MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416968636 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01878

Graph Distance as Surprise: Free Energy Minimization in Knowledge Graph Reasoning

2025· preprint· W4416968636 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta InnovatesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAthabasca University
KeywordsSurpriseGraphNull graphMoral graphClique-widthDirected graphGraph theoryGraph rewriting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we propose that reasoning in knowledge graph (KG) networks can be guided by surprise minimization. Entities that are close in graph distance will have lower surprise than those farther apart. This connects the Free Energy Principle (FEP) from neuroscience to KG systems, where the KG serves as the agent's generative model. We formalize surprise using the shortest-path distance in directed graphs and provide a framework for KG-based agents. Graph distance appears in graph neural networks as message passing depth and in model-based reinforcement learning as world model trajectories. This work-in-progress study explores whether distance-based surprise can extend recent work showing that syntax minimizes surprise and free energy via tree structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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