Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:33:28.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints, lazy constraints, or propagators in ASP solving: An empirical analysis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

BERNARDO CUTERI ,
CARMINE DODARO Open the ORCID record for CARMINE DODARO [Opens in a new window] ,
FRANCESCO RICCA  and
PETER SCHÜLLER Open the ORCID record for PETER SCHÜLLER [Opens in a new window]
BERNARDO CUTERI
Affiliation:
DeMaCS, University of Calabria, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
CARMINE DODARO
Affiliation:
DIBRIS, University of Genova, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
FRANCESCO RICCA
Affiliation:
DeMaCS, University of Calabria, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
PETER SCHÜLLER
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, Marmara University, Turkey Institute of Information Systems, Knowledge-based Systems Group, TU Wien, Austria (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Answer set programming (ASP) is a well-established declarative paradigm. One of the successes of ASP is the availability of efficient systems. State-of-the-art systems are based on the ground+solve approach. In some applications, this approach is infeasible because the grounding of one or a few constraints is expensive. In this paper, we systematically compare alternative strategies to avoid the instantiation of problematic constraints, which are based on custom extensions of the solver. Results on real and synthetic benchmarks highlight some strengths and weaknesses of the different strategies.

Keywords

Answer set programminglazy groundingpropagators
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 17 , Special Issue 5-6: 33rd International Conference on Logic Programming , September 2017 , pp. 780 - 799
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The paper has been partially supported by the Italian Ministry for Economic Development (MISE) under project “PIUCultura – Paradigmi Innovativi per l'Utilizzo della Cultura” (no. F/020016/01-02/X27), under project “Smarter Solutions in the Big Data World (S2BDW)” (no. F/050389/01-03/X32) funded within the call “HORIZON2020” PON I&C 2014-2020, and by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Grant 114E777.

