Critical Remarks on Single Link Search in Learning Belief Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In learning belief networks, the single link lookahead search is widely adopted to reduce the search space. We show that there exists a class of probabilistic domain models which displays a special pattern of dependency. We analyze the behavior of several learning algorithms using different scoring metrics such as the entropy, conditional independence, minimal description length and Bayesian metrics. We demonstrate that single link lookahead search procedures (employed in these algorithms) cannot learn these models correctly. Thus, when the underlying domain model actually belongs to this class, the use of a single link search procedure will result in learning of an incorrect model. This may lead to inference errors when the model is used. Our analysis suggests that if the prior knowledge about a domain does not rule out the possible existence of these models, a multi-link lookahead search or other heuristics should be used for the learning process.
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 | 0.017 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".