Abstract Consistency-based diagnosis is a formal approach to software fault localization that explains failing executions by identifying program components whose modification would restore correctness. Tools such as BugAssist and (more recently) CFaults instantiate this idea using logical encodings and bounded model checking. In our first contribution, we improve on this line of work. We present SherLoc , a consistency-based diagnosis engine for ANSI-C programs with multiple failing test cases. SherLoc introduces an explicit repair model that supports pointers and arrays, ensuring that diagnoses correspond only to semantically valid C repairs. In addition, we adapt efficient algorithms from hardware diagnosis, which avoid costly self-composition, and significantly outperform existing tools on standard benchmarks. In our second contribution, we expose fundamental limitations of formal fault localization: program optimizations and transformations can invalidate diagnoses despite semantic equivalence, representing a major hurdle to further scalability improvements; function inlining can break the functional consistency of repairs, yielding diagnoses that cannot be realized at the source level; and bounded encodings inherently miss diagnoses in the presence of loops or unbounded behavior. Our exposition clarifies the gap between the formal ideal of sound and complete diagnosis and what current techniques can realistically guarantee, and thereby helps guide future work toward more robust and principled approaches.

Decision trees (DTs) epitomize what have become to be known as interpretable machine learning (ML) models. This is informally motivated by paths in DTs being often much smaller than the total number of features. This paper shows that in some settings DTs can hardly be deemed interpretable, with paths in a DT being arbitrarily larger than a PI-explanation, i.e. a subset-minimal set of feature values that entails the prediction. As a result, the paper proposes a novel model for computing PI-explanations of DTs, which enables computing one PI-explanation in polynomial time. Moreover, it is shown that enumeration of PI-explanations can be reduced to the enumeration of minimal hitting sets. Experimental results were obtained on a wide range of publicly available datasets with well-known DT-learning tools, and confirm that in most cases DTs have paths that are proper supersets of PI-explanations.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is critical for attaining trust in the operation of AI systems. A key question of an AI system is ``why was this decision made this way''. Formal approaches to XAI use a formal model of the AI system to identify abductive explanations. While abductive explanations may be applicable to a large number of inputs sharing the same concrete values, more general explanations may be preferred for numeric inputs. So-called inflated abductive explanations give intervals for each feature ensuring that any input whose values fall withing these intervals is still guaranteed to make the same prediction. Inflated explanations cover a larger portion of the input space, and hence are deemed more general explanations. But there can be many (inflated) abductive explanations for an instance. Which is the best? In this paper, we show how to find a most general abductive explanation for an AI decision. This explanation covers as much of the input space as possible, while still being a correct formal explanation of the model's behaviour. Given that we only want to give a human one explanation for a decision, the most general explanation gives us the explanation with the broadest applicability, and hence the one most likely to seem sensible.

In the quest for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) one of the questions that frequently arises given a decision made by an AI system is, ``why was the decision made in this way?'' Formal approaches to explainability build a formal model of the AI system and use this to reason about the properties of the system. Given a set of feature values for an instance to be explained, and a resulting decision, a formal abductive explanation is a set of features, such that if they take the given value will always lead to the same decision. This explanation is useful, it shows that only some features were used in making the final decision. But it is narrow, it only shows that if the selected features take their given values the decision is unchanged. It is possible that some features may change values and still lead to the same decision. In this paper we formally define inflated explanations which is a set of features, and for each feature a set of values (always including the value of the instance being explained), such that the decision will remain unchanged, for any of the values allowed for any of the features in the (inflated) abductive explanation. Inflated formal explanations are more informative than common abductive explanations since e.g. they allow us to see if the exact value of a feature is important, or it could be any nearby value. Overall they allow us to better understand the role of each feature in the decision. We show that we can compute inflated explanations for not that much greater cost than abductive explanations, and that we can extend duality results for abductive explanations also to inflated explanations.

