Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:37:56.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boosting Answer Set Optimization with Weighted Comparator Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2020

JORI BOMANSON Open the ORCID record for JORI BOMANSON [Opens in a new window]  and
TOMI JANHUNEN
JORI BOMANSON
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, FI-00076, AALTO, Finland, (e-mail: [email protected])
TOMI JANHUNEN
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, FI-00076, AALTO, Finland and Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere UniversityFI-33014, Finland, (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Answer set programming (ASP) is a paradigm for modeling knowledge-intensive domains and solving challenging reasoning problems. In ASP solving, a typical strategy is to preprocess problem instances by rewriting complex rules into simpler ones. Normalization is a rewriting process that removes extended rule types altogether in favor of normal rules. Recently, such techniques led to optimization rewriting in ASP, where the goal is to boost answer set optimization by refactoring the optimization criteria of interest. In this paper, we present a novel, general, and effective technique for optimization rewriting based on comparator networks which are specific kinds of circuits for reordering the elements of vectors. The idea is to connect an ASP encoding of a comparator network to the literals being optimized and to redistribute the weights of these literals over the structure of the network. The encoding captures information about the weight of an answer set in auxiliary atoms in a structured way that is proven to yield exponential improvements during branch-and-bound optimization on an infinite family of example programs. The used comparator network can be tuned freely, for example, to find the best size for a given benchmark class. Experiments show accelerated optimization performance on several benchmark problems.

Keywords

answer set programmingcomparator networknormalizationoptimization rewritingtranslation
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , July 2020 , pp. 512 - 551
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

*

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and Dr. Martin Gebser for their valuable comments and suggestions. This work has been supported in part by the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Computational Inference Research (COIN) (Academy of Finland, project #251170). Moreover, Jori Bomanson has been supported by the Helsinki Doctoral Education Network in Information and Communication Technology (HICT) and Tomi Janhunen partially by the Academy of Finland project Ethical AI for the Governance of Society (ETAIROS, grant #327352).

