No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The P-Box CDF-Intervals: A Reliable Constraint Reasoning with Quantifiable Information
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2014
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
This paper introduces a new constraint domain for reasoning about data with uncertainty. It extends convex modeling with the notion of p-box to gain additional quantifiable information on the data whereabouts. Unlike existing approaches, the p-box envelops an unknown probability instead of approximating its representation. The p-box bounds are uniform cumulative distribution functions (cdf) in order to employ linear computations in the probabilistic domain. The reasoning by means of p-box cdf-intervals is an interval computation which is exerted on the real domain then it is projected onto the cdf domain. This operation conveys additional knowledge represented by the obtained probabilistic bounds. The empirical evaluation of our implementation shows that, with minimal overhead, the output solution set realizes a full enclosure of the data along with tighter bounds on its probabilistic distributions.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Regular Papers
- Information
- Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 14 , Special Issue 4-5: 30th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2014 , pp. 461 - 475
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014
References
Benhamou, F. and Older, W. J.
1997. Applying interval arithmetic to real, integer, and boolean constraints.
The Journal of Logic Programming
32, 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Frühwirth, T., and Marte, M.
2002. Soft constraint propagation and solving in chrs. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing. ACM, 1–5.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F., Schiex, T., Verfaillie, G., and Fargier, H.
1999. Semiring-based CSPs and valued CSPs: Frameworks, properties, and comparison.
Constraints
4, 3, 199–240.Google Scholar
Climent, L., Wallace, R. J., Salido, M. A., and Barber, F.
2014. Robustness and stability in constraint programming under dynamism and uncertainty.
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
49, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D., Fargier, H., and Prade, H.
1996. Possibility theory in constraint satisfaction problems: Handling priority, preference and uncertainty.
Applied Intelligence
6, 4, 287–309.Google Scholar
Dutta, P., Chakraborty, D., and Roy, A.
2005. A single-period inventory model with fuzzy random variable demand.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling
41, 8, 915–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECRC. 1994. Eclipse (a) user manual, (b) extensions of the user manual. Tech. rep., ECRC.Google Scholar
Fargier, H., Lang, J., and Schiex, T.
1996. Mixed constraint satisfaction: A framework for decision problems under incomplete knowledge. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 175–180.Google Scholar
Ferson, S., Kreinovich, V., Ginzburg, L., Myers, D., and Sentz, K.
2003. Constructing Probability Boxes and Dempster-Shafer structures, Sandia National Laboratories. Tech. rep., SANDD2002-4015.Google Scholar
Glen, A., Leemis, L., and Drew, J.
2004. Computing the distribution of the product of two continuous random variables.
Computational statistics & data analysis
44, 3, 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gum, I.
1995. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAP, IUPAC, OIML.Google Scholar
Holzbaur, C.
1992. Metastructures vs. attributed variables in the context of extensible unification - applied for the implementation of clp languages. In In 1992 International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming. Springer Verlag, 260–268.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J.-L.
1987. Constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages. ACM, 111–119.Google Scholar
Le Huitouze, S.
1990. A new data structure for implementing extensions to Prolog. In Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming. Springer, 136–150.Google Scholar
Petrović, D., Petrović, R., and Vujošević, M.
1996. Fuzzy models for the newsboy problem.
International Journal of Production Economics
45, 1, 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saad, A., Gervet, C., and Abdennadher, S.
2010. Constraint Reasoning with Uncertain Data Using CDF-Intervals. Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, 292–306.Google Scholar
Saad, A., Gervet, C., and Fruehwirth, T.
2012. CDF-Intervals Revisited. The Eleventh International Workshop on Constraint Modelling and Reformulation - ModRef2012.Google Scholar
Schiex, T., Fargier, H., and Verfaillie, G.
1995. Valued constraint satisfaction problems: Hard and easy problems. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 14. 631–639.Google Scholar
Smith, W. and La Poutre, H.
1992. Approximation of staircases by staircases. Tech. rep., 92-109-3-0058-8 NEC Research Institute Inc., New Jersey.Google Scholar
Tarim, S. and Kingsman, B.
2004. The stochastic dynamic production/inventory lot-sizing problem with service-level constraints.
International Journal of Production Economics
88, 105–119.Google Scholar
Tarim, S. A., Manandhar, S., and Walsh, T.
2006. Stochastic constraint programming: A scenario-based approach.
Constraints
11, 1, 53–80.Google Scholar
Walsh, T.
2002. Stochastic constraint programming. Proceedings of the 15th Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 111–115.Google Scholar
Yorke-Smith, N. and Gervet, C.
2009. Certainty closure: Reliable constraint reasoning with incomplete or erroneous data.
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
10, 1, 3.Google Scholar
You have
Access
- 6
- Cited by