The uses of machine learning (ML) have snowballed in recent years. In many cases, ML models are highly complex, and their operation is beyond the understanding of human decision-makers. Nevertheless, some uses of ML models involve high-stakes and safety-critical applications. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to help human decision-makers in understanding the operation of such complex ML models, thus eliciting trust in their operation. Unfortunately, the majority of past XAI work is based on informal approaches, that offer no guarantees of rigor. Unsurprisingly, there exists comprehensive experimental and theoretical evidence confirming that informal methods of XAI can provide human-decision makers with erroneous information. Logic-based XAI represents a rigorous approach to explainability; it is model-based and offers the strongest guarantees of rigor of computed explanations. However, a well-known drawback of logic-based XAI is the complexity of logic reasoning, especially for highly complex ML models. Recent work proposed distance-restricted explanations, i.e. explanations that are rigorous provided the distance to a given input is small enough. Distance-restricted explainability is tightly related with adversarial robustness, and it has been shown to scale for moderately complex ML models, but the number of inputs still represents a key limiting factor. This paper investigates novel algorithms for scaling up the performance of logic-based explainers when computing and enumerating ML model explanations with a large number of inputs.

Given a loop-free sequence of instructions, superoptimization techniques use a constraint solver to search for an equivalent sequence that is optimal for a desired objective. The complexity of the search grows exponentially with the length of the solution being constructed and the problem becomes intractable for large sequences of instructions. This paper presents a new approach to superoptimizing stack-bytecode via three novel components: (1) a greedy algorithm to refine the bound on the length of the optimal solution; (2) a new representation of the optimization problem as a set of weighted soft clauses in MaxSAT; (3) a series of domain-specific dominance and redundant constraints to reduce the search space for optimal solutions. We have developed a tool, named S uper S tack , which can be used to find optimal code translations of modern stack-based bytecode, namely WebAssembly or Ethereum bytecode. Experimental evaluation on more than 500,000 sequences shows the proposed greedy, constraint-based and SAT combination is able to greatly increase optimization gains achieved by existing superoptimizers and reduce to at least a fourth the optimization time.

Just-in-Tim e (JIT) defect prediction has been proposed to help teams prioritize the limited resources on the most risky commits (or pull requests), yet it remains largely a black box, whose predictions are not explainable or actionable to practitioners. Thus, prior studies have applied various model-agnostic techniques to explain the predictions of JIT models. Yet, explanations generated from existing model-agnostic techniques are still not formally sound, robust, and actionable. In this article, we propose FoX , a Fo rmal e X plainer for JIT Defect Prediction, which builds on formal reasoning about the behavior of JIT defect prediction models and hence is able to provide provably correct explanations, which are additionally guaranteed to be minimal. Our experimental results show that FoX is able to efficiently generate provably correct, robust, and actionable explanations, while existing model-agnostic techniques cannot. Our survey study with 54 software practitioners provides valuable insights into the usefulness and trustworthiness of our FoX approach; 86% of participants agreed that our approach is useful, while 74% of participants found it trustworthy. Thus, this article serves as an important stepping stone towards trustable explanations for JIT models to help domain experts and practitioners better understand why a commit is predicted as defective and what to do to mitigate the risk.

The rise of AI methods to make predictions and decisions has led to a pressing need for more explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods. One common approach for XAI is to produce a post-hoc explanation, explaining why a black box ML model made a certain prediction. Formal approaches to post-hoc explanations provide succinct reasons for why a prediction was made, as well as why not another prediction was made. But these approaches assume that features are independent and uniformly distributed. While this means that “why” explanations are correct, they may be longer than required. It also means the “why not” explanations may be suspect as the counterexamples they rely on may not be meaningful. In this paper, we show how one can apply background knowledge to give more succinct “why” formal explanations, that are presumably easier to interpret by humans, and give more accurate “why not” explanations. In addition, we show how to use existing rule induction techniques to efficiently extract background information from a dataset.

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.

Claims about the interpretability of decision trees can be traced back to the origins of machine learning (ML). Indeed, given some input consistent with a decision tree's path, the explanation for the resulting prediction consists of the features in that path. Moreover, a growing number of works propose the use of decision trees, and of other so-called interpretable models, as a possible solution for deploying ML models in high-risk applications. This paper overviews recent theoretical and practical results which demonstrate that for most decision trees, tree paths exhibit so-called explanation redundancy, in that logically sound explanations can often be significantly more succinct than what the features in the path dictates. More importantly, such decision tree explanations can be computed in polynomial-time, and so can be produced with essentially no effort other than traversing the decision tree. The experimental results, obtained on a large range of publicly available decision trees, support the paper's claims.

