Document Open Access Logo

Prime Scenarios in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning

Authors Yakoub Salhi , Michael Sioutis

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.TIME.2023.5.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.95 MB
  • 14 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Yakoub Salhi
  • CRIL UMR 8188, Université d'Artois & CNRS, France
Michael Sioutis
  • LIRMM UMR 5506, Université de Montpellier & CNRS, France

Funding

  • Sioutis, Michael: The work was partially funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) for the "Hybrid AI" project that is tied to the chair of Dr. Sioutis, and the I-SITE program of excellence of Université de Montpellier that complements the ANR funding.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis. Prime Scenarios in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. In 30th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 278, pp. 5:1-5:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2023.5

Abstract

The concept of prime implicant is a fundamental tool in Boolean algebra, which is used in Boolean circuit design and, recently, in explainable AI. This study investigates an analogous concept in qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning, called prime scenario. Specifically, we define a prime scenario of a qualitative constraint network (QCN) as a minimal set of decisions that can uniquely determine solutions of this QCN. We propose in this paper a collection of algorithms designed to address various problems related to prime scenarios. The first three algorithms aim to generate a prime scenario from a scenario of a QCN. The main idea consists in using path consistency to identify the constraints that can be ignored to generate a prime scenario. The next two algorithms focus on generating a set of prime scenarios that cover all the scenarios of the original QCN: The first algorithm examines every branch of the search tree, while the second is based on the use of a SAT encoding. Our last algorithm is concerned with computing a minimum-size prime scenario by using a MaxSAT encoding built from countermodels of the original QCN. We show that this algorithm is particularly useful for measuring the robustness of a QCN. Finally, a preliminary experimental evaluation is performed with instances of Allen’s Interval Algebra to assess the efficiency of our algorithms and, hence, also the difficulty of the newly introduced problems here.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Constraint and logic programming
  • Computing methodologies → Temporal reasoning
  • Computing methodologies → Spatial and physical reasoning
Keywords
  • Spatial and Temporal Reasoning
  • Qualitative Constraints
  • Prime Scenario
  • Prime Implicant
  • Robustness Measurement

Metrics

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

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. James F. Allen. Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Commun. ACM, 26:832-843, 1983. Google Scholar
  2. Marco Cadoli and Francesco M. Donini. A Survey on Knowledge Compilation. AI Commun., 10:137-150, 1997. Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Adnan Darwiche and Auguste Hirth. On the (Complete) Reasons Behind Decisions. J. Log. Lang. Inf., 32:63-88, 2023. Google Scholar
  5. Adnan Darwiche and Pierre Marquis. A Knowledge Compilation Map. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 17:229-264, 2002. Google Scholar
  6. Jessica Davies and Fahiem Bacchus. Solving MAXSAT by Solving a Sequence of Simpler SAT Instances. In CP, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. Johan de Kleer, Alan K. Mackworth, and Raymond Reiter. Characterizing Diagnoses and Systems. Artif. Intell., 56:197-222, 1992. Google Scholar
  8. Fred Hemery, Christophe Lecoutre, Lakhdar Sais, and Frédéric Boussemart. Extracting MUCs from Constraint Networks. In ECAI, 2006. Google Scholar
  9. Alexey Ignatiev, Nina Narodytska, and João Marques-Silva. Abduction-Based Explanations for Machine Learning Models. In AAAI, 2019. Google Scholar
  10. Alexey Ignatiev, Nina Narodytska, and João Marques-Silva. On Relating Explanations and Adversarial Examples. In NeurIPS, 2019. Google Scholar
  11. Yacine Izza and João Marques-Silva. On Explaining Random Forests with SAT. In IJCAI, 2021. Google Scholar
  12. Peter Jonsson and Victor Lagerkvist. An initial study of time complexity in infinite-domain constraint satisfaction. Artif. Intell., 245:115-133, 2017. Google Scholar
  13. Sanjiang Li, Zhiguo Long, Weiming Liu, Matt Duckham, and Alan Both. On redundant topological constraints. Artif. Intell., 225:51-76, 2015. Google Scholar
  14. Gerard Ligozat. Reasoning about cardinal directions. J. Vis. Lang. Comput., 9:23-44, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.1997.9999.
  15. Gérard Ligozat. Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. Iste Series. Wiley, 2011. Google Scholar
  16. Zhiguo Long and Sanjiang Li. On Distributive Subalgebras of Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Calculi. In COSIT, 2015. Google Scholar
  17. E. J. McCluskey Jr. Minimization of Boolean Functions*. Bell System Technical Journal, 35:1417-1444, 1956. Google Scholar
  18. Luigi Palopoli, Fiora Pirri, and Clara Pizzuti. Algorithms for Selective Enumeration of Prime Implicants. Artif. Intell., 111:41-72, 1999. Google Scholar
  19. Duc Nghia Pham, John Thornton, and Abdul Sattar. Modelling and solving temporal reasoning as propositional satisfiability. Artif. Intell., 172:1752-1782, 2008. Google Scholar
  20. Alessandro Previti, Alexey Ignatiev, António Morgado, and João Marques-Silva. Prime Compilation of Non-Clausal Formulae. In IJCAI, 2015. Google Scholar
  21. W. V. Quine. The Problem of Simplifying Truth Functions. The American Mathematical Monthly, 59:521-531, 1952. Google Scholar
  22. W. V. Quine. A Way to Simplify Truth Functions. The American Mathematical Monthly, 62:627-631, 1955. Google Scholar
  23. David A. Randell, Zhan Cui, and Anthony Cohn. A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection. In KR, 1992. Google Scholar
  24. Raymond Reiter. A Theory of Diagnosis from First Principles. Artif. Intell., 32:57-95, 1987. Google Scholar
  25. Jochen Renz and Gérard Ligozat. Weak Composition for Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. In CP, 2005. Google Scholar
  26. Jochen Renz and Bernhard Nebel. Qualitative Spatial Reasoning Using Constraint Calculi. In Handbook of Spatial Logics, pages 161-215. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  27. Ron Rymon. An Se-Tree-Based Prime Implicant Generation Algorithm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 11:351-366, 1994. Google Scholar
  28. Stefan Schlobach, Zhisheng Huang, Ronald Cornet, and Frank van Harmelen. Debugging Incoherent Terminologies. J. Autom. Reason., 39:317-349, 2007. Google Scholar
  29. Robert Schrag. Compilation for Critically Constrained Knowledge Bases. In AAAI, 1996. Google Scholar
  30. Andy Shih, Arthur Choi, and Adnan Darwiche. A Symbolic Approach to Explaining Bayesian Network Classifiers. In IJCAI, 2018. Google Scholar
  31. Carsten Sinz. Towards an Optimal CNF Encoding of Boolean Cardinality Constraints. In CP, 2005. Google Scholar
  32. Michael Sioutis, Zhiguo Long, and Tomi Janhunen. On Robustness in Qualitative Constraint Networks. In IJCAI, 2020. Google Scholar
  33. Marc Vilain, Henry Kautz, and Peter van Beek. Constraint Propagation Algorithms for Temporal Reasoning: A Revised Report. In Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, pages 373-381. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990. Google Scholar
  34. Jan Wehner, Michael Sioutis, and Diedrich Wolter. On Robust Vs Fast Solving of Qualitative Constraints. In ICTAI, 2021. Google Scholar
  35. Matthias Westphal and Stefan Wölfl. Qualitative CSP, Finite CSP, and SAT: Comparing Methods for Qualitative Constraint-based Reasoning. In IJCAI, 2009. 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
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact