Tournaments are widely used models to represent pairwise dominance between candidates, alternatives, or teams. We study the problem of providing certified explanations for why a candidate appears among the winners under various tournament rules. To this end, we identify minimal supports—minimal sub-tournaments in which the candidate is guaranteed to win regardless of how the rest of the tournament is completed (that is, the candidate is a necessary winner of the sub-tournament). This notion corresponds to an abductive explanation for the question,"Why does the winner win the tournament?"—a central concept in formal explainable AI. We focus on common tournament solutions: the top cycle, the uncovered set, the Copeland rule, the Borda rule, the maximin rule, and the weighted uncovered set. For each rule we determine the size of the smallest minimal supports, and we present polynomial-time algorithms to compute them for all solutions except for the weighted uncovered set, for which the problem is NP-complete. Finally, we show how minimal supports can serve to produce compact, certified, and intuitive explanations for tournament solutions.

We view voting rules as classifiers that assign a winner (a class) to a profile of voters’ preferences (an instance). We propose to apply techniques from formal explainability, most notably abductive and contrastive explanations, to identify minimal subsets of a preference profile that either imply the current winner or explain why a different candidate was not elected. Formal explanations turn out to have strong connections with classical problems studied in computational social choice such as bribery, possible and necessary winner identification, and preference learning. We design algorithms for computing abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules. For the Borda rule, we find a lower bound on the size of the smallest abductive explanations, and we conduct simulations to identify correlations between properties of preference profiles and the size of their smallest abductive explanations.

This paper proposes a tentative and original survey of meeting points between Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) and Machine Learning (ML), two areas which have been developed quite separately in the last four decades. First, some common concerns are identified and discussed such as the types of representation used, the roles of knowledge and data, the lack or the excess of information, or the need for explanations and causal understanding. Then, the survey is organised in seven sections covering most of the territory where KRR and ML meet. We start with a section dealing with prototypical approaches from the literature on learning and reasoning: Inductive Logic Programming, Statistical Relational Learning, and Neurosymbolic AI, where ideas from rule-based reasoning are combined with ML. Then we focus on the use of various forms of background knowledge in learning, ranging from additional regularisation terms in loss functions, to the problem of aligning symbolic and vector space representations, or the use of knowledge graphs for learning. Then, the next section describes how KRR notions may benefit to learning tasks. For instance, constraints can be used as in declarative data mining for influencing the learned patterns; or semantic features are exploited in low-shot learning to compensate for the lack of data; or yet we can take advantage of analogies for learning purposes. Conversely, another section investigates how ML methods may serve KRR goals. For instance, one may learn special kinds of rules such as default rules, fuzzy rules or threshold rules, or special types of information such as constraints, or preferences. The section also covers formal concept analysis and rough sets-based methods. Yet another section reviews various interactions between Automated Reasoning and ML, such as the use of ML methods in SAT solving to make reasoning faster. Then a section deals with works related to model accountability, including explainability and interpretability, fairness and robustness. Finally, a section covers works on handling imperfect or incomplete data, including the problem of learning from uncertain or coarse data, the use of belief functions for regression, a revision-based view of the EM algorithm, the use of possibility theory in statistics, or the learning of imprecise models. This paper thus aims at a better mutual understanding of research in KRR and ML, and how they can cooperate. The paper is completed by an abundant bibliography.

This paper focuses on graphical models for modelling preferences in combinatorial space and their use for item optimisation. The preferential optimisation task seeks to find the preferred item containing some defined values, which is useful for many recommendation settings in e-commerce. We show that efficient (i.e., with polynomial time complexity) preferential optimisation is achieved with a subset of cyclic CP-nets called conditional acyclic CP-net. We also introduce a new graphical preference model, called Conditional-Optimality networks (CO-networks), that are more concise than conditional acyclic CP-nets and LP-trees but have the same expressiveness with respect to optimisation. Finally, we empirically show that preferential optimisation can be used for encoding alternatives into partial instantiations and vice versa, paving the way towards CO-nets and CP-nets unsupervised learning with the minimal description length (MDL) principle.

In order to reduce the size of compiled forms in knowledge compilation, we propose a new approach based on a splitting of the main representation into a nucleus representation and satellite representations. Nucleus representation is the projection of the original representation onto the "main" variables and satellite representations define the other variables according to the nucleus. We propose a language and a method, aimed at OBDD/OMDD representations, to compile into this split form. Our experimental study shows major size reductions on configuration- and diagnosis- oriented benchmarks.

This paper considers the task of learning the preferences of users on a combinatorial set of alternatives, as it can be the case for example with online configurators. In many settings, what is available to the learner is a set of positive examples of alternatives that have been selected during past interactions. We propose to learn a model of the users' preferences that ranks previously chosen alternatives as high as possible. In this paper, we study the particular task of learning conditional lexicographic preferences. We present an algorithm to learn several classes of lexicographic preference trees, prove convergence properties of the algorithm, and experiment on both synthetic data and on a real-world bench in the domain of recommendation in interactive configuration.

Argumentation is a form of reasoning, in which two agents cooperate in order to establish the validity of a given argument; this argument could be used to deduce some conclusion of interest. In this article, we look at the credulous and the sceptical decision problems under Dung's preferred semantics, that is, the problems of deciding if an argument belongs to one or to every preferred extension of an argumentation framework. We present two proof theories for the credulous decision problem and an algorithm which computes one of them. We show how these proof theories can be used for the sceptical decision problem in two particular cases of argumentation frameworks and we give an algorithm which answers that problem in the general case.

Default logic has been introduced for handling reasoning with incomplete knowledge. It has been widely studied, and various definitions have been proposed for it. Most of the variants have been defined by means of fixed points of some operator. We propose here another approach, which is based on a study of the way in which general rules with exceptions, used in a default reasoning process, can contradict one another. We then isolate sets of noncontradicting rules, as large as possible in order to exploit as much information as possible, and construct, for each of these sets of rules, the set of conclusions that can be deduced from it. We show that our framework encompasses most of the existing variants of default logic, allowing those variants to be compared from a knowledge representation point of view. Our approach also enables us to provide an operational definition of extensions in some interesting cases. Proof‐theoretical and semantical aspects are investigated.