Why Not? Solver-Grounded Certificates for Explainable Mission Planning
Organizations: Serana AI Inc., Vancouver, Canada
Abstract
Operators of Earth observation satellites need justifications for scheduling decisions: why a request was selected, rejected, or what changes would make it schedulable. Existing approaches construct post-hoc reasoning layers independent of the optimizer, risking non-causal attributions, incomplete constraint conjunctions, and solver-path dependence. We take a faithfulness-first approach: every explanation is a certificate derived from the optimization model itself: minimal infeasible subsets for rejections, tight constraints and contrastive trade-offs for selections, and inverse solves for what-if queries. On a scheduling instance with structurally distinct constraint interactions, certificates achieve perfect soundness with respect to the solver's constraint model (15/15 cited-constraint checks), counterfactual validity (7/7), and stability (Jaccard = 1.0 across 28 seed-pairs), while a post-hoc baseline produces non-causal attributions in 29% of cases and misses constraint conjunctions in every multi-cause rejection. A scalability analysis up to 200 orders and 30 satellites confirms practical extraction times for operational batches.
Figures & tables
| Intrinsic correctness | |
|---|---|
| Infeasibility certificates | 7 |
| Soundness checks passed | 15 / 15 |
| Counterfactual tests succeeded | 7 / 7 |
| Stability (Jaccard, 28 seed-pairs) | 1.000 |
| Core size (avg / median / max) | 2.1 / 2.0 / 3 |
| Post-hoc baseline failure modes | |
| Component | Time |
|---|---|
| Operational (query-time) | |
| Scheduling solve (CP-SAT) | 6 ms |
| Certificate extraction (MIS) | 440 ms |
| Offline validation | |
| Soundness verification | 64 ms |
| Counterfactual testing | 1 197 ms |
Counterfactual Explanations
Counterfactual explanations show how changing an input could alter a model’s prediction, supporting model understanding, auditing, and actionable recourse.
See all 109 papers