Why Not? Solver-Grounded Certificates for Explainable Mission Planning

Najeeb Khan
2/28/2026
cs.AImath.OC

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{khan2026not,
  title  = {Why Not? Solver-Grounded Certificates for Explainable Mission Planning},
  author = {Najeeb Khan},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2603.00469},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00469v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2603.00469.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2603.00469)

Discussion