote direct associations, d-separation implies probabilistic independence etc.), and Bayes net inference algorithms can be used “as is ” to answer probabilistic queries involving relations. We present a dynamic programming algorithm for estimating the parameters of a Join Bayes net and discuss how Join Bayes Nets model various well-known statistical-relational phenomena like autocorrelation and aggregation. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".