Identifying sources of global contention in constraint satisfaction search

Much work has been done on learning from failure in search to boost solving of combinatorial problems, such as clause-learning and clause-weighting in boolean satisfiability (SAT), nogood and explanation-based learning, and constraint weighting in constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Many of the top solvers in SAT use clause learning to good effect. A similar approach (nogood learning) has not had as large an impact in CSPs. Constraint weighting is a less fine-grained approach where the information learnt gives an approximation as to which variables may be the sources of greatest contention. In this work we present two methods for learning from search using restarts, in order to identify these critical variables prior to solving. Both methods are based on the conflict-directed heuristic (weighted-degree heuristic) introduced by Boussemart et al. and are aimed at producing a better-informed version of the heuristic by gathering information through restarting and probing of the search space prior to solving, while minimizing the overhead of these restarts. We further examine the impact of different sampling strategies and different measurements of contention, and assess different restarting strategies for the heuristic. Finally, two applications for constraint weighting are considered in detail: dynamic constraint satisfaction problems and unary resource scheduling problems.

Computing explanations for interactive constraint-based systems

Constraint programming has emerged as a successful paradigm for modelling combinatorial problems arising from practical situations. In many of those situations, we are not provided with an immutable set of constraints. Instead, a user will modify his requirements, in an interactive fashion, until he is satisfied with a solution. Examples of such applications include, amongst others, model-based diagnosis, expert systems, product configurators. The system he interacts with must be able to assist him by showing the consequences of his requirements. Explanations are the ideal tool for providing this assistance. However, existing notions of explanations fail to provide sufficient information. We define new forms of explanations that aim to be more informative. Even if explanation generation is a very hard task, in the applications we consider, we must manage to provide a satisfactory level of interactivity and, therefore, we cannot afford long computational times. We introduce the concept of representative sets of relaxations, a compact set of relaxations that shows the user at least one way to satisfy each of his requirements and at least one way to relax them, and present an algorithm that efficiently computes such sets. We introduce the concept of most soluble relaxations, maximising the number of products they allow. We present algorithms to compute such relaxations in times compatible with interactivity, achieving this by indifferently making use of different types of compiled representations. We propose to generalise the concept of prime implicates to constraint problems with the concept of domain consequences, and suggest to generate them as a compilation strategy. This sets a new approach in compilation, and allows to address explanation-related queries in an efficient way. We define ordered automata to compactly represent large sets of domain consequences, in an orthogonal way from existing compilation techniques that represent large sets of solutions.

Finding optimal alternatives based on efficient comparative preference inference

Choosing the right or the best option is often a demanding and challenging task for the user (e.g., a customer in an online retailer) when there are many available alternatives. In fact, the user rarely knows which offering will provide the highest value. To reduce the complexity of the choice process, automated recommender systems generate personalized recommendations. These recommendations take into account the preferences collected from the user in an explicit (e.g., letting users express their opinion about items) or implicit (e.g., studying some behavioral features) way. Such systems are widespread; research indicates that they increase the customers' satisfaction and lead to higher sales. Preference handling is one of the core issues in the design of every recommender system. This kind of system often aims at guiding users in a personalized way to interesting or useful options in a large space of possible options. Therefore, it is important for them to catch and model the user's preferences as accurately as possible. In this thesis, we develop a comparative preference-based user model to represent the user's preferences in conversational recommender systems. This type of user model allows the recommender system to capture several preference nuances from the user's feedback. We show that, when applied to conversational recommender systems, the comparative preference-based model is able to guide the user towards the best option while the system is interacting with her. We empirically test and validate the suitability and the practical computational aspects of the comparative preference-based user model and the related preference relations by comparing them to a sum of weights-based user model and the related preference relations. Product configuration, scheduling a meeting and the construction of autonomous agents are among several artificial intelligence tasks that involve a process of constrained optimization, that is, optimization of behavior or options subject to given constraints with regards to a set of preferences. When solving a constrained optimization problem, pruning techniques, such as the branch and bound technique, point at directing the search towards the best assignments, thus allowing the bounding functions to prune more branches in the search tree. Several constrained optimization problems may exhibit dominance relations. These dominance relations can be particularly useful in constrained optimization problems as they can instigate new ways (rules) of pruning non optimal solutions. Such pruning methods can achieve dramatic reductions in the search space while looking for optimal solutions. A number of constrained optimization problems can model the user's preferences using the comparative preferences. In this thesis, we develop a set of pruning rules used in the branch and bound technique to efficiently solve this kind of optimization problem. More specifically, we show how to generate newly defined pruning rules from a dominance algorithm that refers to a set of comparative preferences. These rules include pruning approaches (and combinations of them) which can drastically prune the search space. They mainly reduce the number of (expensive) pairwise comparisons performed during the search while guiding constrained optimization algorithms to find optimal solutions. Our experimental results show that the pruning rules that we have developed and their different combinations have varying impact on the performance of the branch and bound technique.