The deployment of systems of artificial intelligence (AI) in high-risk settings warrants the need for trustworthy AI. This crucial requirement is highlighted by recent EU guidelines and regulations, but also by recommendations from OECD and UNESCO, among several other examples. One critical premise of trustworthy AI involves the necessity of finding explanations that offer reliable guarantees of soundness. This paper argues that the best known eXplainable AI (XAI) approaches fail to provide sound explanations, or that alternatively find explanations which can exhibit significant redundancy. The solution to these drawbacks are explanation approaches that offer formal guarantees of rigor. These formal explanations are not only sound but guarantee irredundancy. This paper summarizes the recent developments in the emerging discipline of formal XAI. The paper also outlines existing challenges for formal XAI.

Compilation into propositional languages finds a growing number of practical uses, including in constraint programming, diagnosis and machine learning (ML), among others. One concrete example is the use of propositional languages as classifiers, and one natural question is how to explain the predictions made. This paper shows that for classifiers represented with some of the best-known propositional languages, different kinds of explanations can be computed in polynomial time. These languages include deterministic decomposable negation normal form (d-DNNF), and so any propositional language that is strictly less succinct than d-DNNF. Furthermore, the paper describes optimizations, specific to Sentential Decision Diagrams (SDDs), which are shown to yield more efficient algorithms in practice.

Tree ensembles (TEs) denote a prevalent machine learning model that do not offer guarantees of interpretability, that represent a challenge from the perspective of explainable artificial intelligence. Besides model agnostic approaches, recent work proposed to explain TEs with formally-defined explanations, which are computed with oracles for propositional satisfiability (SAT) and satisfiability modulo theories. The computation of explanations for TEs involves linear constraints to express the prediction. In practice, this deteriorates scalability of the underlying reasoners. Motivated by the inherent propositional nature of TEs, this paper proposes to circumvent the need for linear constraints and instead employ an optimization engine for pure propositional logic to efficiently handle the prediction. Concretely, the paper proposes to use a MaxSAT solver and exploit the objective function to determine a winning class. This is achieved by devising a propositional encoding for computing explanations of TEs. Furthermore, the paper proposes additional heuristics to improve the underlying MaxSAT solving procedure. Experimental results obtained on a wide range of publicly available datasets demonstrate that the proposed MaxSAT-based approach is either on par or outperforms the existing reasoning-based explainers, thus representing a robust and efficient alternative for computing formal explanations for TEs.

The need to understand the inner workings of opaque Machine Learning models has prompted researchers to devise various types of post-hoc explanations. A large class of such explainers proceed in two phases: first perturb an input instance whose explanation is sought, and then generate an interpretable artifact to explain the prediction of the opaque model on that instance. Recently, Deutch and Frost proposed to use an additional input from the user: a set of constraints over the input space to guide the perturbation phase. While this approach affords the user the ability to tailor the explanation to their needs, striking a balance between flexibility, theoretical rigor and computational cost has remained an open challenge. We propose a novel constraint-driven explanation generation approach which simultaneously addresses these issues in a modular fashion. Our framework supports the use of expressive Boolean constraints giving the user more flexibility to specify the subspace to generate perturbations from. Leveraging advances in Formal Methods, we can theoretically guarantee strict adherence of the samples to the desired distribution. This also allows us to compute fidelity in a rigorous way, while scaling much better in practice. Our empirical study demonstrates concrete uses of our tool CLIME in obtaining more meaningful explanations with high fidelity.

