RelNN: A Deep Neural Model for Relational Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical relational AI (StarAI) aims at reasoning and learning in noisy domains described in terms of objects and relationships by combining probability with first-order logic. With huge advances in deep learning in the current years, combining deep networks with first-order logic has been the focus of several recent studies. Many of the existing attempts, however, only focus on relations and ignore object properties. The attempts that do consider object properties are limited in terms of modelling power or scalability. In this paper, we develop relational neural networks (RelNNs) by adding hidden layers to relational logistic regression (the relational counterpart of logistic regression). We learn latent properties for objects both directly and through general rules. Back-propagation is used for training these models. A modular, layer-wise architecture facilitates utilizing the techniques developed within deep learning community to our architecture. Initial experiments on eight tasks over three real-world datasets show that RelNNs are promising models for relational learning.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it