Shaull Almagor

Shaull Almagor, Neta Dafni

Nondeterministic Discounted-Sum Automata (NDAs) are nondeterministic finite automata equipped with a discounting factor $λ>1$, and whose transitions are labelled by weights. The value of a run of an NDA is the discounted sum of the edge weights, where the $i$-th weight is divided by $λ^{i}$. NDAs are a useful tool for modelling systems where the values of future events are less influential than immediate ones. While several problems are undecidable or open for NDA, their deterministic fragment (DDA) admits more tractable algorithms. Therefore, determinization of NDAs (i.e., deciding if an NDA has a functionally-equivalent DDA) is desirable. Previous works establish that when $λ\in \mathbb{N}$, then every complete NDA, namely an NDA whose states are all accepting and its transition function is complete, is determinizable. This, however, no longer holds when the completeness assumption is dropped. We show that the problem of whether an NDA has an equivalent DDA is decidable when $λ\in \mathbb{N}$.

Shaull Almagor, Guy Arbel, Sarai Sheinvald

The determinisation problem for min-plus (tropical) weighted automata was recently shown to be decidable. However, the proof is purely existential, relying on several non-constructive arguments. Our contribution in this work is twofold: first, we present the first complexity bound for this problem, placing it in the Fast-growing hierarchy. Second, our techniques introduce a versatile framework to analyse runs of weighted automata in a constructive manner. In particular, this simplifies the previous decidability argument and provides a tighter analysis, thus serving as a critical step towards a tight complexity bound.

Shaull Almagor, Guy Arbel, Sarai Sheinvald

We study the unambiguisability problem for min-plus (tropical) weighted automata (WFAs), and the counter-minimisation problem for tropical Cost Register Automata (CRAs), which are expressively-equivalent to WFAs. Both problems ask whether the "amount of nondeterminism" in the model can be reduced. We show that WFA unambiguisability is decidable, thus resolving this long-standing open problem. Our proof is via reduction to WFA determinisability, which was recently shown to be decidable. On the negative side, we show that CRA counter minimisation is undecidable, even for a fixed number of registers (specifically, already for 7 registers).

Yarden Gabbay, Haoquan Guan, Shaull Almagor et al.

Causal analyses derived from observational data underpin high-stakes decisions in domains such as healthcare, public policy, and economics. Yet such conclusions can be surprisingly fragile: even minor data errors - duplicate records, or entry mistakes - may drastically alter causal relationships. This raises a fundamental question: how robust is a causal claim to small, targeted modifications in the data? Addressing this question is essential for ensuring the reliability, interpretability, and reproducibility of empirical findings. We introduce SubCure, a framework for robustness auditing via cardinality repairs. Given a causal query and a user-specified target range for the estimated effect, SubCure identifies a small set of tuples or subpopulations whose removal shifts the estimate into the desired range. This process not only quantifies the sensitivity of causal conclusions but also pinpoints the specific regions of the data that drive those conclusions. We formalize this problem under both tuple- and pattern-level deletion settings and show both are NP-complete. To scale to large datasets, we develop efficient algorithms that incorporate machine unlearning techniques to incrementally update causal estimates without retraining from scratch. We evaluate SubCure across four real-world datasets covering diverse application domains. In each case, it uncovers compact, high-impact subsets whose removal significantly shifts the causal conclusions, revealing vulnerabilities that traditional methods fail to detect. Our results demonstrate that cardinality repair is a powerful and general-purpose tool for stress-testing causal analyses and guarding against misleading claims rooted in ordinary data imperfections.

Shaull Almagor, Michaël Cadilhac, Asaf Shoham

Simon's factorization theorem is a celebrated tool in algebraic automata theory, providing bounded-depth decompositions of words with respect to morphisms into finite semigroups. We develop an analogue of Simon's theorem for \emph{forests} in the setting of forest algebras. In contrast with words, this presents a basic difficulty: recursively factoring a forest requires keeping track of where each subforest ``fits''. This difficulty ripples throughout the proof, and we overcome it by augmenting the free forest algebra and by developing a framework that supports recursive factorization of forests, along with its semantic implications. Our main result identifies a new semantic restriction on morphisms (called $\mathcal{R}$-alignment) which intuitively ensures that different ways of cutting a forest remain compatible (in a certain sense) at the semigroup level. Under this condition, we prove that every morphism admits decompositions of bounded depth. We also prove that without this restriction, there are morphisms for which no bounded-depth decomposition exists (under our notion of decomposition).

Shaull Almagor, Ismaël Jecker, Filip Mazowiecki et al.

We consider weighted automata over the tropical semiring $\mathbb{Z}_\infty(min, +)$. Recently, it was shown that determinisation is decidable; in this paper we focus on the complexity when the alphabet is unary. In 2001, Lombardy showed this problem is decidable, a close inspection of his proof yields a coNP upper bound on the complexity. Earlier Gaubert showed that every weighted automaton in this setting can be effectively turned into an equivalent union of deterministic weighted automata. We prove Gaubert's result efficiently, presenting it as a generalisation of Chrobak's normal form for unary NFA. In particular, we prove that the equivalent union of deterministic weighted automata can be represented by a weighted automaton of quadratic size in the size of the original one, and this representation can be computed in polynomial time. Building on this, we show that determinisation, and even register minimisation (which generalises determinisation), is coNP-complete. We complete the paper with observations that the boundedness problem is also coNP-complete by reductions with determinisation. Lastly, we provide evidence that all of these problems are not FPT (by proving $coW_1$-hardness) when parametrised by the number of deterministic automata in the union.

Justin Kottinger, Shaull Almagor, Morteza Lahijanian

In the Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF) problem, the goal is to find non-colliding paths for agents in an environment, such that each agent reaches its goal from its initial location. In safety-critical applications, a human supervisor may want to verify that the plan is indeed collision-free. To this end, a recent work introduces a notion of explainability for MAPF based on a visualization of the plan as a short sequence of images representing time segments, where in each time segment the trajectories of the agents are disjoint. Then, the explainable MAPF problem asks for a set of non-colliding paths that admits a short-enough explanation. Explainable MAPF adds a new difficulty to MAPF, in that it is NP-hard with respect to the size of the environment, and not just the number of agents. Thus, traditional MAPF algorithms are not equipped to directly handle explainable-MAPF. In this work, we adapt Conflict Based Search (CBS), a well-studied algorithm for MAPF, to handle explainable MAPF. We show how to add explainability constraints on top of the standard CBS tree and its underlying A* search. We examine the usefulness of this approach and, in particular, the tradeoff between planning time and explainability.

Justin Kottinger, Shaull Almagor, Morteza Lahijanian

Traditional multi-robot motion planning (MMP) focuses on computing trajectories for multiple robots acting in an environment, such that the robots do not collide when the trajectories are taken simultaneously. In safety-critical applications, a human supervisor may want to verify that the plan is indeed collision-free. In this work, we propose a notion of explanation for a plan of MMP, based on visualization of the plan as a short sequence of images representing time segments, where in each time segment the trajectories of the agents are disjoint, clearly illustrating the safety of the plan. We show that standard notions of optimality (e.g., makespan) may create conflict with short explanations. Thus, we propose meta-algorithms, namely multi-agent plan segmenting-X (MAPS-X) and its lazy variant, that can be plugged on existing centralized sampling-based tree planners X to produce plans with good explanations using a desirable number of images. We demonstrate the efficacy of this explanation-planning scheme and extensively evaluate the performance of MAPS-X.