Reachability in Parametric Interval Markov Chains using Constraints

Parametric Interval Markov Chains (pIMCs) are a specification formalism that extend Markov Chains (MCs) and Interval Markov Chains (IMCs) by taking into account imprecision in the transition probability values: transitions in pIMCs are labeled with parametric intervals of probabilities. In this work, we study the difference between pIMCs and other Markov Chain abstractions models and investigate the two usual semantics for IMCs: once-and-for-all and at-every-step. In particular, we prove that both semantics agree on the maximal/minimal reachability probabilities of a given IMC. We then investigate solutions to several parameter synthesis problems in the context of pIMCs -- consistency, qualitative reachability and quantitative reachability -- that rely on constraint encodings. Finally, we propose a prototype implementation of our constraint encodings with promising results

Robustly Solvable Constraint Satisfaction Problems

An algorithm for a constraint satisfaction problem is called robust if it outputs an assignment satisfying at least $(1-g(\varepsilon))$-fraction of the constraints given a $(1-\varepsilon)$-satisfiable instance, where $g(\varepsilon) \rightarrow 0$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Guruswami and Zhou conjectured a characterization of constraint languages for which the corresponding constraint satisfaction problem admits an efficient robust algorithm. This paper confirms their conjecture

Finding robust solutions for constraint satisfaction problems with discrete and ordered domains by coverings

Constraint programming is a paradigm wherein relations between variables are stated in the form of constraints. Many real life problems come from uncertain and dynamic environments, where the initial constraints and domains may change during its execution. Thus, the solution found for the problem may become invalid. The search forrobustsolutions for constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) has become an important issue in the ¿eld of constraint programming. In some cases, there exists knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. In other cases, this information is unknown or hard to obtain. In this paper, we consider CSPs with discrete and ordered domains where changes only involve restrictions or expansions of domains or constraints. To this end, we model CSPs as weighted CSPs (WCSPs) by assigning weights to each valid tuple of the problem constraints and domains. The weight of each valid tuple is based on its distance from the borders of the space of valid tuples in the corresponding constraint/domain. This distance is estimated by a new concept introduced in this paper: coverings. Thus, the best solution for the modeled WCSP can be considered as a most robust solution for the original CSP according to these assumptionsThis work has been partially supported by the research projects TIN2010-20976-C02-01 (Min. de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spain) and P19/08 (Min. de Fomento, Spain-FEDER), and the fellowship program FPU.Climent Aunés, LI.; Wallace, RJ.; Salido Gregorio, MA.; Barber Sanchís, F. (2013). Finding robust solutions for constraint satisfaction problems with discrete and ordered domains by coverings. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-013-9420-0S126Climent L, Salido M, Barber F (2011) Reformulating dynamic linear constraint satisfaction problems as weighted csps for searching robust solutions. In: Ninth symposium of abstraction, reformulation, and approximation (SARA-11), pp 34–41Dechter R, Dechter A (1988) Belief maintenance in dynamic constraint networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th national conference on, artificial intelligence (AAAI-88), pp 37–42Dechter R, Meiri I, Pearl J (1991) Temporal constraint networks. Artif Intell 49(1):61–95Fargier H, Lang J (1993) Uncertainty in constraint satisfaction problems: a probabilistic approach. In: Proceedings of the symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty (EC-SQARU-93), pp 97–104Fargier H, Lang J, Schiex T (1996) Mixed constraint satisfaction: a framework for decision problems under incomplete knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 13th national conference on, artificial intelligence, pp 175–180Fowler D, Brown K (2000) Branching constraint satisfaction problems for solutions robust under likely changes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP-2000), pp 500–504Goles E, Martínez S (1990) Neural and automata networks: dynamical behavior and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtHays W (1973) Statistics for the social sciences, vol 410, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkHebrard E (2006) Robust solutions for constraint satisfaction and optimisation under uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of New South WalesHerrmann H, Schneider C, Moreira A, Andrade Jr J, Havlin S (2011) Onion-like network topology enhances robustness against malicious attacks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp 2011(1):P01,027Larrosa J, Schiex T (2004) Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artif Intell 159:1–26Larrosa J, Meseguer P, Schiex T (1999) Maintaining reversible DAC for Max-CSP. J Artif Intell 107(1):149–163Mackworth A (1977) On reading sketch maps. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’77, pp 598–606Sam J (1995) Constraint consistency techniques for continuous domains. These de doctorat, École polytechnique fédérale de LausanneSchiex T, Fargier H, Verfaillie G (1995) Valued constraint satisfaction problems: hard and easy problems. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on, artificial intelligence (IJCAI-95), pp 631–637Taillard E (1993) Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. Eur J Oper Res 64(2):278–285Verfaillie G, Jussien N (2005) Constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments: a survey. Constraints 10(3):253–281Wallace R, Freuder E (1998) Stable solutions for dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP-98), pp 447–461Wallace RJ, Grimes D (2010) Problem-structure versus solution-based methods for solving dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI-10), IEEEWalsh T (2002) Stochastic constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on, artificial intelligence (ECAI-02), pp 111–115William F (2006) Topology and its applications. Wiley, New YorkWiner B (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkYorke-Smith N, Gervet C (2009) Certainty closure: reliable constraint reasoning with incomplete or erroneous data. J ACM Trans Comput Log (TOCL) 10(1):

Tractable Optimization Problems through Hypergraph-Based Structural Restrictions

Several variants of the Constraint Satisfaction Problem have been proposed and investigated in the literature for modelling those scenarios where solutions are associated with some given costs. Within these frameworks computing an optimal solution is an NP-hard problem in general; yet, when restricted over classes of instances whose constraint interactions can be modelled via (nearly-)acyclic graphs, this problem is known to be solvable in polynomial time. In this paper, larger classes of tractable instances are singled out, by discussing solution approaches based on exploiting hypergraph acyclicity and, more generally, structural decomposition methods, such as (hyper)tree decompositions

Allocating educational resources through happiness maximization and traditional CSP approach

This is an electronic version of the paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies, held in Sofia on 2009An instance of an Educational Resources Allocation (ERA) problem is the distribution of a set of students in different laboratories. This can be a complex and dynamic problem if non-quantitative considerations (i.e. how close the final allocation is to the student preferences or desires) are involved in the decision process. Traditionally, different approaches based on Constraint-Satisfaction techniques and Multi-agent negotiation have been applied to the general problem of Resource Allocation. This paper shows how a Multi-agent approach can be used to model and simulate the assignment of sets of students to several predefined laboratories, by using their preferences to guide the allocation process. This approach aims at finding new solutions that try to satisfy individual student needs with no knowledge about the general allocation problem. The paper shows some experimental results and a comparison, between a CSP-based solution modeled in CHOCO, a CSP Java-based library, and a Multi-agent model implemented using MASON, a multi-agent simulation platform.This work has been supported by research projects TIN2007-65989 and TIN2007-64718. We also thank IBM for its support to the Linux Reference Cente