Initial Analysis of PMA Summary Tables
Shreedip Das
2026-05-18
1. Purpose of this analysis
The original PMA data file contains one record for each satisfying individual selection. Each PMA record has the structure:
pma(CTID, Type, NInd, ConjID, Prefix, Conds, Alts, In, Result)
The goal of this analysis is to summarize the large PMA output into interpretable patterns. I am especially interested in which axiom components produce many satisfying cases, which individuals and variable patterns are common, which condition and alternative predicates dominate, and whether any support or assumption patterns look unusual.
2. Basic PMA record volume
| total_satisfying_records | rows_in_pma_summary |
|---|---|
| 3926056 | 563 |
3. Question 1: Which rule types produce the most satisfying records?
| Type | total_count | percent |
|---|---|---|
| cona | 3842801 | 97.8794240 |
| unca | 36147 | 0.9206950 |
| horn | 31124 | 0.7927549 |
| cscj | 15984 | 0.4071261 |
Interpretation to write: This table shows whether the satisfying records are spread across rule types or concentrated in one type. If one type dominates, then the later analysis should pay special attention to that rule type.
4. Question 2: Which CTIDs dominate the satisfying records?
| CTID | Type | NInd | total_count | percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | cona | 38 | 1052096 | 26.797784 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | 211944 | 5.398395 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | 211944 | 5.398395 |
| 200 | cona | 97 | 117744 | 2.999040 |
| 204 | cona | 97 | 117744 | 2.999040 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 2.723140 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 2.723140 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | 105972 | 2.699197 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | 105972 | 2.699197 |
| 201 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.202923 |
| 202 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.202923 |
| 205 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.202923 |
| 206 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.202923 |
| 223 | cona | 98 | 60102 | 1.530849 |
| 232 | cona | 98 | 60102 | 1.530849 |
| 225 | cona | 98 | 54648 | 1.391931 |
| 228 | cona | 98 | 54648 | 1.391931 |
| 447 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.188368 |
| 450 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.188368 |
| 453 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.188368 |
Interpretation to write: CTIDs with very high counts are important because they account for a large part of the satisfying model-checking output. These are good candidates for closer inspection.
5. Question 3: Are satisfying records concentrated in a few CTIDs?
| CTID | Type | NInd | total_count | percent | rank | cumulative_count | cumulative_percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | cona | 38 | 1052096 | 26.7977838 | 1 | 1052096 | 26.79778 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | 211944 | 5.3983947 | 2 | 1264040 | 32.19618 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | 211944 | 5.3983947 | 3 | 1475984 | 37.59457 |
| 200 | cona | 97 | 117744 | 2.9990403 | 4 | 1593728 | 40.59361 |
| 204 | cona | 97 | 117744 | 2.9990403 | 5 | 1711472 | 43.59265 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 2.7231400 | 6 | 1818384 | 46.31579 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 2.7231400 | 7 | 1925296 | 49.03893 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | 105972 | 2.6991974 | 8 | 2031268 | 51.73813 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | 105972 | 2.6991974 | 9 | 2137240 | 54.43733 |
| 201 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 10 | 2223728 | 56.64025 |
| 202 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 11 | 2310216 | 58.84317 |
| 205 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 12 | 2396704 | 61.04610 |
| 206 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 13 | 2483192 | 63.24902 |
| 223 | cona | 98 | 60102 | 1.5308493 | 14 | 2543294 | 64.77987 |
| 232 | cona | 98 | 60102 | 1.5308493 | 15 | 2603396 | 66.31072 |
| 225 | cona | 98 | 54648 | 1.3919312 | 16 | 2658044 | 67.70265 |
| 228 | cona | 98 | 54648 | 1.3919312 | 17 | 2712692 | 69.09458 |
| 447 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.1883682 | 18 | 2759348 | 70.28295 |
| 450 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.1883682 | 19 | 2806004 | 71.47132 |
| 453 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.1883682 | 20 | 2852660 | 72.65969 |
| 226 | cona | 98 | 40068 | 1.0205662 | 21 | 2892728 | 73.68025 |
| 229 | cona | 98 | 40068 | 1.0205662 | 22 | 2932796 | 74.70082 |
| 183 | cona | 95 | 37926 | 0.9660076 | 23 | 2970722 | 75.66683 |
| 65 | cona | 38 | 37380 | 0.9521005 | 24 | 3008102 | 76.61893 |
| 372 | cona | 146 | 33924 | 0.8640733 | 25 | 3042026 | 77.48300 |
| 373 | cona | 146 | 33924 | 0.8640733 | 26 | 3075950 | 78.34707 |
| 374 | cona | 146 | 33924 | 0.8640733 | 27 | 3109874 | 79.21115 |
| 474 | cona | 172 | 30492 | 0.7766573 | 28 | 3140366 | 79.98780 |
| 211 | cona | 98 | 27528 | 0.7011617 | 29 | 3167894 | 80.68897 |
| 213 | cona | 98 | 27528 | 0.7011617 | 30 | 3195422 | 81.39013 |
Interpretation to write: If the curve rises very quickly, then a small number of axiom components explain most of the satisfying records. This helps prioritize manual review.
