Pre and Post Counting for Scalable Statistical-Relational Model Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical-Relational Model Discovery aims to find statistically relevant patterns in relational data. For example, a relational dependency pattern may stipulate that a user's gender is associated with the gender of their friends. As with propositional (non-relational) graphical models, the major scalability bottleneck for model discovery is computing instantiation counts: the number of times a relational pattern is instantiated in a database. Previous work on propositional learning utilized pre-counting or post-counting to solve this task. This paper takes a detailed look at the memory and speed trade-offs between pre-counting and post-counting strategies for relational learning. A pre-counting approach computes and caches instantiation counts for a large set of relational patterns before model search. A post-counting approach computes an instantiation count dynamically on-demand for each candidate pattern generated during the model search. We describe a novel hybrid approach, tailored to relational data, that achieves a sweet spot with pre-counting for patterns involving positive relationships (e.g. pairs of users who are friends) and post-counting for patterns involving negative relationships (e.g. pairs of users who are not friends). Our hybrid approach scales model discovery to millions of data facts.
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 | 0.012 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".