Lifted Hinge-Loss Markov Random Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical relational learning models are powerful tools that combine ideas from first-order logic with probabilistic graphical models to represent complex dependencies. Despite their success in encoding large problems with a compact set of weighted rules, performing inference over these models is often challenging. In this paper, we show how to effectively combine two powerful ideas for scaling inference for large graphical models. The first idea, lifted inference, is a wellstudied approach to speeding up inference in graphical models by exploiting symmetries in the underlying problem. The second idea is to frame Maximum a posteriori (MAP) inference as a convex optimization problem and use alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) to solve the problem in parallel. A well-studied relaxation to the combinatorial optimization problem defined for logical Markov random fields gives rise to a hinge-loss Markov random field (HLMRF) for which MAP inference is a convex optimization problem. We show how the formalism introduced for coloring weighted bipartite graphs using a color refinement algorithm can be integrated with the ADMM optimization technique to take advantage of the sparse dependency structures of HLMRFs. Our proposed approach, lifted hinge-loss Markov random fields (LHL-MRFs), preserves the structure of the original problem after lifting and solves lifted inference as distributed convex optimization with ADMM. In our empirical evaluation on real-world problems, we observe up to a three times speed up in inference over HL-MRFs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".