Decision trees (DTs) epitomize the ideal of interpretability of machine learning (ML) models. The interpretability of decision trees motivates explainability approaches by so-called intrinsic interpretability, and it is at the core of recent proposals for applying interpretable ML models in high-risk applications. The belief in DT interpretability is justified by the fact that explanations for DT predictions are generally expected to be succinct. Indeed, in the case of DTs, explanations correspond to DT paths. Since decision trees are ideally shallow, and so paths contain far fewer features than the total number of features, explanations in DTs are expected to be succinct, and hence interpretable. This paper offers both theoretical and experimental arguments demonstrating that, as long as interpretability of decision trees equates with succinctness of explanations, then decision trees ought not be deemed interpretable. The paper introduces logically rigorous path explanations and path explanation redundancy, and proves that there exist functions for which decision trees must exhibit paths with explanation redundancy that is arbitrarily larger than the actual path explanation. The paper also proves that only a very restricted class of functions can be represented with DTs that exhibit no explanation redundancy. In addition, the paper includes experimental results substantiating that path explanation redundancy is observed ubiquitously in decision trees, including those obtained using different tree learning algorithms, but also in a wide range of publicly available decision trees. The paper also proposes polynomial-time algorithms for eliminating path explanation redundancy, which in practice require negligible time to compute. Thus, these algorithms serve to indirectly attain irreducible, and so succinct, explanations for decision trees. Furthermore, the paper includes novel results related with duality and enumeration of explanations, based on using SAT solvers as witness-producing NP-oracles.

Machine learning (ML) is ubiquitous in modern life. Since it is being deployed in technologies that affect our privacy and safety, it is often crucial to understand the reasoning behind its decisions, warranting the need for explainable AI. Rule-based models, such as decision trees, decision lists, and decision sets, are conventionally deemed to be the most interpretable. Recent work uses propositional satisfiability (SAT) solving (and its optimization variants) to generate minimum-size decision sets. Motivated by limited practical scalability of these earlier methods, this paper proposes a novel approach to learn minimum-size decision sets by enumerating individual rules of the target decision set independently of each other, and then solving a set cover problem to select a subset of rules. The approach makes use of modern maximum satisfiability and integer linear programming technologies. Experiments on a wide range of publicly available datasets demonstrate the advantage of the new approach over the state of the art in SAT-based decision set learning.

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.

Motivated by the need to understand the behaviour of complex machine learning (ML) models, there has been recent interest in learning optimal (or sub-optimal) decision trees (DTs). This interest is explained by the fact that DTs are widely regarded as interpretable by human decision makers. An alternative to DTs are Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs), which can be deemed interpretable. Compared to DTs, and despite a fixed variable order, BDDs offer the advantage of more compact representations in practice, due to node sharing. Moreover, there is also extensive experience in the efficient manipulation of BDDs. Our work proposes preliminary inroads in two main directions: (a) proposing a SAT-based model for computing a decision tree as the smallest Reduced Ordered Binary Decision Diagram, consistent with given training data; and (b) exploring heuristic approaches for deriving sub-optimal (i.e., not minimal) ROBDDs, in order to improve the scalability of the proposed technique. The heuristic approach is related to recent work on using BDDs for classification. Whereas previous works addressed size reduction by general logic synthesis techniques, our work adds the contribution of generalized cofactors, that are a well-known compaction technique specific to BDDs, once a care (or equivalently a don't care) set is given. Preliminary experimental results are also provided, proposing a direct comparison between optimal and sub-optimal solutions, as well as an evaluation of the impact of the proposed size reduction steps.

In many classification tasks there is a requirement of monotonicity. Concretely, if all else remains constant, increasing (resp. decreasing) the value of one or more features must not decrease (resp. increase) the value of the prediction. Despite comprehensive efforts on learning monotonic classifiers, dedicated approaches for explaining monotonic classifiers are scarce and classifier-specific. This paper describes novel algorithms for the computation of one formal explanation of a (black-box) monotonic classifier. These novel algorithms are polynomial (indeed linear) in the run time complexity of the classifier. Furthermore, the paper presents a practically efficient model-agnostic algorithm for enumerating formal explanations.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely used in decision making procedures in myriads of real-world applications across important practical areas such as finance, healthcare, education, and safety critical systems. Due to its ubiquitous use in safety and privacy critical domains, it is often vital to understand the reasoning behind the AI decisions, which motivates the need for explainable AI (XAI). One of the major approaches to XAI is represented by computing so-called interpretable machine learning (ML) models, such as decision trees (DT), decision lists (DL) and decision sets (DS). These models build on the use of if-then rules and are thus deemed to be easily understandable by humans. A number of approaches have been proposed in the recent past to devising all kinds of interpretable ML models, the most prominent of which involve encoding the problem into a logic formalism, which is then tackled by invoking a reasoning or discrete optimization procedure. This paper overviews the recent advances of the reasoning and constraints based approaches to learning interpretable ML models and discusses their advantages and limitations.

