Inductive Relation Prediction by Subgraph Reasoning
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
The dominant paradigm for relation prediction in knowledge graphs involves learning and operating on latent representations (i.e., embeddings) of entities and relations. However, these embedding-based methods do not explicitly capture the compositional logical rules underlying the knowledge graph, and they are limited to the transductive setting, where the full set of entities must be known during training. Here, we propose a graph neural network based relation prediction framework, GraIL, that reasons over local subgraph structures and has a strong inductive bias to learn entity-independent relational semantics. Unlike embedding-based models, GraIL is naturally inductive and can generalize to unseen entities and graphs after training. We provide theoretical proof and strong empirical evidence that GraIL can represent a useful subset of first-order logic and show that GraIL outperforms existing rule-induction baselines in the inductive setting. We also demonstrate significant gains obtained by ensembling GraIL with various knowledge graph embedding methods in the transductive setting, highlighting the complementary inductive bias of our method.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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