We study the notion of robustness in stable matching problems. We first define robustness by introducing (a, b)-supermatches. An (a, b)-supermatch is a stable matching in which if a pairs break up it is possible to find another stable matching by changing the partners of those a pairs and at most b other pairs. In this context, we define the most robust stable matching as a (1, b)-supermatch where b is minimum. We show that checking whether a given stable matching is a (1, b)-supermatch can be done in polynomial time. Next, we use this procedure to design a constraint programming model, a local search approach, and a genetic algorithm to find the most robust stable matching. Our empirical evaluation on large instances show that local search outperforms the other approaches.

The Robust Stable Marriage problem (RSM) is a variant of the classic Stable Marriage problem in which the robustness of a given stable matching is measured by the number of modifications required to find an alternative stable matching should some pairings break due to an unforeseen event. We focus on the complexity of finding an (a, b)-supermatch. An (a, b)-supermatch is defined as a stable matching in which if any a (non-fixed) men/women break up it is possible to find another stable matching by changing the partners of those a men/women and the partners of at most b others. We first discuss a model based on independent sets for finding (1, 1)-supermatches. Secondly, in order to show that deciding whether or not there exists a (1, b)-supermatch is N P-complete, we first introduce a SAT formulation for which the decision problem is N P-complete by using Schaefer's Dichotomy Theorem. We then show the equivalence between this SAT formulation and finding a (1, 1)supermatch on a specific family of instances. We also focus on studying the threshold between the cases in P and N P-complete for this problem.

Much of the focus on explanation in the field of artificial intelligence has focused on machine learning methods and, in particular, concepts produced by advanced methods such as neural networks and deep learning. However, there has been a long history of explanation generation in the general field of constraint satisfaction, one of the AI's most ubiquitous subfields. In this paper we survey the major seminal papers on the explanation and constraints, as well as some more recent works. The survey sets out to unify many disparate lines of work in areas such as model-based diagnosis, constraint programming, Boolean satisfiability, truth maintenance systems, quantified logics, and related areas.

Motivation: Evolving technology has increased the focus on genomics. The combination of today’s advanced techniques with decades of molecular biology research has yielded huge amounts of pathway data. A standard, named the Systems Biology Graphical Notation (SBGN), was recently introduced to allow scientists to represent biological pathways in an unambiguous, easy-to-understand and efficient manner. Although there are a number of automated layout algorithms for various types of biological networks, currently none specialize on process description (PD) maps as defined by SBGN.Results: We propose a new automated layout algorithm for PD maps drawn in SBGN. Our algorithm is based on a force-directed automated layout algorithm called Compound Spring Embedder (CoSE). On top of the existing force scheme, additional heuristics employing new types of forces and movement rules are defined to address SBGN-specific rules. Our algorithm is the only automatic layout algorithm that properly addresses all SBGN rules for drawing PD maps, including placement of substrates and products of process nodes on opposite sides, compact tiling of members of molecular complexes and extensively making use of nested structures (compound nodes) to properly draw cellular locations and molecular complex structures. As demonstrated experimentally, the algorithm results in significant improvements over use of a generic layout algorithm such as CoSE in addressing SBGN rules on top of commonly accepted graph drawing criteria.Availability and implementation: An implementation of our algorithm in Java is available within ChiLay library (https://github.com/iVis-at-Bilkent/chilay).Contact: ugur@cs.bilkent.edu.tr or dogrusoz@cbio.mskcc.orgSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.