Understanding the meaning of data is crucial for performing data analysis, yet for the users to gain insight into the content and structure of their database, a tedious data exploration process is often required [2, 16]. A common industry practice taken on by specialists such as Knowledge Engineers is to explicitly construct an intermediate layer between the database and the user -- a semantic layer -- abstracting away certain details of the database schema in favor of clearer data semantics [3, 10]. In the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), industry practitioners and researchers attempt to circumvent this costly process using LLM-powered Natural Language Interfaces [4, 6, 12, 18, 19, 22]. The promise of such Text-to-SQL solutions is to allow users without technical expertise to seamlessly interact with databases. For example, a new company employee could effectively issue queries in natural language without programming expertise or even explicit knowledge of the database structure, e.g., knowing the names of entities or properties, the exact location of data sources, etc.

We analyze a general problem in a crowd-sourced setting where one user asks a question (also called item) and other users return answers (also called labels) for this question. Different from existing crowd sourcing work which focuses on finding the most appropriate label for the question (the "truth"), our problem is to determine a ranking of the users based on their ability to answer questions. We call this problem "ability discovery" to emphasize the connection to and duality with the more well-studied problem of "truth discovery". To model items and their labels in a principled way, we draw upon Item Response Theory (IRT) which is the widely accepted theory behind standardized tests such as SAT and GRE. We start from an idealized setting where the relative performance of users is consistent across items and better users choose better fitting labels for each item. We posit that a principled algorithmic solution to our more general problem should solve this ideal setting correctly and observe that the response matrices in this setting obey the Consecutive Ones Property (C1P). While C1P is well understood algorithmically with various discrete algorithms, we devise a novel variant of the HITS algorithm which we call "HITSNDIFFS" (or HND), and prove that it can recover the ideal C1P-permutation in case it exists. Unlike fast combinatorial algorithms for finding the consecutive ones permutation (if it exists), HND also returns an ordering when such a permutation does not exist. Thus it provides a principled heuristic for our problem that is guaranteed to return the correct answer in the ideal setting. Our experiments show that HND produces user rankings with robustly high accuracy compared to state-of-the-art truth discovery methods. We also show that our novel variant of HITS scales better in the number of users than ABH, the only prior spectral C1P reconstruction algorithm.

We consider learning a probabilistic classifier from partially-labelled supervision (inputs denoted with multiple possibilities) using standard neural architectures with a softmax as the final layer. We identify a bias phenomenon that can arise from the softmax layer in even simple architectures that prevents proper exploration of alternative options, making the dynamics of gradient descent overly sensitive to initialization. We introduce a novel loss function that allows for unbiased exploration within the space of alternative outputs. We give a theoretical justification for our loss function, and provide an extensive evaluation of its impact on synthetic data, on standard partially labelled benchmarks and on a contributed novel benchmark related to an existing rule learning challenge.

Belief Propagation (BP) is an iterative message-passing algorithm for performing inference in graphical models Convergent message-passing algorithms. There has (GMs), such as Markov Random Fields (MRFs). BP calculates been much research on finding variations to the update equations the marginal distribution for each unobserved node, of BP that guarantee convergence. These algorithms conditional on any observed nodes (Pearl 1988). It achieves are often similar in structure to the nonconvergent algorithms, this by propagating the information from a few observed yet it can be proven that the value of the variational nodes throughout the network by iteratively passing information problem (or its dual) improves at each iteration (Hazan and between neighboring nodes. It is known that when Shashua 2008; Heskes 2006; Meltzer, Globerson, and Weiss the graphical model has a tree structure, then BP converges 2009). Another body of recent papers have suggested to to the true marginals (according to exact probabilistic inference) solve the convergence problems of MMinference by linearizing after a finite number of iterations.

Belief Propagation (BP) is a widely used approximation for exact probabilistic inference in graphical models, such as Markov Random Fields (MRFs). In graphs with cycles, however, no exact convergence guarantees for BP are known, in general. For the case when all edges in the MRF carry the same symmetric, doubly stochastic potential, recent works have proposed to approximate BP by linearizing the update equations around default values, which was shown to work well for the problem of node classification. The present paper generalizes all prior work and derives an approach that approximates loopy BP on any pairwise MRF with the problem of solving a linear equation system. This approach combines exact convergence guarantees and a fast matrix implementation with the ability to model heterogenous networks. Experiments on synthetic graphs with planted edge potentials show that the linearization has comparable labeling accuracy as BP for graphs with weak potentials, while speeding-up inference by orders of magnitude.