6. Question 4: Which original axiom IDs, NInd, dominate?
| NInd | total_count | number_of_ctids | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 98 | 1209712 | 23 | 30.8123980 |
| 38 | 1116356 | 4 | 28.4345409 |
| 97 | 968280 | 23 | 24.6629187 |
| 172 | 257425 | 30 | 6.5568346 |
| 146 | 198784 | 30 | 5.0631983 |
| 95 | 43464 | 3 | 1.1070652 |
| 171 | 23728 | 30 | 0.6043724 |
| 188 | 12638 | 9 | 0.3219007 |
| 140 | 7296 | 1 | 0.1858354 |
| 47 | 6610 | 12 | 0.1683623 |
| 94 | 6325 | 7 | 0.1611032 |
| 236 | 4792 | 4 | 0.1220563 |
| 55 | 4672 | 1 | 0.1189998 |
| 71 | 4590 | 5 | 0.1169112 |
| 91 | 3711 | 4 | 0.0945223 |
| 165 | 3312 | 1 | 0.0843595 |
| 45 | 2757 | 1 | 0.0702231 |
| 113 | 2561 | 19 | 0.0652309 |
| 13 | 2416 | 2 | 0.0615376 |
| 8 | 1912 | 2 | 0.0487003 |
Interpretation to write: NInd summarizes the original internal axiom ID. Large NInd counts suggest that a small number of original axioms may be responsible for many satisfying examples.
7. Question 5: Which individuals appear most often in variable positions?
| individual | total_count | percent |
|---|---|---|
| 1dt | 5018562 | 15.1611436 |
| A | 2335072 | 7.0542840 |
| 1dt-2 | 1651124 | 4.9880679 |
| 0dt3 | 1539687 | 4.6514152 |
| 0dt2 | 1538597 | 4.6481223 |
| 0dt | 1244410 | 3.7593794 |
| B | 1220676 | 3.6876787 |
| 01dt | 1162148 | 3.5108648 |
| space | 1159249 | 3.5021069 |
| 1dte | 1110342 | 3.3543582 |
| 1dts | 1110342 | 3.3543582 |
| st1 | 1061452 | 3.2066608 |
| 2dsr | 919714 | 2.7784684 |
| st2dsr | 855818 | 2.5854377 |
| 1dsr | 787796 | 2.3799424 |
| 0dsr | 787780 | 2.3798940 |
| st0dsr | 784264 | 2.3692721 |
| st1dsr | 784264 | 2.3692721 |
| st3-2 | 751838 | 2.2713128 |
| st3-3 | 669549 | 2.0227166 |
| space2 | 637187 | 1.9249505 |
| 3dsr-2 | 623838 | 1.8846230 |
| 3dsr-3 | 472180 | 1.4264622 |
| me | 468540 | 1.4154657 |
| bound | 375241 | 1.1336081 |
| 1db | 305374 | 0.9225390 |
| 0db | 304997 | 0.9214001 |
| ag | 290912 | 0.8788491 |
| C | 280447 | 0.8472342 |
| 3dsr | 255703 | 0.7724822 |
| variable_position | individual | total_count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | st0dsr | 401958 |
| 1 | st1dsr | 401958 |
| 1 | st2dsr | 341757 |
| 1 | st3-2 | 341718 |
| 1 | st1 | 295506 |
| 1 | st3-3 | 279091 |
| 1 | space2 | 220549 |
| 1 | me | 211166 |
| 1 | space | 189743 |
| 1 | ag | 137818 |
| 2 | st1 | 646518 |
| 2 | st2dsr | 423942 |
| 2 | st3-2 | 304235 |
| 2 | st3-3 | 303125 |
| 2 | st0dsr | 290367 |
| 2 | st1dsr | 290367 |
| 2 | space2 | 279793 |
