In this chapter, we are interested in formalizing the reasoning of a single agent who can make observations on a dynamic system and considers actions to perform on it. Reasoning about action and change is among the first issues addressed within Artificial Intelligence (AI); especially, it was the subject of the seminal article by McCarthy and Hayes [1969]. Research in this area has been very productive until the late 1990s. Among other things, solutions to the various problems to be faced when dealing with action representation were put forward and a classification of action languages according to their expressive power was undertaken. Moreover, much progress towards the automatization of reasoning about action and change was made, for example through the design and the evaluation of algorithms implementing the reasoning processes of the main action languages and the investigation of the computational complexity of such processes. The reasons why an agent may wish to act in order to modify the current state of a dynamic system or to learn more about it are numerous.

We consider the problem EnumIP of enumerating prime implicants of Boolean functions represented by decision decomposable negation normal form (dec-DNNF) circuits. We study EnumIP from dec-DNNF within the framework of enumeration complexity and prove that it is in OutputP, the class of output polynomial enumeration problems, and more precisely in IncP, the class of polynomial incremental time enumeration problems. We then focus on two closely related, but seemingly harder, enumeration problems where further restrictions are put on the prime implicants to be generated. In the first problem, one is only interested in prime implicants representing subset-minimal abductive explanations, a notion much investigated in AI for more than three decades. In the second problem, the target is prime implicants representing sufficient reasons, a recent yet important notion in the emerging field of eXplainable AI, since they aim to explain predictions achieved by machine learning classifiers. We provide evidence showing that enumerating specific prime implicants corresponding to subset-minimal abductive explanations or to sufficient reasons is not in OutputP.

We are interested in computing $k$ most preferred models of a given d-DNNF circuit $C$, where the preference relation is based on an algebraic structure called a monotone, totally ordered, semigroup $(K, \otimes, <)$. In our setting, every literal in $C$ has a value in $K$ and the value of an assignment is an element of $K$ obtained by aggregating using $\otimes$ the values of the corresponding literals. We present an algorithm that computes $k$ models of $C$ among those having the largest values w.r.t. $<$, and show that this algorithm runs in time polynomial in $k$ and in the size of $C$. We also present a pseudo polynomial-time algorithm for deriving the top-$k$ values that can be reached, provided that an additional (but not very demanding) requirement on the semigroup is satisfied. Under the same assumption, we present a pseudo polynomial-time algorithm that transforms $C$ into a d-DNNF circuit $C'$ satisfied exactly by the models of $C$ having a value among the top-$k$ ones. Finally, focusing on the semigroup $(\mathbb{N}, +, <)$, we compare on a large number of instances the performances of our compilation-based algorithm for computing $k$ top solutions with those of an algorithm tackling the same problem, but based on a partial weighted MaxSAT solver.

This extends the reach of Boolean logic by enabling a variety of applications that have been explored over the decades. The existential quantification of literals (variable states) and its applications have also been studied in the literature. In this paper, we complement this by studying universal literal quantification and its applications, particularly to explainable AI. We also provide a novel semantics for quantification, discuss the interplay between variable/literal and existential/universal quantification. We further identify some classes of Boolean formulas and circuits on which quantification can be done efficiently. Literal quantification is more fine-grained than variable quantification as the latter can be defined in terms of the former. This leads to a refinement of quantified Boolean logic with literal quantification as its primitive.

Random forests have long been considered as powerful model ensembles in machine learning. By training multiple decision trees, whose diversity is fostered through data and feature subsampling, the resulting random forest can lead to more stable and reliable predictions than a single decision tree. This however comes at the cost of decreased interpretability: while decision trees are often easily interpretable, the predictions made by random forests are much more difficult to understand, as they involve a majority vote over hundreds of decision trees. In this paper, we examine different types of reasons that explain "why" an input instance is classified as positive or negative by a Boolean random forest. Notably, as an alternative to sufficient reasons taking the form of prime implicants of the random forest, we introduce majoritary reasons which are prime implicants of a strict majority of decision trees. For these different abductive explanations, the tractability of the generation problem (finding one reason) and the minimization problem (finding one shortest reason) are investigated. Experiments conducted on various datasets reveal the existence of a trade-off between runtime complexity and sparsity. Sufficient reasons - for which the identification problem is DP-complete - are slightly larger than majoritary reasons that can be generated using a simple linear- time greedy algorithm, and significantly larger than minimal majoritary reasons that can be approached using an anytime P ARTIAL M AX SAT algorithm.

