Representing Aggregators in Relational Probabilistic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of, given a probabilistic model on a set of random variables, how to add a new variable that depends on the other variables, without changing the original distribution. In particular, we consider relational models (such as Markov logic networks (MLNs)), where we cannot directly define conditional probabilities. In relational models, there may be an unbounded number of parents in the grounding, and conditional distributions need to be defined in terms of aggregators. The question we ask is whether and when it is possible to represent conditional probabilities at all in various relational models. Some aggregators have been shown to be representable by MLNs, by adding auxiliary variables; however it was unknown whether they could be defined without auxiliary variables. For other aggregators, it was not known whether they can be represented by MLNs at all. We obtained surprisingly strong negative results on the capability of flexible undirected relational models such as MLNs to represent aggregators without affecting the original model's distribution. We provide a map of what aspects of the models, including the use of auxiliary variables and quantifiers, result in the ability to represent various aggregators. In addition, we provide proof techniques which can be used to facilitate future theoretic results on relational models, and demonstrate them on relational logistic regression (RLR).
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".