| 2 | space | 234022 |
| 2 | me | 153758 |
| 2 | 2dsr | 132400 |
| 3 | 0dt3 | 603580 |
| 3 | 0dt2 | 602534 |
| 3 | 1dt-2 | 567825 |
| 3 | 0dt | 462814 |
| 3 | 1dt | 433740 |
| 3 | 01dt | 416188 |
| 3 | 1dts | 386276 |
| 3 | 1dte | 386268 |
| 3 | A | 12952 |
| 3 | sdc2 | 5129 |
| 4 | 0dt3 | 349036 |
| 4 | 0dt2 | 348932 |
| 4 | 1dt-2 | 317494 |
| 4 | 0dt | 304413 |
| 4 | 01dt | 291724 |
| 4 | 1dte | 284374 |
| 4 | 1dts | 284189 |
| 4 | 1dt | 270779 |
| 4 | 0dsr | 152913 |
| 4 | 1dsr | 152896 |
| 5 | 1dt | 1714014 |
| 5 | A | 252470 |
| 5 | 1dt-2 | 134044 |
| 5 | 0dsr | 81128 |
| 5 | 1dsr | 81128 |
| 5 | 2dsr | 78997 |
| 5 | space | 76099 |
| 5 | 3dsr-2 | 74831 |
| 5 | 3dsr | 74524 |
| 5 | space2 | 69955 |
| 6 | 1dt | 1754638 |
| 6 | A | 224553 |
| 6 | 1dt-2 | 84428 |
| 6 | hist2 | 78612 |
| 6 | hist | 72402 |
| 6 | hist3 | 72258 |
| 6 | st3-2 | 71076 |
| 6 | st0dsr | 68640 |
| 6 | st1dsr | 68640 |
| 6 | st2dsr | 67728 |
| 7 | A | 927632 |
| 7 | 1dt | 381094 |
| 7 | 1dt-2 | 167026 |
| 7 | B | 109296 |
| 7 | 0dt2 | 78486 |
| 7 | 0dt3 | 78462 |
| 7 | 0dt | 75572 |
| 7 | 01dt | 74964 |
| 7 | 1dte | 74546 |
| 7 | 1dts | 74546 |
| 8 | 0dsr | 290347 |
| 8 | 1dsr | 290347 |
| 8 | B | 286880 |
| 8 | 3dsr-2 | 222482 |
| 8 | 2dsr | 220086 |
| 8 | space | 175637 |
| 8 | 3dsr-3 | 151745 |
| 8 | 1dt | 103176 |
| 8 | 1dt-2 | 58712 |
| 8 | 0dt2 | 38360 |
| 9 | space | 315580 |
| 9 | 1dt | 189552 |
| 9 | 2dsr | 185592 |
| 9 | B | 140238 |
| 9 | 1dt-2 | 91960 |
| 9 | 0dsr | 64960 |
| 9 | 1dsr | 64960 |
| 9 | 3dsr-2 | 64240 |
| 9 | 3dsr-3 | 63016 |
| 9 | 0dt2 | 56696 |
| 10 | 0dt2 | 205290 |
| 10 | 0dt3 | 205290 |
| 10 | B | 172976 |
| 10 | 1dt-2 | 135276 |
| 10 | 0dt | 132200 |
| 10 | 01dt | 130696 |
| 10 | 1dte | 129740 |
| 10 | 1dts | 129740 |
| 10 | C | 80136 |
| 10 | 1dt | 64512 |
| 11 | A | 268880 |
| 11 | C | 172976 |
| 11 | 0dt2 | 81144 |
| 11 | 0dt3 | 81144 |
| 11 | 1dt-2 | 80784 |
| 11 | 0dt | 78888 |
| 11 | 01dt | 78648 |
| 11 | 1dte | 78444 |
| 11 | 1dts | 78444 |
| 11 | 1dt | 78336 |
| 12 | A | 529860 |
| 12 | space | 72328 |
| 12 | 3dsr-2 | 61888 |
| 12 | 3dsr-3 | 61888 |
| 12 | 0dsr | 60928 |
| 12 | 1dsr | 60928 |
| 12 | 2dsr | 60928 |
| 12 | space2 | 7488 |
| 12 | 3dsr | 424 |
| 13 | B | 423888 |
Interpretation to write: This tells us whether a few domain individuals are responsible for many variable assignments. If a small number of individuals dominate, then the satisfying cases may be concentrated around specific model objects.
