Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.20294

A Hierarchical Bayesian Model for Selecting Relevant Schema Subgraphs,with an Application to Grounding Large Language Models

Abstract

Grounding a large language model on a relational database requires selecting the tables and joins relevant to a query. Existing schema-linking methods usually score tables or columns independently, although the target object is typically a connected subgraph of the foreign-key graph. We propose a hierarchical Bayesian model for schema linking as structured subset selection on small attributed graphs. Unary evidence from query-table and query-column features is combined with a pairwise autologistic coupling on foreign-key edges, allowing weakly-signalled tables to be selected when they connect other relevant tables. Database-level random effects model variation in the baseline inclusion rate and coupling strength, and the small size of the schema graphs permits exact evaluation of the conditional likelihood and inclusion probabilities, which we average over a Laplace approximation to the parameter posterior. On the benchmark datasets BIRD and Spider, positive graph coupling recovers tables missed by independent scoring but shifts the marginal inclusion probabilities upward. Jointly estimating the intercept and coupling restores calibration, and database-level partial pooling adapts the structural effect across schemas. The graph-coupled posterior assigns more probability to the exact relevant subgraph and produces informative predictive sets with near-nominal coverage, whereas predictive sets from the corresponding independent model undercover. The fitted model also reports a posterior over how strongly to weight the graph in each database. Stability and mean-shift results explain when coupling aids recovery and why the intercept must compensate for it. We therefore evaluate the method primarily as a posterior predictive distribution over table subsets rather than as a precision-maximizing selector.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert Richardson. 2026-07-29. A Hierarchical Bayesian Model for Selecting Relevant Schema Subgraphs,with an Application to Grounding Large Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20294

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