MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949932421 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.7835

Fast Learning of Relational Dependency Networks

2014· preprint· en· W2949932421 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Schulte, Zhensong Qian, Arthur E. Kirkpatrick, Xiaoqian Yin, Yan V. Sun

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoosting (machine learning)Statistical relational learningComputer scienceBayesian networkTupleArtificial intelligenceRelational databaseBenchmark (surveying)Machine learningDependency (UML)Naive Bayes classifierBayes' theoremData miningBayesian probabilityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Relational Dependency Network (RDN) is a directed graphical model widely used for multi-relational data. These networks allow cyclic dependencies, necessary to represent relational autocorrelations. We describe an approach for learning both the RDN's structure and its parameters, given an input relational database: First learn a Bayesian network (BN), then transform the Bayesian network to an RDN. Thus fast Bayes net learning can provide fast RDN learning. The BN-to-RDN transform comprises a simple, local adjustment of the Bayes net structure and a closed-form transform of the Bayes net parameters. This method can learn an RDN for a dataset with a million tuples in minutes. We empirically compare our approach to state-of-the art RDN learning methods that use functional gradient boosting, on five benchmark datasets. Learning RDNs via BNs scales much better to large datasets than learning RDNs with boosting, and provides competitive accuracy in predictions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.117 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207