The Structure Gap: When More Data Cannot Replace Structured Reasoning

A natural strategy for inverse problems with scarce labelled data is to transfer relational structure learned from abundant forward-simulation data. We show this strategy fails systematically, even when it satisfies the standard theoretical justification for why structure should help. We prove that approximate structure provides estimation-error benefits whenever the edge error satisfies $Δ< n^2 - kn$, reducing sample complexity from $O(n^2)$ to $O(kn+Δ)$. Structure learned via Neural Relational Inference (NRI) from dynamics prediction satisfies this condition, yet on a source-localisation task across 180 CFD-simulated hydrogen-leak scenarios and 180 acoustic scenarios, it degrades performance by 116% and 201% relative to a flexible, task-optimised attention baseline, while a physics-based prior (Green's function) degrades by only 69-72%. Four independent lines of evidence show this is not a tuning failure: NRI improves only 0.5% when given 18x more training data (versus 16.6% for the task-optimised baseline, $p<0.001$); performance is insensitive to the NRI edge threshold across a wide range; the dynamics-learned graph overlaps the task-optimal graph on only 6% of edges; and two further dynamics-derived structure estimators (correlation- and mutual-information-based) show no measurable benefit over a structure-free baseline, with the correlation-based estimator performing markedly worse. We formalise this gap as a statement about approximation error that the edge-accuracy condition cannot control, and we provide a lightweight transferability test (Jaccard similarity against a partially-observed target-task graph) that separates successful from failed transfer in all four domain/structure pairs we evaluate, using under an hour of computation and 15-20% of target-domain data; we present this as a heuristic calibrated on few cases, not a validated general threshold.

We study constraint-based structure learning of Markov networks and Bayesian networks in the presence of an unreliable conditional independence oracle that makes at most a bounded number of errors. For Markov networks, we observe that a low maximum number of vertex-wise disjoint paths implies that the structure is uniquely identifiable even if the number of errors is (moderately) exponential in the number of vertices. For Bayesian networks, however, we prove that one cannot tolerate any errors to always identify the structure even when many commonly used graph parameters like treewidth are bounded. Finally, we give algorithms for structure learning when the structure is uniquely identifiable.

Machine learning is usually evaluated after an evidence interface has been fixed. A dataset, sensor suite, query language, action set, or experimental protocol determines which observations can be obtained, and learning is judged by what it extracts from them. We study a complementary capability. A learner's state can determine which evidence-generating experiments it can reliably realise under bounded resources, even when primitive affordances remain fixed. We call this learner-relative experiment family its effective epistemic reach, and use Wide Learning for task-relevant learning-induced changes in that family.We formalise effective reach relative to learner state, deployment budget, reliability threshold, and evaluation distribution. In a controlled construction, two hidden worlds have exactly the same public observation law. An informative diagnostic exists in a fixed five-primitive substrate. Before calibration, one address attempt realises it with probability at most $2^{-10} = 1/1024$, below a pre-specified 0.95 threshold; after calibration, held-out realisation is 1. Public-channel total variation is 0, whereas the realised diagnostic has total variation 1, and sealed binary risk moves from approximately 1/2 to 0. The construction establishes that learning can change effective epistemic reach even when primitive affordances and deployment resources are held fixed. It opens a complementary evaluation question for learning systems: not only what they infer from available evidence, but what informative evidence experience teaches them to bring within reach.