Recent work has shown that not only decision trees (DTs) may not be interpretable but also proposed a polynomial-time algorithm for computing one PI-explanation of a DT. This paper shows that for a wide range of classifiers, globally referred to as decision graphs, and which include decision trees and binary decision diagrams, but also their multi-valued variants, there exist polynomial-time algorithms for computing one PI-explanation. In addition, the paper also proposes a polynomial-time algorithm for computing one contrastive explanation. These novel algorithms build on explanation graphs (XpG's). XpG's denote a graph representation that enables both theoretical and practically efficient computation of explanations for decision graphs. Furthermore, the paper proposes a practically efficient solution for the enumeration of explanations, and studies the complexity of deciding whether a given feature is included in some explanation. For the concrete case of decision trees, the paper shows that the set of all contrastive explanations can be enumerated in polynomial time. Finally, the experimental results validate the practical applicability of the algorithms proposed in the paper on a wide range of publicly available benchmarks.

Decision sets and decision lists are two of the most easily explainable machine learning models. Given the renewed emphasis on explainable machine learning decisions, both of these machine learning models are becoming increasingly attractive, as they combine small size and clear explainability. In this paper, we define size as the total number of literals in the SAT encoding of these rule-based models as opposed to earlier work that concentrates on the number of rules. In this paper, we develop approaches to computing minimum-size “perfect” decision sets and decision lists, which are perfectly accurate on the training data, and minimal in size, making use of modern SAT solving technology. We also provide a new method for determining optimal sparse alternatives, which trade off size and accuracy. The experiments in this paper demonstrate that the optimal decision sets computed by the SAT-based approach are comparable with the best heuristic methods, but much more succinct, and thus, more explainable. We contrast the size and test accuracy of optimal decisions lists versus optimal decision sets, as well as other state-of-the-art methods for determining optimal decision lists. Finally, we examine the size of average explanations generated by decision sets and decision lists.

Constrained location problems find a wide range of practical applications. Recent work showed that dedicated brute-force algorithms and greedy approach enable solutions of reasonable efficiency, for a restriction of the general constrained location problem, referred to as the branch location problem. This paper extends earlier work in several ways. First, the paper develops propositional encodings for the branch location problem. Second, given that the branch location problem is a restriction of the general constraint location problem, the paper shows that the restricted problem is still hard for NP. Third, the paper devises improved propositional encodings for the branch location problem, which in practice enable not only solving exactly a significantly larger class of problems but also effectively approximating optimal problem solutions, using state-of-the-art (complete and incomplete) Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) solvers.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) represents arguably one of the most crucial challenges being faced by the area of AI these days. Although the majority of approaches to XAI are of heuristic nature, recent work proposed the use of abductive reasoning to computing provably correct explanations for machine learning (ML) predictions. The proposed rigorous approach was shown to be useful not only for computing trustable explanations but also for validating explanations computed heuristically. It was also applied to uncover a close relationship between XAI and verification of ML models. This paper overviews the advances of the rigorous logic-based approach to XAI and argues that it is indispensable if trustable XAI is of concern.

Recent work proposed the computation of so-called PI-explanations of Naive Bayes Classifiers (NBCs). PI-explanations are subset-minimal sets of feature-value pairs that are sufficient for the prediction, and have been computed with state-of-the-art exact algorithms that are worst-case exponential in time and space. In contrast, we show that the computation of one PI-explanation for an NBC can be achieved in log-linear time, and that the same result also applies to the more general class of linear classifiers. Furthermore, we show that the enumeration of PI-explanations can be obtained with polynomial delay. Experimental results demonstrate the performance gains of the new algorithms when compared with earlier work. The experimental results also investigate ways to measure the quality of heuristic explanations.

