Relevance effect: Exploiting Bayesian networks to improve supervised learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deductive logic and its variants enjoy the common property of monotonicity. For tasks such as inductive reasoning and belief revision, this was eventually deemed a serious flaw, prompting attempts to construct non-monotonic versions of logic. With the introduction of the idea of probabilistic reasoning to AI, particularly with the advent of Bayesian networks (BNs), the aforementioned monotonicity was no longer an issue: Probability is inherently non-monotonic. In this work, we introduce the notion of relevance effect which bears on exploiting BNs to generate realizations of relevant variables to be used for potentially improving the performance of a learning model on a supervised classification task. We explore the potential of using the relevance effect in the context of Deep Belief Networks (DBNs) with a focus on relational domains. We show that although the idea is at odds with the non-monotonicity of probabilistic reasoning, we attain an improvement in learning performance in different simulations on both synthetic and real-world scenarios. The observation that adopting this notion has improved the performance of a powerful model like DBNs hints to its potential to be practiced so as to enhance the performance of supervised learning methods in general. We furthermore highlight the connections as well as the implications of our work to the psychology literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".