Why Isn't Relational Learning Taking Over the World?
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
Artificial intelligence seems to be taking over the world with systems that model pixels, words, and phonemes. The world is arguably made up, not of pixels, words, and phonemes but of entities (objects, things, including events) with properties and relations among them. Surely we should model these, not the perception or description of them. You might suspect that concentrating on modeling words and pixels is because all of the (valuable) data in the world is in terms of text and images. If you look into almost any company you will find their most valuable data is in spreadsheets, databases and other relational formats. These are not the form that are studied in introductory machine learning, but are full of product numbers, student numbers, transaction numbers and other identifiers that can't be interpreted naively as numbers. The field that studies this sort of data has various names including relational learning, statistical relational AI, and many others. This paper explains why relational learning is not taking over the world -- except in a few cases with restricted relations -- and what needs to be done to bring it to it's rightful prominence.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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