Document Open Access Logo

Embarrassingly Greedy Inconsistency Resolution of Qualitative Constraint Networks

Author Michael Sioutis



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.TIME.2023.12.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.9 MB
  • 12 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Michael Sioutis
  • LIRMM UMR 5506, Université de Montpellier & CNRS, France

Cite AsGet BibTex

Michael Sioutis. Embarrassingly Greedy Inconsistency Resolution of Qualitative Constraint Networks. In 30th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 278, pp. 12:1-12:12, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2023.12

Abstract

In this paper, we deal with inconsistency resolution in qualitative constraint networks (QCN). This type of networks allows one to represent and reason about spatial or temporal information in a natural, human-like manner, e.g., by expressing relations of the form x {is north of ∨ is east of} y. On the other hand, inconsistency resolution involves maximizing the amount of information that is consistent in a knowledge base; in the context of QCNs, this translates to maximizing the number of constraints that can be satisfied, via obtaining a qualitative solution (scenario) of the QCN that ignores/violates as few of the original constraints as possible. To this end, we present two novel approaches: a greedy constraint-based and an optimal Partial MaxSAT-based one, with a focus on the former due to its simplicity. Specifically, the greedy technique consists in adding the constraints of a QCN to a new, initially empty network, one by one, all the while filtering out the ones that fail the satisfiability check. What makes or breaks this technique is the ordering in which the constraints will be processed to saturate the empty QCN, and for that purpose we use many different strategies to form a portfolio-style implementation. The Partial MaxSAT-based approach is powered by Horn theory-based maximal tractable subsets of relations. Finally, we compare the greedy approach with the optimal one, commenting on the trade-off between obtaining repairs that are optimal and obtaining repairs in a manner that is fast, and make our source code available for anyone to use.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Constraint and logic programming
  • Computing methodologies → Temporal reasoning
Keywords
  • Spatial and Temporal Reasoning
  • Qualitative Constraints
  • Inconsistency Resolution
  • Maximizing Satisfiability
  • Greedy Algorithm
  • Partial MaxSAT Solver

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. James F. Allen. Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Commun. ACM, 26:832-843, 1983. Google Scholar
  2. Gilles Audemard, Jean-Marie Lagniez, and Laurent Simon. Improving Glucose for Incremental SAT Solving with Assumptions: Application to MUS Extraction. In SAT, 2013. Google Scholar
  3. Mehul Bhatt, Hans Guesgen, Stefan Wölfl, and Shyamanta Hazarika. Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning: Emerging Applications, Trends, and Directions. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 11:1-14, 2011. Google Scholar
  4. Shaowei Cai and Zhendong Lei. Old techniques in new ways: Clause weighting, unit propagation and hybridization for maximum satisfiability. Artif. Intell., 287:103354, 2020. Google Scholar
  5. Shaowei Cai, Chuan Luo, John Thornton, and Kaile Su. Tailoring Local Search for Partial MaxSAT. In AAAI, 2014. Google Scholar
  6. Jean-François Condotta, Ali Mensi, Issam Nouaouri, Michael Sioutis, and Lamjed Ben Said. A Practical Approach for Maximizing Satisfiability in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Constraint Networks. In ICTAI, 2015. Google Scholar
  7. Jean-François Condotta, Issam Nouaouri, and Michael Sioutis. A SAT Approach for Maximizing Satisfiability in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Constraint Networks. In KR, 2016. Google Scholar
  8. Frank Dylla, Jae Hee Lee, Till Mossakowski, Thomas Schneider, André van Delden, Jasper van de Ven, and Diedrich Wolter. A Survey of Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Calculi: Algebraic and Computational Properties. ACM Comput. Surv., 50:7:1-7:39, 2017. Google Scholar
  9. S.M. Hazarika. Qualitative Spatio-Temporal Representation and Reasoning: Trends and Future Directions. IGI Global, 2012. Google Scholar
  10. Alexey Ignatiev, Antonio Morgado, and Joao Marques-Silva. PySAT: A Python toolkit for prototyping with SAT oracles. In SAT, 2018. Google Scholar
  11. Alexey Ignatiev, António Morgado, and João Marques-Silva. RC2: an Efficient MaxSAT Solver. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput., 11:53-64, 2019. Google Scholar
  12. David S. Johnson. Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 9:256-278, 1974. Google Scholar
  13. Jae Hee Lee, Michael Sioutis, Kyra Ahrens, Marjan Alirezaie, Matthias Kerzel, and Stefan Wermter. Neuro-Symbolic Spatio-Temporal Reasoning. CoRR, abs/2211.15566, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.15566.
  14. Joseph Y.-T. Leung, editor. Handbook of Scheduling - Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004. Google Scholar
  15. Gérard Ligozat. Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. ISTE. Wiley, 2013. Google Scholar
  16. Shuichi Miyazaki, Kazuo Iwama, and Yahiko Kambayashi. Database Queries as Combinatorial Optimization Problems. In CODAS, 1996. Google Scholar
  17. Robert Moskovitch and Yuval Shahar. Classification of multivariate time series via temporal abstraction and time intervals mining. Knowl. Inf. Syst., 45:35-74, 2015. Google Scholar
  18. Lenka Mudrová and Nick Hawes. Task scheduling for mobile robots using interval algebra. In ICRA, 2015. Google Scholar
  19. Bernhard Nebel. Solving Hard Qualitative Temporal Reasoning Problems: Evaluating the Efficiency of Using the ORD-Horn Class. Constraints, 1:175-190, 1997. Google Scholar
  20. Bernhard Nebel and Hans-Jürgen Bürckert. Reasoning about Temporal Relations: A Maximal Tractable Subclass of Allen’s Interval Algebra. J. ACM, 42:43-66, 1995. Google Scholar
  21. Jochen Renz and Bernhard Nebel. Efficient Methods for Qualitative Spatial Reasoning. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 15:289-318, 2001. Google Scholar
  22. Jochen Renz and Bernhard Nebel. Qualitative Spatial Reasoning Using Constraint Calculi. In Handbook of Spatial Logics, pages 161-215. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  23. Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence - A Modern Approach (3. internat. ed.). Pearson Education, 2010. Google Scholar
  24. Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis. A Decomposition Framework for Inconsistency Handling in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. In KR, 2023. To appear. Google Scholar
  25. Michael Sioutis and Diedrich Wolter. Dynamic Branching in Qualitative Constraint Networks via Counting Local Models. In TIME, 2020. Google Scholar
  26. Michael Sioutis and Diedrich Wolter. Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning: Current Status and Future Challenges. In IJCAI, 2021. Google Scholar
  27. Peter van Beek and Dennis W. Manchak. The design and experimental analysis of algorithms for temporal reasoning. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 4:1-18, 1996. Google Scholar
  28. Matthias Westphal. Qualitative Constraint-based Reasoning: Methods and Applications. PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2014. Google Scholar
  29. Matthias Westphal and Julien Hué. A Concise Horn Theory for RCC8. In ECAI, 2014. Google Scholar
  30. Matthias Westphal, Julien Hué, and Stefan Wölfl. On the Propagation Strength of SAT Encodings for Qualitative Temporal Reasoning. In ICTAI, 2013. Google Scholar
  31. Zhi-Hua Zhou. Abductive learning: towards bridging machine learning and logical reasoning. Sci. China Inf. Sci., 62:76101:1-76101:3, 2019. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail