Trafy
Research

How Rules Represent Causal Knowledge: Causal Modeling with Probabilistic Logic Programming

Pearl famously argues that causal knowledge enables the prediction of intervention effects. By contrast, purely descriptive knowledge supports only conclusio...

Kilian Rueckschloss·Jul 23, 2026·1 min read·Original source ↗
How Rules Represent Causal Knowledge: Causal Modeling with Probabilistic Logic Programming

How Rules Represent Causal Knowledge: Causal Modeling with Probabilistic Logic Programming2607.21208AuthorsKilian Rueckschloss,Felix WeitkaemperAbstractPearl famously argues that causal knowledge enables the prediction of intervention effects. By contrast, purely descriptive knowledge supports only conclusions drawn from observations. His theory of causality, however, is developed exclusively within Bayesian networks and causal models. Consequently, it is largely restricted to acyclic causal relationships, and transferring its ideas to other formalisms risks misinterpretation or inconsistency. This paper brings Pearl's approach to causality into probabilistic logic programming (PLP). To this end, such programs are aligned with philosophical foundations established in prior work that do not rely on temporal notions; that is, all relevant events are assumed to occur simultaneously. A formal causal semantics for these programs, together with a notion of intervention and an implementation, is proposed. It is shown that this semantics coincides with the P-log semantics for stratified ProbLog programs, while the two may differ in the non-stratified case and for other PLP formalisms.ResourcesView on Hugging FaceRead PDFArXiv

Related

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference OptimizationResearch

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization

Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, training models to resist such signals, hides a failure mode: a model that ignores all context looks robust yet is useless when the context is worth trusting. We recast the problem as selective trust and introduce MIST, a human-annotated benchmark that renders each reasoning item under four matched conditions (clean, misleading, correct-context, and irrelevant-context), together with SC2W, a paired metric counting how often a misle

arXiv (cs.AI) · Aug 6, 2026
4 min
Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference OptimizationResearch

Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization

Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, tr...

Papers with Code · Aug 6, 2026
1 min
Tracing the Heart: An Evidence-Linked Pipeline for Heart-Failure Feature EngineeringResearch

Tracing the Heart: An Evidence-Linked Pipeline for Heart-Failure Feature Engineering

Electronic health record (EHR) feature engineering is a major bottleneck in clinical research and AI, accounting for 39-45% of data scientists' workload. This is especially pronounced in heart failure, which affects an estimated 6.7 million U.S. adults and requires integrating fragmented EHR data with disease-specific, guideline-based clinical reasoning. Existing rule-based and large language model (LLM)-based approaches offer only partial automation with limited maintainability and evidence traceability. We developed the Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS), an evidence-linked, rubr

arXiv (cs.AI) · Aug 6, 2026
4 min