The growing range of applications of Machine Learning (ML) in a multitude of settings motivates the ability of computing small explanations for predictions made. Small explanations are generally accepted as easier for human decision makers to understand. Most earlier work on computing explanations is based on heuristic approaches, providing no guarantees of quality, in terms of how close such solutions are from cardinality- or subset-minimal explanations. This paper develops a constraint-agnostic solution for computing explanations for any ML model. The proposed solution exploits abductive reasoning, and imposes the requirement that the ML model can be represented as sets of constraints using some target constraint reasoning system for which the decision problem can be answered with some oracle. The experimental results, obtained on well-known datasets, validate the scalability of the proposed approach as well as the quality of the computed solutions.

Existing automated testing frameworks require multiple observations to be jointly diagnosed with the purpose of identifying common fault locations. This is the case for example with continuous integration tools. This paper shows that existing solutions fail to compute the set of minimal diagnoses, and as a result run times can increase by orders of magnitude. The paper proposes not only solutions to correct existing algorithms, but also conditions for improving their run times. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of multiple observations raises a number of important computational challenges, which even the corrected algorithms are often unable to cope with. As a result, the paper devises a novel algorithm for diagnosing multiple observations, which is shown to enable significant performance improvements in practice.

The importance of explanations (XP's) of machine learning (ML) model predictions and of adversarial examples (AE's) cannot be overstated, with both arguably being essential for the practical success of ML in different settings. There has been recent work on understanding and assessing the relationship between XP's and AE's. However, such work has been mostly experimental and a sound theoretical relationship has been elusive. This paper demonstrates that explanations and adversarial examples are related by a generalized form of hitting set duality, which extends earlier work on hitting set duality observed in model-based diagnosis and knowledge compilation. Furthermore, the paper proposes algorithms, which enable computing adversarial examples from explanations and vice-versa.

Conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is at the core of the success of modern SAT solvers. In terms of propositional proof complexity, CDCL has been shown as strong as general resolution. Improvements to SAT solvers can be realized either by improving existing algorithms, or by exploiting proof systems stronger than CDCL. Recent work proposed an approach for solving SAT by reduction to Horn MaxSAT. The proposed reduction coupled with MaxSAT resolution represents a new proof system, DRMaxSAT, which was shown to enable polynomial time refutations of pigeonhole formulas, in contrast with either CDCL or general resolution. This paper investigates the DRMaxSAT proof system, and shows that DRMaxSAT p-simulates general resolution, that AC0-Frege+PHP p-simulates DRMaxSAT, and that DRMaxSAT can not p-simulate AC0-Frege+PHP or the cutting planes proof system.

Propositional satisfiability (SAT) is at the nucleus of state-of-the-art approaches to a variety of computationally hard problems, one of which is cryptanalysis. Moreover, a number of practical applications of SAT can only be tackled efficiently by identifying and exploiting a subset of formula's variables called backdoor set (or simply backdoors). This paper proposes a new class of backdoor sets for SAT used in the context of cryptographic attacks, namely guess-and-determine attacks. The idea is to identify the best set of backdoor variables subject to a statistically estimated hardness of the guess-and-determine attack using a SAT solver. Experimental results on weakened variants of the renowned encryption algorithms exhibit advantage of the proposed approach compared to the state of the art in terms of the estimated hardness of the resulting guess-and-determine attacks.

Explanations of machine learning (ML) predictions are of fundamental importance in different settings. Moreover, explanations should be succinct, to enable easy understanding by humans. Decision trees represent an often used approach for developing explainable ML models, motivated by the natural mapping between decision tree paths and rules. Clearly, smaller trees correlate well with smaller rules, and so one challenge is to devise solutions for computing smallest size decision trees given training data. Although simple to formulate, the computation of smallest size decision trees turns out to be an extremely challenging computational problem, for which no practical solutions are known. This paper develops a SAT-based model for computing smallest-size decision trees given training data. In sharp contrast with past work, the proposed SAT model is shown to scale for publicly available datasets of practical interest.