8. Question 6: Are variable assignments mostly repeated or distinct?
| n_vars | n_unique_individuals | equality_pattern | total_count | percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 6 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X6 | 260964 | 6.6469777 |
| 6 | 5 | X1,X1,X2,X3,X4,X5 | 200176 | 5.0986550 |
| 6 | 5 | X1,X2,X3,X2,X4,X5 | 196082 | 4.9943773 |
| 6 | 5 | X1,X2,X3,X1,X4,X5 | 188622 | 4.8043647 |
| 6 | 4 | X1,X1,X2,X1,X3,X4 | 125644 | 3.2002608 |
| 7 | 7 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X6,X7 | 123276 | 3.1399458 |
| 8 | 7 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X5,X6,X7 | 117508 | 2.9930299 |
| 5 | 5 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5 | 112235 | 2.8587221 |
| 8 | 8 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X6,X7,X8 | 71280 | 1.8155630 |
| 4 | 4 | X1,X2,X3,X4 | 41073 | 1.0461647 |
| 7 | 6 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X1,X6 | 34164 | 0.8701865 |
| 8 | 6 | X1,X1,X2,X3,X4,X4,X5,X6 | 28668 | 0.7301986 |
| 7 | 6 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X2,X5,X6 | 27216 | 0.6932149 |
| 8 | 7 | X1,X2,X3,X3,X4,X5,X6,X7 | 27208 | 0.6930112 |
| 8 | 7 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X4,X5,X6,X7 | 26564 | 0.6766079 |
| 10 | 9 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X5,X6,X7,X8,X9 | 26160 | 0.6663177 |
| 11 | 9 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X5,X6,X5,X7,X8,X9 | 25200 | 0.6418657 |
| 11 | 9 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X5,X6,X7,X7,X8,X9 | 25200 | 0.6418657 |
| 12 | 10 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X5,X6,X7,X5,X8,X9,X10 | 25200 | 0.6418657 |
| 12 | 10 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X5,X6,X7,X8,X8,X9,X10 | 25200 | 0.6418657 |
| 3 | 3 | X1,X2,X3 | 24099 | 0.6138223 |
| 8 | 6 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X4,X4,X5,X6 | 23996 | 0.6111988 |
| 9 | 8 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X5,X5,X6,X7,X8 | 23956 | 0.6101799 |
| 6 | 5 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X1,X5 | 22986 | 0.5854732 |
| 6 | 5 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X2,X5 | 22100 | 0.5629060 |
| 8 | 6 | X1,X2,X3,X3,X4,X4,X5,X6 | 20356 | 0.5184848 |
| 8 | 6 | X1,X2,X3,X4,X3,X3,X5,X6 | 20356 | 0.5184848 |
| 12 | 8 | X1,X1,X2,X3,X4,X4,X5,X6,X4,X7,X8,X6 | 20160 | 0.5134926 |
| 12 | 8 | X1,X1,X2,X3,X4,X4,X5,X6,X7,X7,X8,X6 | 20160 | 0.5134926 |
| 13 | 9 | X1,X1,X2,X3,X4,X4,X4,X5,X5,X6,X7,X8,X9 | 20160 | 0.5134926 |
| CTID | Type | NInd | total_count | weighted_avg_unique_individuals | weighted_avg_vars | weighted_avg_uniqueness_ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 569 | cona | 230 | 12 | 1.000000 | 3 | 0.3333333 |
| 572 | cona | 231 | 12 | 1.000000 | 3 | 0.3333333 |
| 241 | cona | 105 | 8 | 1.000000 | 3 | 0.3333333 |
| 249 | cona | 109 | 24 | 1.500000 | 4 | 0.3750000 |
| 250 | cona | 109 | 24 | 1.500000 | 4 | 0.3750000 |
| 290 | unca | 113 | 355 | 2.000000 | 4 | 0.5000000 |
| 293 | unca | 113 | 355 | 2.000000 | 4 | 0.5000000 |
| 152 | horn | 79 | 41 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 537 | horn | 200 | 41 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 571 | cona | 230 | 24 | 1.500000 | 3 | 0.5000000 |
| 574 | cona | 231 | 24 | 1.500000 | 3 | 0.5000000 |
| 246 | cona | 108 | 12 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 252 | cona | 110 | 12 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 255 | cona | 111 | 12 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 539 | horn | 202 | 8 | 1.500000 | 3 | 0.5000000 |
| 540 | horn | 203 | 8 | 1.500000 | 3 | 0.5000000 |
| 561 | cona | 223 | 8 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 642 | horn | 309 | 4 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 643 | horn | 310 | 4 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 738 | horn | 205 | 4 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 739 | horn | 221 | 4 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 155 | unca | 80 | 1 | 1.000000 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| 596 | cona | 236 | 1048 | 2.687023 | 5 | 0.5374046 |
| 175 | cona | 93 | 20 | 2.200000 | 4 | 0.5500000 |
| 734 | horn | 90 | 10 | 2.200000 | 4 | 0.5500000 |
| 600 | cona | 237 | 96 | 3.500000 | 6 | 0.5833333 |
