Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:19:26.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASP with non-herbrand partial functions: a language and system for practical use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

MARCELLO BALDUCCINI
MARCELLO BALDUCCINI*
Affiliation:
Eastman Kodak Company (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dealing with domains involving substantial quantitative information in Answer Set Programming (ASP) often results in cumbersome and inefficient encodings. Hybrid “CASP” languages combining ASP and Constraint Programming aim to overcome this limitation, but also impose inconvenient constraints – first and foremost that quantitative information must be encoded by means of total functions. This goes against central knowledge representation principles that contribute to the power of ASP, and makes the formalization of certain domains difficult. ASP{f} is being developed with the ultimate goal of providing scientists and practitioners with an alternative to CASP languages that allows for the efficient representation of qualitative and quantitative information in ASP without restricting one's ability to deal with incompleteness or uncertainty. In this paper we present the latest outcome of such research: versions of the language and of the supporting system that allow for practical, industrial-size use and scalability. The applicability of ASP{f} is demonstrated by a case study on an actual industrial application.

Keywords

Answer Set Programmingnon-herbrand functionsconstraint answer set programmingpractical applications
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4-5: 29th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2013 , pp. 547 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 [MARCELLO BALDUCCINI] 

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.)

References

Balduccini, M. 2009. Representing constraint satisfaction problems in answer set programming. In ICLP09 Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP09).Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. 2012a. Answer set solving and non-herbrand functions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2012), Rosati, R. and Woltran, S., Eds.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. 2012b. Correct Reasoning: Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS). Springer Verlag, Berlin, Chapter 3. A “Conservative” Approach to Extending Answer Set Programming with Non-Herbrand Functions, 23–39.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P. 2011. Functional Answer Set Programming. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 11, 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T. and Thiele, S. 2009. On the input language of ASP grounder gringo. In 10th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR09), Erdem, E., Lin, F. and Schaub, T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS), vol. 5753. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A. and Schaub, T. 2007. Conflict-driven answer set solving. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'07), Veloso, M. M., Ed. 386–392.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Ostrowski, M. and Schaub, T. 2009. Constraint Answer Set Solving. In 25th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP09). Vol. 5649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lierler, Y. 2012. On the relation of constraint answer set programming languages and algorithms. In Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'12). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP94). 23–38.Google Scholar
Lin, F. and Wang, Y. 2008. Answer set programming with functions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2008). 454–465.Google Scholar
Marek, V. W. and Truszczynski, M. 1999. The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Chapter Stable Models and an Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrjänen, T. 1998. Implementation of logical grounding for logic programs with stable model semantics. Tech. Rep. 18, Digital Systems Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Balduccini supplementary material

Balduccini supplementary material

Download Balduccini supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 48 KB