Locally Consistent Bayesian Network Scores for Multi-Relational Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important task for relational learning is Bayesian network (BN) structure learning. A fundamental component of structure learning is a model selection score that measures how well a model fits a dataset. We describe a new method that upgrades for multi-relational databases, a log-linear BN score designed for single-table i.i.d. data. Chickering and Meek showed that for i.i.d. data, standard BN scores are locally consistent, meaning that their maxima converge to an optimal model, that represents the data generating distribution {\em and} contains no redundant edges. Our main theorem establishes that if a model selection score is locally consistent for i.i.d. data, then our upgraded gain function is locally consistent for relational data as well. To our knowledge this is the first consistency result for relational structure learning. A novel aspect of our approach is employing a {\em gain function} that compares two models: a current vs. an alternative BN structure. In contrast, previous approaches employed a score that is a function of a single model only. Empirical evaluation on six benchmark relational databases shows that our gain function is also practically useful: On realistic size data sets, it selects informative BN structures with a better data fit than those selected by baseline single-model scores.
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 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".