Exploiting Determinism to Scale Relational Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One key challenge in statistical relational learning (SRL) is scalable inference. Unfortunately, most real-world problems in SRL have expressive models that translate into large grounded networks, representing a bottleneck for any inference method and weakening its scalability. In this paper we introduce Preference Relaxation (PR), a two-stage strategy that uses the determinism present in the underlying model to improve the scalability of relational inference. The basic idea of PR is that if the underlying model involves mandatory (i.e. hard) constraints as well as preferences (i.e. soft constraints) then it is potentially wasteful to allocate memory for all constraints in advance when performing inference. To avoid this, PR starts by relaxing preferences and performing inference with hard constraints only. It then removes variables that violate hard constraints, thereby avoiding irrelevant computations involving preferences. In addition it uses the removed variables to enlarge the evidence database. This reduces the effective size of the grounded network. Our approach is general and can be applied to various inference methods in relational domains. Experiments on real-world applications show how PR substantially scales relational inference with a minor impact on accuracy.
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 | 0.013 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".