References

Abío, I., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E. and Mayer-Eichberger, V. 2012. A new look at bdds for pseudo-boolean constraints. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 45, 443–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abío, I., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E. and Stuckey, P. J. 2013. To encode or to propagate? The best choice for each constraint in SAT. In Proceedings of CP 2013, C. Schulte, Ed. LNCS, vol. 8124. Springer, 97–106.Google Scholar
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Leone, N. and Ricca, F. 2015. Advances in WASP. In Proceedings of LPNMR 2015, Calimeri, F., Ianni, G. and Truszczynski, M., Eds. LNCS, vol. 9345. Springer, 40–54. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exv061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Marques-Silva, J. and Ricca, F. 2015. Optimum stable model search: algorithms and implementation. Journal of Logic and Computation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andres, B., Kaufmann, B., Matheis, O. and Schaub, T. 2012. Unsatisfiability-based optimization in clasp. See Dovier and Santos Costa (2012), 212–221.Google Scholar
Anger, C., Gebser, M., Janhunen, T. and Schaub, T. 2006. What’s a head without a body? In Proceedings of ECAI 2006. IOS Press, 769–770.Google Scholar
Apt, K., Blair, H. and Walker, A. 1987. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Minker, J., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Chapter 2, 89–148.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Janhunen, T., Eds. 2017. Proceedings of LPNMR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10377. Springer.Google Scholar
Banbara, M., Soh, T., Tamura, N., Inoue, K. and Schaub, T. 2013. Answer set programming as a modeling language for course timetabling. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4–5, 783–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batcher, K. E. 1968. Sorting networks and their applications. In AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference. ACM, Thomson Book Company, 307–314.Google Scholar
Bomanson, J. 2017. lp2normal - A normalization tool for extended logic programs. See Balduccini and Janhunen (2017), 222–228.Google Scholar
Bomanson, J., Gebser, M. and Janhunen, T. 2014. Improving the normalization of weight rules in answer set programs. In Proceedings of JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761. Springer, 166–180.Google Scholar
Bomanson, J., Gebser, M. and Janhunen, T. 2016. Rewriting optimization statements in answer-set programs. In Technical Communications of ICLP 2016. OASIcs, vol. 52. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 5:1–5:15. Article 5.Google Scholar
Bomanson, J. and Janhunen, T. 2013. Normalizing cardinality rules using merging and sorting constructions. In Proceedings of LPNMR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8148. Springer, 187–199.Google Scholar
Bonutti, A., De Cesco, F., Di Gaspero, L. and Schaerf, A. 2012. Benchmarking curriculum-based course timetabling: Formulations, data formats, instances, validation, visualization, and results. Annals of Operations Research 194, 1, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewka, G., Eiter, T. and Truszczyński, M. 2011. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM 54, 12, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calimeri, F., Faber, W., Gebser, M., Ianni, G., Kaminski, R., Krennwallner, T., Leone, N., Ricca, F. and Schaub, T. 2013. ASP-Core-2: 4th ASP Competition official input language format. URL: http://www.mat.unical.it/aspcomp2013/files/ASP-CORE-2.01c.pdf.Google Scholar
Calimeri, F., Ianni, G. and Truszczynski, M., Eds. 2015. Proceedings of LPNMR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9345. Springer.Google Scholar
Clark, K. 1978. Negation as failure. In Logic and Data Bases, Gallaire, H. and Minker, J., Eds. Plenum Press, 293–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cussens, J. 2011. Bayesian network learning with cutting planes. In Proceedings of UAI 2011, Cozman, F. and Pfeffer, A., Eds. AUAI Press, 153–160.Google Scholar
Davies, J. and Bacchus, F. 2011. Solving MAXSAT by solving a sequence of simpler SAT instances. In Proceedings of CP 2011, Lee, J. H., Ed. LNCS, vol. 6876. Springer, 225–239.Google Scholar
Denecker, M., Vennekens, J., Bond, S., Gebser, M. and Truszczyński, M. 2009. The second answer set programming competition. In Proceedings of LPNMR 2009, Erdem, E., Lin, F. and Schaub, T., Eds. LNAI, vol. 5753. Springer, 637–654.Google Scholar
Dovier, A. and Santos Costa, V., Eds. 2012. Technical Communications of ICLP 2012, vol. 17. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs).Google Scholar
Drescher, C. and Walsh, T. 2012. Answer set solving with lazy nogood generation. See Dovier and Santos Costa (2012), 188–200.Google Scholar
Eén, N. and Sörensson, N. 2006. Translating Pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2, 1–4, 1–26.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Romero, J. and Schaub, T. 2015. Progress in clasp series 3. See Calimeri et al. (2015), 368–383.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., and Wanko, P. 2016. Theory solving made easy with clingo 5 (extended version). URL: http://www.cs.uni-potsdam.de/wv/publications/.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2012. Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artificial Intelligence 187, 52–89.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Maratea, M. and Ricca, F. 2015. The design of the sixth answer set programming competition. See Calimeri et al. (2015), 531–544.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Maratea, M. and Ricca, F. 2017. The design of the seventh answer set programming competition. See Balduccini and Janhunen (2017), 3–9.Google Scholar
Gebser, M. and Schaub, T. 2013. Tableau calculi for logic programs under answer set semantics. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 14, 2, 15:1–15:40.Google Scholar
Jaakkola, T., Sontag, D., Globerson, A. and Meila, M. 2010. Learning Bayesian network structure using LP relaxations. In Proceedings of AISTATS 2010. JMLR Proceedings, vol. 9. JMLR, 358–365.Google Scholar
Janhunen, T., Gebser, M., Rintanen, J., Nyman, H., Pensar, J. and Corander, J. 2017. Learning discrete decomposable graphical models via constraint optimization. Statistics and Computing 27, 1, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, T. and Niemelä, I. 2016. The answer set programming paradigm. AI Magazine 37, 3, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Järvisalo, M. and Oikarinen, E. 2008. Extended ASP tableaux and rule redundancy in normal logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8, 5–6, 691–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lierler, Y. 2011. Abstract answer set solvers with backjumping and learning. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 11, 2–3, 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lierler, Y. and Truszczynski, M. 2016. On abstract modular inference systems and solvers. Artificial Intelligence 236, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Razborov, A. A. 2006. Why are there so many loop formulas? ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 2, 261–268.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proceedings of ICLP 1994. MIT Press, 23–37.Google Scholar
Maratea, M., Pulina, L. and Ricca, F. 2015. Multi-level algorithm selection for ASP. See Calimeri et al. (2015), 439–445.Google Scholar
MaxSAT-Comp. 2014. Ninth Max-SAT evaluation. URL: http://www.maxsat.udl.cat/14/.Google Scholar
Moreno-Centeno, E. and Karp, R. M. 2013. The implicit hitting set approach to solve combinatorial optimization problems with an application to multigenome alignment. Operations Research 61, 2, 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgado, A., Dodaro, C. and Marques-Silva, J. 2014. Core-guided maxsat with soft cardinality constraints. In Proceedings of CP 2014, B. O’Sullivan, Ed. LNCS, vol. 8656. Springer, 564–573.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A. and Tinelli, C. 2006. Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: From an abstract Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM 53, 6, 937–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saikko, P., Dodaro, C., Alviano, M. and Järvisalo, M. 2018. A hybrid approach to optimization in answer set programming. In Proceedings of KR 2018, Thielscher, M., Toni, F., and Wolter, F., Eds. AAAI Press, 32–41.Google Scholar
Waksman, A. 1968. A permutation network. Journal of the ACM 15, 1, 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, N. and Kjellerstrand, H. 2016. The picat-sat compiler. In Proceedings of PADL 2016, Gavanelli, M. and Reppy, J. H., Eds. LNCS, vol. 9585. Springer, 48–62.Google Scholar