{"paper":{"title":"Causal Explanations for Stratified Datalog","arxiv_id":"2608.21141","primary_cat":"cs.DB","submitted_at":"2026-08-21T14:20:20+00:00","version_compiled":"v1"},"notice":"Every quoted sentence is the authors' text from the arXiv listing abstract. Labels and probabilities are the outputs of classifier-1.13.0 on the question bank abstract-p1-20260923, exactly as returned. No sentence in this record was written by a language model.","schema":"pith.compiled-record/v0","status":"compiled","abstract":{"source":"arXiv listing abstract v1","sentences":[{"i":0,"p":0.99,"id":"s0","own":false,"role":"background","text":"Rule-based reasoning with exceptions requires causal explanations that account for both present and absent facts.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.06,"main_claim_p":0.02,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.04,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.01,"method":0.0,"result":0.0,"background":0.99,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":1,"p":1.0,"id":"s1","own":false,"role":"background","text":"For positive Datalog, monotonicity allows minimal supports to determine deletion causality.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.1,"main_claim_p":0.02,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.06,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.0,"background":1.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":2,"p":0.91,"id":"s2","own":false,"role":"background","text":"Stratified negation removes that property because inserting or deleting a fact may create or destroy an answer.","hedge":{"p":0.98,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.09,"main_claim_p":0.02,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.08,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.09,"method":0.0,"result":0.0,"background":0.91,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":3,"p":0.99,"id":"s3","own":true,"role":"contribution","text":"We study actual causes, responsibility, and robustness for safe and stratified Datalog under perfect-model semantics and interventions over a finite set of mutable extensional facts.","hedge":{"p":0.87,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.84,"main_claim_p":0.06,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.16,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.01,"result":0.0,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.99,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":4,"p":1.0,"id":"s4","own":true,"role":"result","text":"We prove that minimal supports and inclusion-minimal outcome-changing interventions do not determine causality, while robustness radius one may coexist with unbounded minimum contingencies.","hedge":{"p":0.98,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.92,"main_claim_p":0.17,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.86,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":1.0,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":5,"p":0.76,"id":"s5","own":true,"role":"result","text":"Our main result characterizes the minimum contingency size of a candidate fact by compatible prime implicants for the observed and opposite outcomes.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.94,"main_claim_p":0.95,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.15,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.01,"result":0.76,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.23,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":6,"p":0.73,"id":"s6","own":true,"role":"interpretation","text":"The characterization conservatively recovers support-based causality for positive Datalog and yields path--cut characterizations for blocked recursive reachability.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.91,"main_claim_p":0.1,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.2,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.25,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.02,"interpretation":0.73}},{"i":7,"p":0.97,"id":"s7","own":true,"role":"result","text":"For fixed nonrecursive stratified programs, we establish data-complexity NP-completeness for cause recognition, robustness, and responsibility, and coNP-completeness for intervention-response equivalence between two such programs.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.95,"main_claim_p":0.08,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.73,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.97,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.03,"interpretation":0.0}}]},"compiled":{"main_claim":{"p":1.0,"text":"Our main result characterizes the minimum contingency size of a candidate fact by compatible prime implicants for the observed and opposite outcomes.","location":"abstract s5","hedge_strength":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"}},"provenance":{"route":{"via":"TypeSafe API","model":"classifier-1.13.0","endpoint":"https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone","provider":"TypeSafe"},"packing":"one request per paper","requests":1,"input_tokens":6258,"cost_usd_reported":0.0},"compiled_at":"2026-09-23","bank_version":"abstract-p1-20260923","model_version":"classifier-1.13.0","abstract_states":{"claims_first":0.06,"states_limitation":0.7,"human_participants":0.01,"controlled_comparison":0.04,"randomized_assignment":0.01,"states_quantitative_result":0.58,"compares_with_prior_results":0.77,"mentions_code_or_data_availability":0.02},"evidential_basis":{"p":1.0,"value":"proof or derivation","probabilities":{"argument":0.0,"literature":0.0,"proof_or_derivation":1.0,"analysis_of_existing_data":0.0,"observation_or_experiment":0.0,"simulation_or_computation":0.0}},"contribution_type":{"p":1.0,"value":"theoretical result","probabilities":{"review":0.0,"method_or_tool":0.0,"empirical_study":0.0,"simulation_study":0.0,"theoretical_result":1.0,"dataset_or_benchmark":0.0,"position_or_commentary":0.0}},"contribution_statement":{"p":0.98,"text":"Our main result characterizes the minimum contingency size of a candidate fact by compatible prime implicants for the observed and opposite outcomes.","location":"abstract s5"}},"coverage":{"tier":"abstract","levels_run":["P abstract"],"not_examined":["full text","figures and tables","references and citing sentences","relations to other papers"],"sources_read":["arXiv listing abstract v1"],"levels_not_run":["S sections","T body sentences","C citations","R cross-paper relations"],"sentences_examined":8,"sentences_in_abstract":8},"measured_accuracy":{"url":"https://pith.science/accuracy","measured_on":"2026-10-02","method":"two independent model families labelled a fresh random sample blind; the figure is how often the published label matches their consensus","sentence_role_agreement":0.92,"main_claim_agreement":0.908,"typed_citation_agreement":0.933,"typed_citation_agreement_95_interval":[0.917,0.945],"review_comments_accurate":0.758,"review_comments_accurate_95_interval":[0.684,0.82],"review_caught_admitted_error_found_or_related":0.448}}