References

Achlioptas, D. 2009. Random satisfiability. In Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Amsterdam/Washington, Vol. 185. IOS, 245–270.Google Scholar
Alviano, M. and Dodaro, C. 2016. Completion of disjunctive logic programs. In Proc. of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI/AAAI, 886–892.Google Scholar
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Leone, N. and Ricca, F. 2015. Advances in WASP. In Proc. of International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9345. Springer, 40–54.Google Scholar
Aschinger, M., Drescher, C., Friedrich, G., Gottlob, G., Jeavons, P., Ryabokon, A. and Thorstensen, E. 2011. Optimization methods for the partner units problem. In Proc. of International Conference on Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Operations Research Techniques in Constraint Programming, 4–19.Google Scholar
Aziz, R. A., Chu, G. and Stuckey, P. J. 2013. Stable model semantics for founded bounds. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4–5, 517–532.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Lierler, Y. 2013. Integration schemas for constraint answer set programming: A case study. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4–5 Online-Supplement.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Lierler, Y. 2017. Constraint answer set solver EZCSP and why integration schemas matter. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 17, 4, 462–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baselice, S., Bonatti, P. A. and Gelfond, M. 2005. A preliminary report on integrating of answer set and constraint solving. In Proc. of CEUR Workshop on Answer Set Programming, vol. 142.Google Scholar
Bichler, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2016. The power of non-ground rules in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 16, 5–6, 552–569.Google Scholar
Brewka, G., Eiter, T. and Truszczynski, M. 2011. Answer set programming at a glance. Commun. ACM 54, 12, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calimeri, F., Gebser, M., Maratea, M. and Ricca, F. 2016. Design and results of the fifth answer set programming competition. Artificial Intelligence 231, 151–181.Google Scholar
Dal~Palù, A., Dovier, A., Pontelli, E. and Rossi, G. 2009. GASP: Answer set programming with lazy grounding. Fundamenta Informaticae 96, 3, 297–322.Google Scholar
Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weidinger, G. and Weinzierl, A. 2012. Omiga: An open minded grounding on-the-fly answer set solver. In Proc. of European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7519. Springer, 480–483.Google Scholar
de~Cat, B., Denecker, M., Bruynooghe, M. and Stuckey, P. J. 2015. Lazy model expansion: Interleaving grounding with search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 52, 235–286.Google Scholar
Dodaro, C., Gasteiger, P., Leone, N., Musitsch, B., Ricca, F. and Schekotihin, K. 2016a. Combining answer set programming and domain heuristics for solving hard industrial problems (application paper). Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 16, 5–6, 653–669.Google Scholar
Dodaro, C., Ricca, F. and Schüller, P. 2016b. External propagators in WASP: preliminary report. In Proc. of RCRA. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1745. CEUR-WS.org, 1–9.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Redl, C. and Schüller, P. 2016a. A model building framework for answer set programming with external computations. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 16, 4, 418–464.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Redl, C. and Schüller, P. 2016b. Problem solving using the HEX family. In Computational Models of Rationality, Essays Dedicated to Gabriele Kern-Isberner on the Occasion of her 60th Birthday. College Publications, 150–174.Google Scholar
Erdem, E. and Öztok, U. 2015. Generating explanations for biomedical queries. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 15, 1, 35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdem, E., Patoglu, V. and Schüller, P. 2016. A systematic analysis of levels of integration between high-level task planning and low-level feasibility checks. AI Communications 29, 2, 319–349.Google Scholar
Feydy, T. and Stuckey, P. J. 2009. Lazy clause generation reengineered. In Proc. of Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5732. Springer, 352–366.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T. and Wanko, P. 2016. Theory solving made easy with clingo 5. In Proc. of Technical Communications of International Conference on Logic Programming. OASICS, vol. 52, 2:1–2:15.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Romero, J., Otero, R., Schaub, T. and Wanko, P. 2013. Domain-specific heuristics in answer set programming. In Proc. of Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9, 3/4, 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, B., Leone, N., Perri, S. and Schaub, T. 2016. Grounding and solving in answer set programming. AI Mag. 37, 3, 25–32.Google Scholar
Kojo, T., Männistö, T. and Soininen, T. 2003. Towards intelligent support for managing evolution of configurable software product families. In Proc. of System Configuration Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2649. Springer, 86–101.Google Scholar
Koponen, L., Oikarinen, E., Janhunen, T. and Säilä, L. 2015. Optimizing phylogenetic supertrees using answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 15, 4–5, 604–619.Google Scholar
Lefèvre, C. and Nicolas, P. 2009. The first version of a new ASP solver: Asperix. In Proc. of Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5753. Springer, 522–527.Google Scholar
Liu, L., Pontelli, E., Son, T. C. and Truszczynski, M. 2010. Logic programs with abstract constraint atoms: The role of computations. Artificial Intelligence 174, 3–4, 295–315.Google Scholar
Manna, M., Ricca, F. and Terracina, G. 2015. Taming primary key violations to query large inconsistent data via ASP. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 15, 4–5, 696–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nogueira, M., Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M., Watson, R. and Barry, M. 2001. An A-prolog decision support system for the space shuttle. In: PADL. 169–183.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, M. and Schaub, T. 2012. ASP modulo CSP: The clingcon system. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12, 4–5, 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, J. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Empirical Learning. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Redl, C. 2016. The dlvhex system for knowledge representation: Recent advances (system description). TPLP 16, 5–6, 866–883.Google Scholar
Schüller, P. 2016. Modeling variations of first-order horn abduction in answer set programming. Fundamenta Informaticae 149, 1–2, 159–207.Google Scholar
Silva, J. P. M. and Sakallah, K. A. 1999. GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48, 5, 506–521.Google Scholar
Susman, B. and Lierler, Y. 2016. SMT-based constraint answer set solver EZSMT (system description). In Proc. of Technical Communications of International Conference on Logic Programming. OASICS, vol. 52. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 1:1–1:15.Google Scholar
Weinzierl, A. 2017. Blending lazy-grounding and CDNL search for answer-set solving. In LPNMR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10377, 191–204.Google Scholar