4 Search Results for "Ignatiev, Alexey"

Combinatorial optimisation technology has come a long way. We now have mature high-level modelling languages in which to specify a model of the particular problem of interest [Nethercote et al., 2007; Frisch et al., 2008; Van Hentenryck, 1999; Fourer et al., 1990]; robust complete solvers in each major constraint paradigm, including Constraint Programming (CP), MaxSAT [Jessica Davies and Fahiem Bacchus, 2011; Alexey Ignatiev et al., 2019], and Mixed Integer Programming (MIP); effective incomplete search techniques that can easily be combined with complete solvers to speed up the search such as Large Neighbourhood Search [Paul Shaw, 1998]; and enough general knowledge about modelling techniques to understand the need for our models to incorporate components such as global constraints [Willem-Jan van Hoeve and Irit Katriel, 2006], symmetry constraints [Ian P. Gent et al., 2006], and more. All this has significantly reduced the amount of knowledge required to apply this technology successfully to the many different combinatorial optimisation problems that permeate our society. And yet, not many organisations use such advanced optimisation technology; instead, they often rely on the solutions provided by problem-specific algorithms that are implemented in traditional imperative languages and lack any of the above advances. Further, while advanced optimisation technology is particularly suitable for the kind of complex human-in-the-loop decision-making problems that occur in critical sectors of our society, including health, transport, energy, disaster management, environment and finance, these decisions are often still made by people with little or no technological support. In this extended abstract I argue that to change this state of affairs, our research focus needs to change from improving the technology on its own, to improving it so that users can better trust, use, and maintain the optimisation systems that we develop with it. The rest of this extended abstract discusses my personal experiences and opinion on these three points. Trust I highlight trust (which focuses on the user’s point of view) rather than trustworthiness (which is a characteristic of the software itself) because I think it is the former rather than the latter that is at stake for the adoption of optimisation technology. One of the biggest hurdles I have found for trust in the context of optimisation systems is for the domain experts to (feel like they) understand the underlying model. While many users will never do (or have to), I believe it is key for domain experts to have a high-level understanding of the constraints in the model, since their (dis)trust will likely spread through the organisation, impacting the adoption of the system. Thanks to the use of high-level modelling languages in CP, our group has achieved this [Matthias Klapperstueck et al., 2023] by documenting the constraints in a language the user knows (mathematics) and linking each constraint to the particular part of the model that implements it (via comments). While domain experts do not completely understand the model, the similarity between the format they understand (mathematics) and the model constraint has helped them verify our perception of their problem and improved their trust in the model. However, more needs to be done in this direction via the development of formal techniques. For example, our group is exploring the use of domain-specific languages [Hudak, 1997] as a bridge between domain experts and modellers that helps both trust and maintenance (see later). This [Sameela Suharshani Wijesundara et al., 2023] and other approaches need to be explored. A very significant source of trust for our domain experts (and of trustworthiness for the software) has been the development of two different models implemented by two different people for the same problem [Matthias Klapperstueck et al., 2023]. While this can be seen as a prohibitively expensive exercise, it did not take that long once the first model was mature, is a good way to onboard new optimisation team members, and has helped up detect not only bugs but also differences in the interpretation of domain expert information. For optimisation problems where it is not possible to verify the optimality (or even correctness) of the solution, we see such redundant modelling as the only solution for now. Interestingly, a significant step forward in obtaining the trust of our domain experts has been the generation of an optimality gap whenever an optimal solution could not be found due to time constraints. While explaining this concept took time, once understood it has boosted their trust, particularly when tackling problems where the solution is not easy verifiable or when approximated models/data are used (needed for speed, see later). This makes it difficult to work with CP and SAT solvers, as they usually lack tight lower bounds. Finally, trust is often developed through the use of the system, which I discuss below. Use Usability is known to be key for the deployment of software systems. By "system" in our context, I refer to the combination of the problem model(s), the associated solver(s) and, importantly, the User Interface (UI) that often integrates them and is fundamental to their success. In addition to the traditional usability characteristics of software systems, I believe an optimisation system requires particular care in the following areas. Interaction, i.e., the system must allow users to interact with the UI not only to provide and modify the input data, but also to modify the constraints (at the very least by turning some on/off) as well as explore and compare solutions, as argued in [David Meignan et al., 2015; Jie Liu et al., 2021]. Incremental compilers and solvers would significantly help in making this easier, as well as generic ways for the UIs to communicate with them. Conflict resolution, that is, ensuring the system can not only detect infeasible instances, but also support users in understanding the data/constraints that cause infeasibility and how to modify the instance to make it feasible. Any interactive optimisation system that has users, will likely have conflicts. Thus, it is mandatory for CP to improve its conflict resolution technology which, while existent [João Marques-Silva and Alessandro Previti, 2014; Lauffer and Topcu, 2019; Ilankaikone Senthooran et al., 2023], is not widespread and it is often still problem-dependent, overwhelming (in the number of constraints shown to the user) and slow. Without it, users will be "stumped" when (rather than if) infeasibility is reached. Solution diversity, that is, supporting users in obtaining a diverse set of (close-to-optimal) solutions, where diversity is measured by a user-provided metric modelled somehow. While some solver-independent technology has been developed and implemented for this [Emmanuel Hebrard et al., 2005; Thierry Petit and Andrew C. Trapp, 2015; Linnea Ingmar et al., 2020], it should be easier to use and more widespread. Further, it requires sophisticated solution comparison capabilities and, importantly, for optimal solutions to be found in seconds rather than hours. This brings me to speed, an area where CP solvers are falling behind. Most of our research group applications now use MIP solvers due to the need for floats (which precludes us from using learning solvers such as Chuffed [Geoffrey Chu, 2013]), but also to the lack of effective warm-start processes that are available in MIP solvers. Interestingly, data and model approximations have been proved to achieve orders of magnitude speedups with small reductions in optimality [Matthias Klapperstueck et al., 2023]. Developing generic (i.e., problem independent) accurate approximations would be extremely useful for complex decision systems. Other areas where I think generic CP methods are worth investigating more include dealing with uncertainty and online problems, ensuring solution fairness (even if it is over time), and studying predict + optimise approaches. Maintain I know very few papers devoted to the issue of maintenance in optimisation technology. While this may be due to my lack of knowledge, I suspect it is also due to the limited adoption of optimisation technology. While the issues in this area are again common to other software systems, I believe the solutions for CP require special attention. For example, the issue of changes in user requirements (that our research group calls problem drift) seems particularly prevalent in decision-making systems, as such problems can evolve rapidly due to unforeseen circumstances. This can make optimisation systems obsolete faster than expected. Our research group has proposed to tackle problem drift by developing a requirements model implemented in the above-mentioned MDSLs and created by both domain experts and modellers that, when modified re-generates parts of the model to support the modifications [Sameela Suharshani Wijesundara et al., 2023]. This and other approaches such as the creation of reusable models components [Sophia Saller and Jana Koehler, 2022; Toby Walsh, 2003], or instantiatable classes for common problem domains, are worth investigating.

The rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) has invoked the need for explainable AI (XAI). One of the most prominent approaches to XAI is to train rule-based ML models, e.g. decision trees, lists and sets, that are deemed interpretable due to their transparent nature. Recent years have witnessed a large body of work in the area of constraints- and reasoning-based approaches to the inference of interpretable models, in particular decision sets (DSes). Despite being shown to outperform heuristic approaches in terms of accuracy, most of them suffer from scalability issues and often fail to handle large training data, in which case no solution is offered. Motivated by this limitation and the success of gradient boosted trees, we propose a novel anytime approach to producing DSes that are both accurate and interpretable. The approach makes use of the concept of a generalized formal explanation and builds on the recent advances in formal explainability of gradient boosted trees. Experimental results obtained on a wide range of datasets, demonstrate that our approach produces DSes that more accurate than those of the state-of-the-art algorithms and comparable with them in terms of explanation size.

Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers allow for incremental computations, which is key to efficient employment of SAT solvers iteratively for developing complex decision and optimization procedures, including maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) solvers. However, enabling incremental computations on the level of constraint optimization remains a noticeable challenge. While incremental computations have been identified to have great potential in speeding up MaxSAT-based approaches for solving various real-world optimization problems, enabling incremental computations in MaxSAT remains to most extent unexplored. In this work, we contribute towards making incremental MaxSAT solving a reality. Firstly, building on the IPASIR interface for incremental SAT solving, we propose the IPAMIR interface for implementing incremental MaxSAT solvers and for developing applications making use of incremental MaxSAT. Secondly, we expand our recent adaptation of the implicit hitting set based MaxHS MaxSAT solver to a fully-fledged incremental MaxSAT solver in terms of implementing the IPAMIR specification in full, and detail in particular how, in addition to weight changes, assumptions are enabled without losing incrementality. Thirdly, we provide further empirical evidence on the benefits of incremental MaxSAT solving under assumptions.

Propositional satisfiability (SAT) solvers are deemed to be among the most efficient reasoners, which have been successfully used in a wide range of practical applications. As this contrasts the well-known NP-completeness of SAT, a number of attempts have been made in the recent past to assess the hardness of propositional formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF). The present paper proposes a CNF formula hardness measure which is close in conceptual meaning to the one based on Backdoor set notion: in both cases some subset B of variables in a CNF formula is used to define the hardness of the formula w.r.t. this set. In contrast to the backdoor measure, the new measure does not demand the polynomial decidability of CNF formulas obtained when substituting assignments of variables from B to the original formula. To estimate this measure the paper suggests an adaptive (ε,δ)-approximation probabilistic algorithm. The problem of looking for the subset of variables which provides the minimal hardness value is reduced to optimization of a pseudo-Boolean black-box function. We apply evolutionary algorithms to this problem and demonstrate applicability of proposed notions and techniques to tests from several families of unsatisfiable CNF formulas.