Optimized Framework based on Rough Set Theory for Big Data Pre-processing in Certain and Imprecise Contexts” -- Marie Sklodowska-Curie Project: Open Problems’

Peer reviewe

On Tackling the Limits of Resolution in SAT Solving

The practical success of Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solvers stems from the CDCL (Conflict-Driven Clause Learning) approach to SAT solving. However, from a propositional proof complexity perspective, CDCL is no more powerful than the resolution proof system, for which many hard examples exist. This paper proposes a new problem transformation, which enables reducing the decision problem for formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF) to the problem of solving maximum satisfiability over Horn formulas. Given the new transformation, the paper proves a polynomial bound on the number of MaxSAT resolution steps for pigeonhole formulas. This result is in clear contrast with earlier results on the length of proofs of MaxSAT resolution for pigeonhole formulas. The paper also establishes the same polynomial bound in the case of modern core-guided MaxSAT solvers. Experimental results, obtained on CNF formulas known to be hard for CDCL SAT solvers, show that these can be efficiently solved with modern MaxSAT solvers

A Preference-Based Approach to Backbone Computation with Application to Argumentation

The backbone of a constraint satisfaction problem consists of those variables that take the same value in all solutions. Algorithms for determining the backbone of propositional formulas, i.e., Boolean satisfiability (SAT) instances, find various real-world applications. From the knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) perspective, one interesting connection is that of backbones and the so-called ideal semantics in abstract argumentation. In this paper, we propose a new backbone algorithm which makes use of a "SAT with preferences" solver, i.e., a SAT solver which is guaranteed to output a most preferred satisfying assignment w.r.t. a given preference over literals of the SAT instance at hand. We also show empirically that the proposed approach is specifically effective in computing the ideal semantics of argumentation frameworks, noticeably outperforming an other state-of-the-art backbone solver as well as the winning approach of the recent ICCMA 2017 argumentation solver competition in the ideal semantics track.Peer reviewe

A logic-based analysis of Dempster-Shafer theory

AbstractDempster-Shafer (DS) theory is formulated in terms of propositional logic, using the implicit notion of provability underlying DS theory. Dempster-Shafer theory can be modeled in terms of propositional logic by the tuple (Σ, ϱ), where Σ is a set of propositional clauses and ϱ is an assignment of mass to each clause Σi ϵ Σ. It is shown that the disjunction of minimal support clauses for a clause Σi with respect to a set Σ of propositional clauses, ξ(Σi, Σ), when represented in terms of symbols for the ϱi 's, corresponds to a symbolic representation of the Dempster-Shafer belief function for δi. The combination of Belief functions using Dempster's rule of combination corresponds to a combination of the corresponding support clauses. The disjointness of the Boolean formulas representing DS Belief functions is shown to be necessary. Methods of computing disjoint formulas using network reliability techniques are discussed.In addition, the computational complexity of deriving DS Belief functions, including that of the logic-based methods which are the focus of this paper, is explored. Because of intractability even for moderately sized problem instances, efficient approximation methods are proposed for such computations. Finally, implementations of DS theory based on domain restrictions of DS theory, hypertree embeddings, and the ATMS, are examined