The concept of backbone variables, i.e., variables that take the same value in all solutions-or, equivalently, never take a specific value-finds various important applications in the context of Boolean satisfiability (SAT), motivating the development of efficient algorithms for determining the set of backbone variables of a given propositional formula. Notably, this problem surpasses the complexity of merely deciding satisfiability. In this work we consider generalizations of the concept of backbones in SAT to non-binary (and potentially infinite) domain constraint satisfaction problems. Specifically, we propose a natural generalization of backbones to the context of satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), applicable to a range of different theories as well as CSPs in general, and provide two generic algorithms for determining the backbone in this general context. As two concrete instantiations, we focus on two central SMT theories, the theory of linear integer arithmetic (LIA) with infinite integer domains, and the theory of bit vectors (BV), and empirically evaluate the potential of the proposed algorithms on both LIA and BV instances.

Different optimization problems defined on graphs find application in complex network analysis. Existing propositional encodings render impractical the use of propositional satisfiability (SAT) and maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) solvers for solving a variety of these problems on large graphs. This paper has two main contributions. First, the paper identifies sources of inefficiency in existing encodings for different optimization problems in graphs. Second, for the concrete case of the maximum clique problem, the paper develops a novel encoding which is shown to be far more compact than existing encodings for large sparse graphs. More importantly, the experimental results show that the proposed encoding enables existing SAT solvers to compute a maximum clique for large sparse networks, often more efficiently than the state of the art.

Logic-based abduction finds important applications in artificial intelligence and related areas. One application example is in finding explanations for observed phenomena. Propositional abduction is a restriction of abduction to the propositional domain, and complexity-wise is in the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Recent work has shown that exploiting implicit hitting sets and propositional satisfiability (SAT) solvers provides an efficient approach for propositional abduction. This paper investigates this earlier work and proposes a number of algorithmic improvements. These improvements are shown to yield exponential reductions in the number of SAT solver calls. More importantly, the experimental results show significant performance improvements compared to the the best approaches for propositional abduction.

Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) is a well-known optimization version of Propositional Satisfiability (SAT), that finds a wide range of relevant practical applications. Despite the significant progress made in MaxSAT solving in recent years, many practically relevant problem instances require prohibitively large run times, and many cannot simply be solved with existing algorithms. One approach for solving MaxSAT is based on iterative SAT solving, which may optionally be guided by unsatisfiable cores. A difficulty with this class of algorithms is the possibly large number of times a SAT solver is called, e.g. for instances with very large clause weights. This paper proposes the use of geometric progressions to tackle this issue, thus allowing, for the vast majority of problem instances, to reduce the number of calls to the SAT solver. The new approach is also shown to be applicable to core-guided MaxSAT algorithms. Experimental results, obtained on a large number of problem instances, show gains when compared to state-of-the-art implementations of MaxSAT algorithms.

Autarkies are partial truth assignments that satisfy all clauses having literals in the assigned variables. Autarkies provide important information in the analysis of unsatisfiable formulas. Indeed, clauses satisfied by autarkies cannot be included in minimal explanations or in minimal corrections of unsatisfiability. Computing the maximum autarky allows identifying all such clauses. In recent years, a number of alternative approaches have been proposed for computing a maximum autarky. This paper develops new models for representing autarkies, and proposes new algorithms for computing the maximum autarky. Experimental results, obtained on a large number of problem instances, show orders of magnitude performance improvements over existing approaches, and solving instances that could not otherwise be solved.

Package management as a means of reuse of software artifacts has become extremely popular, most notably in Linux distributions. At the same time, successful package management brings about a number of computational challenges. Whenever a user requires a new package to be installed, a package manager not only installs the new package but it might also install other packages or uninstall some old ones in order to respect dependencies and conflicts of the packages. Coming up with a new configuration of packages is computationally challenging. It is in particular complex when we also wish to optimize for user preferences, such as that the resulting package configuration should not differ too much from the original one. A number of exact approaches for solving this problem have been proposed in recent years. These approaches, however, do not have guaranteed runtime due to the high computational complexity of the problem. This paper addresses this issue by devising a hybrid approach that integrates exact solving with approximate solving by invoking the approximate part whenever the solver is running out of time. Experimental evaluation shows that this approach enables returning high-quality package configurations with rapid response time.