| 251 | cona | 109 | 18 | 2.333333 | 4 | 0.5833333 |
| 243 | cona | 106 | 12 | 2.333333 | 4 | 0.5833333 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 7.020316 | 12 | 0.5850263 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 7.020316 | 12 | 0.5850263 |
Interpretation to write: A low uniqueness ratio means several variable slots are filled by the same individual. That can reveal self-relations or variable collapse. These cases may be important because some axioms may be satisfied mainly when variables are not distinct.
9. Question 7: Which condition and alternative predicates are most common?
| field | predicate | sign | arity | total_count | percent_within_field |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alts | temporally-projects-onto | 0 | 2 | 3384319 | 17.4799157 |
| Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 0 | 3 | 2797416 | 14.4485777 |
| Alts | occurrent-part-of | 0 | 2 | 2046609 | 10.5706799 |
| Alts | temporal-part-of | 0 | 2 | 1972741 | 10.1891537 |
| Alts | spatially-projects-onto | -1 | 3 | 1617272 | 8.3531660 |
| Alts | instance-of | 0 | 3 | 1216375 | 6.2825438 |
| Alts | continuant-part-of | 0 | 3 | 1191818 | 6.1557076 |
| Alts | instance-of | -1 | 3 | 1165519 | 6.0198740 |
| Alts | exists-at | 0 | 2 | 1003450 | 5.1827920 |
| Alts | occurrent-part-of | -1 | 2 | 789436 | 4.0774155 |
| Alts | temporal-part-of | -1 | 2 | 478455 | 2.4712071 |
| Alts | continuant-part-of | -1 | 3 | 321693 | 1.6615356 |
| Alts | exists-at | -1 | 2 | 257144 | 1.3281418 |
| Alts | temporally-projects-onto | -1 | 2 | 235754 | 1.2176630 |
| Alts | occupies-spatiotemporal-region | 0 | 2 | 227113 | 1.1730325 |
| Alts | occupies-spatial-region | 0 | 3 | 198999 | 1.0278244 |
| Alts | identical | 0 | 2 | 150426 | 0.7769462 |
| Alts | occupies-spatial-region | -1 | 3 | 89042 | 0.4598995 |
| Alts | occupies-spatiotemporal-region | -1 | 2 | 77143 | 0.3984415 |
| Alts | identical | -1 | 2 | 58792 | 0.3036591 |
| Conds | instance-of | -1 | 3 | 9697337 | 80.0834038 |
| Conds | continuant-part-of | -1 | 3 | 2259297 | 18.6579258 |
| Conds | occurrent-part-of | -1 | 2 | 97955 | 0.8089406 |
| Conds | temporal-part-of | -1 | 2 | 17507 | 0.1445779 |
| Conds | exists-at | -1 | 2 | 5642 | 0.0465933 |
| Conds | inheres-in | -1 | 2 | 5251 | 0.0433643 |
| Conds | precedes | -1 | 2 | 5192 | 0.0428770 |
| Conds | concretizes | -1 | 3 | 4716 | 0.0389461 |
| Conds | located-in | -1 | 3 | 2188 | 0.0180691 |
| Conds | has-first-instant | -1 | 2 | 2044 | 0.0168799 |
| Conds | has-last-instant | -1 | 2 | 2044 | 0.0168799 |
| Conds | occupies-spatial-region | -1 | 3 | 1432 | 0.0118259 |
| Conds | occupies-temporal-region | -1 | 2 | 1057 | 0.0087290 |
| Conds | proper-continuant-part-of | -1 | 3 | 1050 | 0.0086712 |
| Conds | universal | -1 | 1 | 951 | 0.0078536 |
| Conds | proper-temporal-part-of | -1 | 2 | 878 | 0.0072508 |
| Conds | proper-occurrent-part-of | -1 | 2 | 804 | 0.0066397 |
| Conds | occupies-spatiotemporal-region | -1 | 2 | 782 | 0.0064580 |
| Conds | specifically-depends-on | -1 | 2 | 722 | 0.0059625 |
| Conds | has-material-basis | -1 | 3 | 584 | 0.0048228 |
| CTID | Type | NInd | field | predicate | total_count |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | cona | 38 | Conds | instance-of | 4208384 |
| 62 | cona | 38 | Alts | instance-of | 2104192 |
| 62 | cona | 38 | Conds | continuant-part-of | 2104192 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 635832 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 635832 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 427648 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 427648 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporal-part-of | 423888 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporally-projects-onto | 423888 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | Conds | instance-of | 423888 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporal-part-of | 423888 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporally-projects-onto | 423888 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | Conds | instance-of | 423888 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporal-part-of | 317916 |
| 201 | cona | 97 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 259464 |
| 202 | cona | 97 | Alts | occurrent-part-of | 259464 |
