Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:04:08.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

eclingo : A Solver for Epistemic Logic Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2020

Pedro Cabalar Open the ORCID record for Pedro Cabalar [Opens in a new window] ,
Jorge Fandinno Open the ORCID record for Jorge Fandinno [Opens in a new window] ,
Javier Garea ,
Javier Romero  and
Torsten Schaub Open the ORCID record for Torsten Schaub [Opens in a new window]
Pedro Cabalar
Affiliation:
University of Corunna, Spain. (e-mail: cabalar@udc.es, javier.garea@udc.es)
Jorge Fandinno
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, Germany (e-mail: fandinno@uni-potsdam.de, javier@uni-potsdam.de, torsten@uni-potsdam.de)
Javier Garea
Affiliation:
University of Corunna, Spain. (e-mail: cabalar@udc.es, javier.garea@udc.es)
Javier Romero
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, Germany (e-mail: fandinno@uni-potsdam.de, javier@uni-potsdam.de, torsten@uni-potsdam.de)
Torsten Schaub
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, Germany (e-mail: fandinno@uni-potsdam.de, javier@uni-potsdam.de, torsten@uni-potsdam.de)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe eclingo, a solver for epistemic logic programs under Gelfond 1991 semantics built upon the Answer Set Programming system clingo. The input language of eclingo uses the syntax extension capabilities of clingo to define subjective literals that, as usual in epistemic logic programs, allow for checking the truth of a regular literal in all or in some of the answer sets of a program. The eclingo solving process follows a guess and check strategy. It first generates potential truth values for subjective literals and, in a second step, it checks the obtained result with respect to the cautious and brave consequences of the program. This process is implemented using the multi-shot functionalities of clingo. We have also implemented some optimisations, aiming at reducing the search space and, therefore, increasing eclingo ’s efficiency in some scenarios. Finally, we compare the efficiency of eclingo with two state-of-the-art solvers for epistemic logic programs on a pair of benchmark scenarios and show that eclingo generally outperforms their obtained results.

Keywords

Answer Set ProgrammingEpistemic Logic ProgramsNon-Monotonic ReasoningConformant Planning
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 20 , Issue 6: 36th International Conference on Logic Programming Special Issue II , November 2020 , pp. 834 - 847
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

*

Partially supported by MINECO, Spain, grant TIC2017-84453-P. The second author is funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany. The third author was partially supported by CITIC, Research Center of the Galician University System financed by the Consellería de Educación, Universidade e Formación Profesional (Xunta de Galicia) and co-financed 80% by the ERDF (Ref. ED431G 2019/01).

References

Balai, E. and Kahl, P. 2014. Epistemic logic programs with sorts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms, 2014, Inclezan, D. and Maratea, M., Eds.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M., Lierler, Y., and Woltran, S., Eds. 2019. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’19). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 11481. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2019a. Founded world views with autoepistemic equilibrium logic. See Balduccini et al. (2019), 134–147.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2019b. Splitting epistemic logic programs. See Balduccini et al. (2019), 120–133.Google Scholar
Fandinno, J. 2019. Founded (auto)epistemic equilibrium logic satisfies epistemic splitting. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19, 5-6, 671–687.Google Scholar
Fariñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A., and Iraz Su, E. 2015. Epistemic equilibrium logic. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15), Yang, Q. and Wooldridge, M., Eds. AAAI Press, 2964–2970.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., and Schaub, T. 2019. Multi-shot ASP solving with clingo. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19, 1, 27–82.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., and Thiele, S. 2009. On the input language of ASP grounder gringo. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’09), Erdem, E., Lin, F., and Schaub, T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5753. Springer-Verlag, 502–508.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1991. Strong introspection. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’91), Dean, T. and McKeown, K., Eds. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 386–391.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1994. Logic programming and reasoning with incomplete information. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 12, 1-2, 89–116.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium of Logic Programming (ICLP’88), Kowalski, R. and Bowen, K., Eds. MIT Press, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Przymusinska, H. 1993. Reasoning on open domains. In Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, June 1993, Moniz Pereira, L. and Nerode, A., Eds. MIT Press, 397–413.Google Scholar
Kahl, P., Watson, R., Balai, E., Gelfond, M., and Zhang, Y. 2015. The language of epistemic specifications (refined) including a prototype solver. Journal of Logic and Computation.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. 2007. Wviews: A worldview solver for epistemic logic programs. Honour’s thesis (supervised by Yan Zhang). University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Leclerc, A. and Kahl, P. 2018. A survey of advances in epistemic logic program solvers. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Answer Set Programming and other Computer Paradigms (ASPOCP’18).Google Scholar
Shen, Y. and Eiter, T. 2017. Evaluating epistemic negation in answer set programming (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17), C. Sierra, Ed. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 5060–5064.Google Scholar
Son, T. C., Le, T., Kahl, P. T., and Leclerc, A. P. 2017. On computing world views of epistemic logic programs. In Proc. of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19-25, 2017, C. Sierra, Ed. ijcai.org, 1269–1275.Google Scholar
Truszczynski, M. 2011. Revisiting epistemic specifications. Balduccini, M. and Son, T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6565. Springer, 315–333.Google Scholar