Probabilistic inference over large data sets is a challenging data management problem since exact inference is generally #P-hard and is most often solved approximately with sampling-based methods today. This paper proposes an alternative approach for approximate evaluation of conjunctive queries with standard relational databases: In our approach, every query is evaluated entirely in the database engine by evaluating a fixed number of query plans, each providing an upper bound on the true probability, then taking their minimum. We provide an algorithm that takes into account important schema information to enumerate only the minimal necessary plans among all possible plans. Importantly, this algorithm is a strict generalization of all known PTIME self-join-free conjunctive queries: A query is in PTIME if and only if our algorithm returns one single plan. Furthermore, our approach is a generalization of a family of efficient ranking methods from graphs to hypergraphs. We also adapt three relational query optimization techniques to evaluate all necessary plans very fast. We give a detailed experimental evaluation of our approach and, in the process, provide a new way of thinking about the value of probabilistic methods over non-probabilistic methods for ranking query answers. We also note that the techniques developed in this paper apply immediately to lifted inference from statistical relational models since lifted inference corresponds to PTIME plans in probabilistic databases.

How can we tell when accounts are fake or real in a social network? And how can we tell which accounts belong to liberal, conservative or centrist users? Often, we can answer such questions and label nodes in a network based on the labels of their neighbors and appropriate assumptions of homophily ("birds of a feather flock together") or heterophily ("opposites attract"). One of the most widely used methods for this kind of inference is Belief Propagation (BP) which iteratively propagates the information from a few nodes with explicit labels throughout a network until convergence. One main problem with BP, however, is that there are no known exact guarantees of convergence in graphs with loops. This paper introduces Linearized Belief Propagation (LinBP), a linearization of BP that allows a closed-form solution via intuitive matrix equations and, thus, comes with convergence guarantees. It handles homophily, heterophily, and more general cases that arise in multi-class settings. Plus, it allows a compact implementation in SQL. The paper also introduces Single-pass Belief Propagation (SBP), a "localized" version of LinBP that propagates information across every edge at most once and for which the final class assignments depend only on the nearest labeled neighbors. In addition, SBP allows fast incremental updates in dynamic networks. Our runtime experiments show that LinBP and SBP are orders of magnitude faster than standard

An answer to a query has a well-defined lineage expression (alternatively called how-provenance) that explains how the answer was derived. Recent work has also shown how to compute the lineage of a non-answer to a query. However, the cause of an answer or non-answer is a more subtle notion and consists, in general, of only a fragment of the lineage. In this paper, we adapt Halpern, Pearl, and Chockler's recent definitions of causality and responsibility to define the causes of answers and non-answers to queries, and their degree of responsibility. Responsibility captures the notion of degree of causality and serves to rank potentially many causes by their relative contributions to the effect. Then, we study the complexity of computing causes and responsibilities for conjunctive queries. It is known that computing causes is NP-complete in general. Our first main result shows that all causes to conjunctive queries can be computed by a relational query which may involve negation. Thus, causality can be computed in PTIME, and very efficiently so. Next, we study computing responsibility. Here, we prove that the complexity depends on the conjunctive query and demonstrate a dichotomy between PTIME and NP-complete cases. For the PTIME cases, we give a non-trivial algorithm, consisting of a reduction to the max-flow computation problem. Finally, we prove that, even when it is in PTIME, responsibility is complete for LOGSPACE, implying that, unlike causality, it cannot be computed by a relational query.

We propose a database model that allows users to annotate data with belief statements. Our motivation comes from scientific database applications where a community of users is working together to assemble, revise, and curate a shared data repository. As the community accumulates knowledge and the database content evolves over time, it may contain conflicting information and members can disagree on the information it should store. For example, Alice may believe that a tuple should be in the database, whereas Bob disagrees. He may also insert the reason why he thinks Alice believes the tuple should be in the database, and explain what he thinks the correct tuple should be instead. We propose a formal model for Belief Databases that interprets users' annotations as belief statements. These annotations can refer both to the base data and to other annotations. We give a formal semantics based on a fragment of multi-agent epistemic logic and define a query language over belief databases. We then prove a key technical result, stating that every belief database can be encoded as a canonical Kripke structure. We use this structure to describe a relational representation of belief databases, and give an algorithm for translating queries over the belief database into standard relational queries. Finally, we report early experimental results with our prototype implementation on synthetic data.

In this paper, we propose causality as a unified framework to explain query answers and non-answers, thus generalizing and extending several previously proposed approaches of provenance and missing query result explanations. We develop our framework starting from the well-studied definition of actual causes by Halpern and Pearl. After identifying some undesirable characteristics of the original definition, we propose functional causes as a refined definition of causality with several desirable properties. These properties allow us to apply our notion of causality in a database context and apply it uniformly to define the causes of query results and their individual contributions in several ways: (i) we can model both provenance as well as non-answers, (ii) we can define explanations as either data in the input relations or relational operations in a query plan, and (iii) we can give graded degrees of responsibility to individual causes, thus allowing us to rank causes. In particular, our approach allows us to explain contributions to relational aggregate functions and to rank causes according to their respective responsibilities. We give complexity results and describe polynomial algorithms for evaluating causality in tractable cases. Throughout the paper, we illustrate the applicability of our framework with several examples. Overall, we develop in this paper the theoretical foundations of causality theory in a database context.