| 205 | cona | 97 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 259464 |
| 206 | cona | 97 | Alts | occurrent-part-of | 259464 |
| 200 | cona | 97 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 235488 |
| 200 | cona | 97 | Conds | instance-of | 235488 |
| 204 | cona | 97 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 235488 |
| 204 | cona | 97 | Conds | instance-of | 235488 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | Alts | occurrent-part-of | 213824 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | Alts | temporally-projects-onto | 213824 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | Conds | instance-of | 213824 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | Alts | occurrent-part-of | 213824 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | Alts | temporally-projects-onto | 213824 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | Conds | instance-of | 213824 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 211944 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporally-projects-onto | 211944 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | Conds | instance-of | 211944 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | Alts | continuant-part-of | 211944 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | Alts | exists-at | 211944 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | Alts | continuant-part-of | 211944 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | Alts | exists-at | 211944 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | Alts | spatially-projects-onto | 211944 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporal-part-of | 211944 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | Alts | temporally-projects-onto | 211944 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | Conds | instance-of | 211944 |
| 447 | cona | 172 | Alts | occurrent-part-of | 186624 |
Interpretation to write: The Conds rows describe the if-side of the rule, while the Alts rows describe the then-side that was satisfied. This helps identify what predicates are driving the satisfying PMA records.
10. Question 8: Which support types are most common?
| support_kind | total_count | percent |
|---|---|---|
| inst | 15248853 | 78.7599117 |
| mca | 3903115 | 20.1594830 |
| ident | 150426 | 0.7769462 |
| distinct | 58792 | 0.3036591 |
| CTID | Type | NInd | support_kind | total_count |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | cona | 38 | inst | 2104192 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | inst | 1695552 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | inst | 1695552 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | inst | 847776 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | inst | 847776 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | inst | 748384 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | inst | 748384 |
| 201 | cona | 97 | inst | 432440 |
| 202 | cona | 97 | inst | 432440 |
| 205 | cona | 97 | inst | 432440 |
| 206 | cona | 97 | inst | 432440 |
| 223 | cona | 98 | inst | 240408 |
| 232 | cona | 98 | inst | 240408 |
| 200 | cona | 97 | inst | 235488 |
| 200 | cona | 97 | mca | 235488 |
| 204 | cona | 97 | inst | 235488 |
| 204 | cona | 97 | mca | 235488 |
| 211 | cona | 98 | inst | 220224 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | mca | 211944 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | mca | 211944 |
| 213 | cona | 98 | inst | 192696 |
| 216 | cona | 98 | inst | 192696 |
| 219 | cona | 98 | inst | 192696 |
| 201 | cona | 97 | mca | 172976 |
| 202 | cona | 97 | mca | 172976 |
| 205 | cona | 97 | mca | 172976 |
| 206 | cona | 97 | mca | 172976 |
| 226 | cona | 98 | inst | 160272 |
| 229 | cona | 98 | inst | 160272 |
| 65 | cona | 38 | inst | 149520 |
| 447 | cona | 172 | inst | 139968 |
| 450 | cona | 172 | inst | 139968 |
| 453 | cona | 172 | inst | 139968 |
| 372 | cona | 146 | inst | 135696 |
| 373 | cona | 146 | inst | 135696 |
| 374 | cona | 146 | inst | 135696 |
| 223 | cona | 98 | mca | 120204 |
| 183 | cona | 95 | inst | 113778 |
| 225 | cona | 98 | mca | 109296 |
| 228 | cona | 98 | mca | 109296 |
Interpretation to write: The support field tells us what kind of fact or inference supported the satisfied alternative. If a few support kinds dominate, this may explain why certain alternatives are repeatedly satisfied.
