Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems’ decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty.

Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems’ decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a well-known logic-based formalism that has been used to model and solve a variety of AI problems. For several years, ASP implementations primarily focused on the main computational task: the computation of one answer set of a (logic) program. Nonetheless, several AI problems, that can be conveniently modelled in ASP, require to enumerate solutions characterized by an optimality property that can be expressed in terms of subset-minimality with respect to some objective atoms. In this context, solutions are often either (i) answer sets that are subset-minimal w.r.t. the objective atoms or (ii) atoms that are contained in all subset-minimal answer sets, or (iii) sets of atoms that enforce the absence of answer sets on the ASP program at hand — such sets are referred to as minimal unsatisfiable subsets (MUSes). In all the above-mentioned cases, the corresponding computational task is currently not supported by plain state-of-the-art ASP solvers. In this paper, we study formally these tasks and fill the gap in current implementations by proposing several algorithms to enumerate MUSes and subset-minimal answer sets, as well as perform cautious reasoning on subset-minimal answer sets. We implement our algorithms on top of wasp and perform an experimental analysis on several hard benchmarks showing the good performance of our implementation.

In human-aware planning, a planning agent may need to provide an explanation to a human user on why its plan is optimal. A popular approach to do this is called model reconciliation, where the agent tries to reconcile the differences in its model and the human's model such that the plan is also optimal in the human's model. In this paper, we present a logic-based framework for model reconciliation that extends beyond the realm of planning. More specifically, given a knowledge base KB1 entailing a formula phi and a second knowledge base KB2 not entailing it, model reconciliation seeks an explanation, in the form of a cardinality-minimal subset of KB1, whose integration into KB2 makes the entailment possible. Our approach, based on ideas originating in the context of analysis of inconsistencies, exploits the existing hitting set duality between minimal correction sets (MCSes) and minimal unsatisfiable sets (MUSes) in order to identify an appropriate explanation. However, differently from those works targeting inconsistent formulas, which assume a single knowledge base, MCSes and MUSes are computed over two distinct knowledge bases. We conclude our paper with an empirical evaluation of the newly introduced approach on planning instances, where we show how it outperforms an existing state-of-the-art solver, and generic non-planning instances from recent SAT competitions, for which no other solver exists.

Methods for explaining the sources of inconsistency of overconstrained systems find an ever-increasing number of applications, ranging from diagnosis and configuration to ontology debugging and axiom pinpointing in description logics. Efficient enumeration of minimal correction subsets (MCSes), defined as sets of constraints whose removal from the system restores feasibility, is a central task in such domains. In this work, we propose a novel approach to speeding up MCS enumeration over conjunctive normal form propositional formulas by caching of so-called premise sets (PSes) seen during the enumeration process. Contrasting to earlier work, we move from caching unsatisfiable cores to caching PSes and propose a more effective way of implementing the cache. The proposed techniques noticeably improves on the performance of state-of-the-art MCS enumeration algorithms in practice.

Abstract Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a logic-based knowledge representation framework, supporting—among other reasoning modes—the central task of query answering. In the propositional case, query answering amounts to computing cautious consequences of the input program among the atoms in a given set of candidates, where a cautious consequence is an atom belonging to all stable models. Currently, the most efficient algorithms either iteratively verify the existence of a stable model of the input program extended with the complement of one candidate, where the candidate is heuristically selected, or introduce a clause enforcing the falsity of at least one candidate, so that the solver is free to choose which candidate to falsify at any time during the computation of a stable model. This paper introduces new algorithms for the computation of cautious consequences, with the aim of driving the solver to search for stable models discarding more candidates. Specifically, one of such algorithms enforces minimality on the set of true candidates, where different notions of minimality can be used, and another takes advantage of unsatisfiable cores computation. The algorithms are implemented inwasp, and experiments on benchmarks from the latest ASP competitions show that the new algorithms perform better than the state of the art.

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.

Minimal explanations of infeasibility find a wide range of uses. In the Boolean domain, these are referred to as Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets (MUSes). In some settings, one needs to enumerate MUSes of a Boolean formula. Most often the goal is to enumerate all MUSes. In cases where this is computationally infeasible, an alternative is to enumerate some MUSes. This paper develops a novel approach for partial enumeration of MUSes, that complements existing alternatives. If the enumeration of all MUSes is viable, then existing alternatives represent the best option. However, for formulas where the enumeration of all MUSes is unrealistic, our approach provides a solution for enumerating some MUSes within a given time bound. The experimental results focus on formulas for which existing solutions are unable to enumerate MUSes, and shows that the new approach can in most cases enumerate a non-negligible number of MUSes within a given time bound.