Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2006.06343

A framework for step-wise explaining how to solve constraint satisfaction problems

Abstract

We explore the problem of step-wise explaining how to solve constraint satisfaction problems, with a use case on logic grid puzzles. More specifically, we study the problem of explaining the inference steps that one can take during propagation, in a way that is easy to interpret for a person. Thereby, we aim to give the constraint solver explainable agency, which can help in building trust in the solver by being able to understand and even learn from the explanations. The main challenge is that of finding a sequence of simple explanations, where each explanation should aim to be as cognitively easy as possible for a human to verify and understand. This contrasts with the arbitrary combination of facts and constraints that the solver may use when propagating. We propose the use of a cost function to quantify how simple an individual explanation of an inference step is, and identify the explanation-production problem of finding the best sequence of explanations of a CSP. Our approach is agnostic of the underlying constraint propagation mechanisms, and can provide explanations even for inference steps resulting from combinations of constraints. In case multiple constraints are involved, we also develop a mechanism that allows to break the most difficult steps up and thus gives the user the ability to zoom in on specific parts of the explanation. Our proposed algorithm iteratively constructs the explanation sequence by using an optimistic estimate of the cost function to guide the search for the best explanation at each step. Our experiments on logic grid puzzles show the feasibility of the approach in terms of the quality of the individual explanations and the resulting explanation sequences obtained.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bart Bogaerts, Emilio Gamba, Tias Guns. 2020-06-11. A framework for step-wise explaining how to solve constraint satisfaction problems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2021.103550

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Deciding Predicate Logical Theories of Real-Valued Functions

The notion of a real-valued function is central to mathematics, computer science, and many other scientific fields. Despite this importance, there are hardly any positive results on decision procedures for predicate logical theories that reason about real-valued functions. This paper defines a first-order predicate language for reasoning about multi-dimensional smooth real-valued functions and their derivatives, and demonstrates that - despite the obvious undecidability barriers - certain positive decidability results for such a language are indeed possible.

cs.LO

Structural Liveness of Conservative Petri Nets

We show that the EXPSPACE-hardness result for structural liveness of Petri nets [Jancar and Purser, 2019] holds even for a simple subclass of conservative nets. As our main result, we prove that for structurally live conservative nets, the values of the minimal live markings are at most doubly exponential in the size of the net. This implies the EXPSPACE-completeness of structural liveness for conservative Petri nets. The result also applies to structurally bounded Petri nets, whereas the complexity of the general case remains open. As a proof ingredient of independent interest, we present an extension of known results on the bounds of minimal integer solutions to Boolean combinations of linear equalities, inequalities, and divisibility constraints.

cs.LO

Verifying Numerical Methods with Isabelle/HOL

Modern machine learning pipelines and ODE solvers are built on numerical algorithms. Reliable numerical methods are thus a prerequisite for trustworthy machine learning and cyber-physical systems. We evaluate a framework designed for verifying imperative programs and the Isabelle proof assistant as tools for proving the total correctness of four numerical algorithms: the bisection method, the fixed-point method, the perceptron, and the gradient descent algorithm. Our verifications required subtle extensions and generalisations to Isabelle's version of Taylor's theorem and higher-order derivatives. Finally, we reflect on the framework's automation, friendly syntax, and on further requirements to turn it into a verification tool for numerical methods.

cs.LO