11. Question 9: Is Result usually empty, and when is it not empty?
| result_empty | total_count | percent |
|---|---|---|
| yes | 3926055 | 100 |
| CTID | Type | NInd | ConjID | result_empty | result_raw | count |
|---|
Interpretation to write: If Result is almost always empty, then assumptions are probably not a major driver of the satisfying records. If there are non-empty Result cases, those CTIDs should be reviewed.
12. Candidate CTIDs for closer inspection
This section combines several signals:
- high total satisfying count,
- low variable uniqueness ratio,
- repeated equality patterns,
- frequent condition or alternative predicates.
| CTID | Type | NInd | total_count | percent | weighted_avg_uniqueness_ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | cona | 38 | 1052096 | 26.7977838 | 0.8246472 |
| 227 | cona | 98 | 211944 | 5.3983947 | 0.6929327 |
| 230 | cona | 98 | 211944 | 5.3983947 | 0.6929327 |
| 200 | cona | 97 | 117744 | 2.9990403 | 0.8639506 |
| 204 | cona | 97 | 117744 | 2.9990403 | 0.8639506 |
| 199 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 2.7231400 | 0.5850263 |
| 203 | cona | 97 | 106912 | 2.7231400 | 0.5850263 |
| 233 | cona | 98 | 105972 | 2.6991974 | 0.6371023 |
| 224 | cona | 98 | 105972 | 2.6991974 | 0.6673437 |
| 202 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 0.7533615 |
| 206 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 0.7533615 |
| 201 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 0.7739147 |
| 205 | cona | 97 | 86488 | 2.2029232 | 0.7739147 |
| 232 | cona | 98 | 60102 | 1.5308493 | 0.7682565 |
| 223 | cona | 98 | 60102 | 1.5308493 | 0.7940057 |
| 225 | cona | 98 | 54648 | 1.3919312 | 0.9277244 |
| 228 | cona | 98 | 54648 | 1.3919312 | 0.9277244 |
| 453 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.1883682 | 0.7489712 |
| 447 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.1883682 | 0.8918283 |
| 450 | cona | 172 | 46656 | 1.1883682 | 0.8918283 |
| 226 | cona | 98 | 40068 | 1.0205662 | 0.8146052 |
| 229 | cona | 98 | 40068 | 1.0205662 | 0.8146052 |
| 183 | cona | 95 | 37926 | 0.9660076 | 0.6683014 |
| 65 | cona | 38 | 37380 | 0.9521005 | 0.6871589 |
| 374 | cona | 146 | 33924 | 0.8640733 | 0.6905288 |
| 372 | cona | 146 | 33924 | 0.8640733 | 0.8155288 |
| 373 | cona | 146 | 33924 | 0.8640733 | 0.8155288 |
| 474 | cona | 172 | 30492 | 0.7766573 | 0.9551882 |
| 211 | cona | 98 | 27528 | 0.7011617 | 0.6426257 |
| 219 | cona | 98 | 27528 | 0.7011617 | 0.6426257 |
Interpretation to write: These CTIDs are not automatically wrong. They are priority cases for inspection because they are high-volume and may have repeated-variable patterns.
13. Initial conclusions
Write conclusions in this form:
- The satisfying PMA records are [concentrated / not concentrated] by rule type.
- The largest CTIDs are [list top CTIDs].
- The most common individuals are [list top individuals].
- The most common variable equality patterns are [list top patterns].
- The most common condition predicates are [list top Conds predicates].
- The most common alternative predicates are [list top Alts predicates].
- Result is [mostly empty / sometimes non-empty], which suggests [interpretation].
- The first CTIDs recommended for manual review are [list].
14. Next step
The next step is to extract a small number of original PMA records for the highest-priority CTIDs. Summary tables show where the patterns are, but the original PMA records are needed to interpret whether the satisfying combinations are intended or unintended.