Sufficient and necessary conditions for Dynamic Programming in Valuation-Based Systems

Valuation algebras abstract a large number of formalisms for automated reasoning and enable the definition of generic inference procedures. Many of these formalisms provide some notion of solution. Typical examples are satisfying assignments in constraint systems, models in logics or solutions to linear equation systems. Many widely used dynamic programming algorithms for optimization problems rely on low treewidth decompositions and can be understood as particular cases of a single algorithmic scheme for finding solutions in a valuation algebra. The most encompassing description of this algorithmic scheme to date has been proposed by Pouly and Kohlas together with sufficient conditions for its correctness. Unfortunately, the formalization relies on a theorem for which we provide counterexamples. In spite of that, the mainline of Pouly and Kohlas' theory is correct, although some of the necessary conditions have to be revised. In this paper we analyze the impact that the counter-examples have on the theory, and rebuild the theory providing correct sufficient conditions for the algorithms. Furthermore, we also provide necessary conditions for the algorithms, allowing for a sharper characterization of when the algorithmic scheme can be applied.

Even more generic solution construction in Valuation-Based Systems

Valuation algebras abstract a large number of formalisms for automated reasoning and enable the definition of generic inference procedures. Many of these formalisms provide some notions of solutions. Typical examples are satisfying assignments in constraint systems, models in logics or solutions to linear equation systems. Recently, formal requirements for the presence of solutions and a generic algorithm for solution construction based on the results of a previously executed inference scheme have been proposed in the literature. Unfortunately, the formalization of Pouly and Kohlas relies on a theorem for which we provide a counter example. In spite of that, the mainline of the theory described is correct, although some of the necessary conditions to apply some of the algorithms have to be revised. To fix the theory, we generalize some of their definitions and provide correct sufficient conditions for the algorithms. As a result, we get a more general and corrected version of the already existing theory.