Decision trees have long been recognized as models of choice in sensitive applications where interpretability is of paramount importance. In this paper, we examine the computational ability of Boolean decision trees in deriving, minimizing, and counting sufficient reasons and contrastive explanations. We prove that the set of all sufficient reasons of minimal size for an instance given a decision tree can be exponentially larger than the size of the input (the instance and the decision tree). Therefore, generating the full set of sufficient reasons can be out of reach. In addition, computing a single sufficient reason does not prove enough in general; indeed, two sufficient reasons for the same instance may differ on many features. To deal with this issue and generate synthetic views of the set of all sufficient reasons, we introduce the notions of relevant features and of necessary features that characterize the (possibly negated) features appearing in at least one or in every sufficient reason, and we show that they can be computed in polynomial time. We also introduce the notion of explanatory importance, that indicates how frequent each (possibly negated) feature is in the set of all sufficient reasons. We show how the explanatory importance of a feature and the number of sufficient reasons can be obtained via a model counting operation, which turns out to be practical in many cases. We also explain how to enumerate sufficient reasons of minimal size. We finally show that, unlike sufficient reasons, the set of all contrastive explanations for an instance given a decision tree can be derived, minimized and counted in polynomial time.

In this paper, we investigate the computational intelligibility of Boolean classifiers, characterized by their ability to answer XAI queries in polynomial time. The classifiers under consideration are decision trees, DNF formulae, decision lists, decision rules, tree ensembles, and Boolean neural nets. Using 9 XAI queries, including both explanation queries and verification queries, we show the existence of large intelligibility gap between the families of classifiers. On the one hand, all the 9 XAI queries are tractable for decision trees. On the other hand, none of them is tractable for DNF formulae, decision lists, random forests, boosted decision trees, Boolean multilayer perceptrons, and binarized neural networks.

Learning pseudo-Boolean (PB) constraints in PB solvers exploiting cutting planes based inference is not as well understood as clause learning in conflict-driven clause learning solvers. In this paper, we show that PB constraints derived using cutting planes may contain \emph{irrelevant literals}, i.e., literals whose assigned values (whatever they are) never change the truth value of the constraint. Such literals may lead to infer constraints that are weaker than they should be, impacting the size of the proof built by the solver, and thus also affecting its performance. This suggests that current implementations of PB solvers based on cutting planes should be reconsidered to prevent the generation of irrelevant literals. Indeed, detecting and removing irrelevant literals is too expensive in practice to be considered as an option (the associated problem is NP-hard.

Current pseudo-Boolean solvers implement different variants of the cutting planes proof system to infer new constraints during conflict analysis. One of these variants is generalized resolution, which allows to infer strong constraints, but suffers from the growth of coefficients it generates while combining pseudo-Boolean constraints. Another variant consists in using weakening and division, which is more efficient in practice but may infer weaker constraints. In both cases, weakening is mandatory to derive conflicting constraints. However, its impact on the performance of pseudo-Boolean solvers has not been assessed so far. In this paper, new application strategies for this rule are studied, aiming to infer strong constraints with small coefficients. We implemented them in Sat4j and observed that each of them improves the runtime of the solver. While none of them performs better than the others on all benchmarks, applying weakening on the conflict side has surprising good performance, whereas applying partial weakening and division on both the conflict and the reason sides provides the best results overall.

We present SAT encoding schemes for distance-based belief merging operators relying on the (possibly weighted) drastic distance or the Hamming distance between interpretations, and using sum, GMax (leximax) or GMin (leximin) as aggregation function. In order to evaluate these encoding schemes, we generated benchmarks of a time-tabling problem and translated them into belief merging instances. Then, taking advantage of these schemes, we compiled the merged bases of the resulting instances into query-equivalent CNF formulae. Experiments have shown the benefits which can be gained by considering the SAT encoding schemes we pointed out. Especially, thanks to them, we succeeded in computing query-equivalent formulae for merging instances based on hundreds of variables, which are out of reach of previous implementations.