Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:07:48.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anytime Computation of Cautious Consequences in Answer Set Programming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2014

MARIO ALVIANO ,
CARMINE DODARO  and
FRANCESCO RICCA
MARIO ALVIANO
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy (e-mail: alviano@mat.unical.it, dodaro@mat.unical.it, ricca@mat.unical.it)
CARMINE DODARO
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy (e-mail: alviano@mat.unical.it, dodaro@mat.unical.it, ricca@mat.unical.it)
FRANCESCO RICCA
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy (e-mail: alviano@mat.unical.it, dodaro@mat.unical.it, ricca@mat.unical.it)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Query answering in Answer Set Programming (ASP) is usually solved by computing (a subset of) the cautious consequences of a logic program. This task is computationally very hard, and there are programs for which computing cautious consequences is not viable in reasonable time. However, current ASP solvers produce the (whole) set of cautious consequences only at the end of their computation. This paper reports on strategies for computing cautious consequences, also introducing anytime algorithms able to produce sound answers during the computation.

Keywords

answer set programmingquery answeringcautious reasoninganytime algorithms
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 14 , Special Issue 4-5: 30th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2014 , pp. 755 - 770
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Faber, W., Leone, N., and Ricca, F. 2013. WASP: A native ASP solver based on constraint learning. In LPNMR, Cabalar, P. and Son, T. C., Eds. LNCS, vol. 8148. Springer, 54–66.Google Scholar
Alviano, M. and Faber, W. 2011. Dynamic magic sets and super-coherent answer set programs. AI Communications. IOS Press 24, 2, 125–145.Google Scholar
Alviano, M., Faber, W., Leone, N., Perri, S., Pfeifer, G., and Terracina, G. 2011. The disjunctive datalog system DLV. In Datalog 2.0, Gottlob, G., Ed. Vol. 6702. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 282–301.Google Scholar
Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. E., and Chomicki, J. 2003. Answer sets for consistent query answering in inconsistent databases. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 4–5, 393–424.Google Scholar
Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewka, G. and Eiter, T. 2007. Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 385–390.Google Scholar
Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., and Ricca, F. 2014. The third open answer set programming competition. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 14, 1, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M., Logemann, G., and Loveland, D. 1962. A machine program for theorem proving. Commun. ACM 5, 394–397.Google Scholar
Eén, N. and Biere, A. 2005. Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In SAT. LNCS, vol. 3569. Springer, 61–75.Google Scholar
Eén, N. and Sörensson, N. 2003a. An extensible SAT-solver. In SAT, Giunchiglia, E. and Tacchella, A., Eds. LNCS, vol. 2919. Springer, 502–518.Google Scholar
Eén, N. and Sörensson, N. 2003b. Temporal induction by incremental sat solving. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89, 4, 543–560.Google Scholar
Eiter, T. 2005. Data integration and answer set programming. In LPNMR, Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., and Terracina, G., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3662. Springer, 13–25.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., and Tompits, H. 2008. Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artif. Intell. 172, 12–13, 1495–1539.Google Scholar
Gaschnig, J. 1979. Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Technical Report CMU-CS-79–124.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., König, A., and Schaub, T. 2011. Advances in gringo series 3. In LPNMR, Delgrande, J. P. and Faber, W., Eds. LNCS, vol. 6645. Springer, 345–351.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., and Schaub, T. 2012a. Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artif. Intell. 187, 52–89.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., and Schaub, T. 2012b. Multi-threaded ASP solving with clasp. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12, 4–5, 525–545.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Kahl, Y. 2014. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The Answer-Set Programming Approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, C. P., Selman, B., and Kautz, H. A. 1998. Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI 1998. AAAI Press, 431–437.Google Scholar
Greco, S. 2003. Binding propagation techniques for the optimization of bound disjunctive queries. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15, 2 (March/April), 368–385.Google Scholar
Janota, M., Lynce, I., and Marques-Silva, J. 2014. Algorithms for computing backbones of propositional formulae. AI Commun. To appear.Google Scholar
Järvisalo, M., Berre, D. L., Roussel, O., and Simon, L. 2012. The international SAT solver competitions. AI Magazine 33, 1.Google Scholar
Kolaitis, P. G., Pema, E., and Tan, W.-C. 2013. Efficient querying of inconsistent databases with binary integer programming. PVLDB 6, 6, 397–408.Google Scholar
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., and Scarcello, F. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 3 (July), 499–562.Google Scholar
Lierler, Y. and Maratea, M. 2004. Cmodels-2: SAT-based answer set solver enhanced to non-tight programs. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-7), Lifschitz, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. LNAI, vol. 2923. Springer, 346–350.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence 138, 39–54.Google Scholar
Luby, M., Sinclair, A., and Zuckerman, D. 1993. Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms. Inf. Process. Lett. 47, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manna, M., Ricca, F., and Terracina, G. 2013. Consistent query answering via ASP from different perspectives: Theory and practice. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 2, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratea, M., Ricca, F., Faber, W., and Leone, N. 2008. Look-back techniques and heuristics in dlv: Implementation, evaluation, and comparison to qbf solvers. J. Algorithms 63, 1–3, 70–89.Google Scholar
Marek, V. W. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm – A 25-Year Perspective, Apt, K. R., Marek, V. W., Truszczyński, M., and Warren, D. S., Eds. Springer Verlag, 375–398.Google Scholar
Marques-Silva, J., Janota, M., and Lynce, I. 2010. On computing backbones of propositional theories. In ECAI, Coelho, H., Studer, R., and Wooldridge, M., Eds. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215. IOS Press, 15–20.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programming with stable model semantics as constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3–4, 241–273.Google Scholar
Ravi, K. and Somenzi, F. 2004. Minimal assignments for bounded model checking. In TACAS, Jensen, K. and Podelski, A., Eds. LNCS, vol. 2988. Springer, 31–45.Google Scholar
Slaney, J. K. and Walsh, T. 2001. Backbones in optimization and approximation. In IJCAI, Nebel, B., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, 254–259.Google Scholar
Zhang, L., Madigan, C. F., Moskewicz, M. W., and Malik, S. 2001. Efficient conflict driven learning in boolean satisfiability solver. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD 2001). 279–285.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

ALVIANO et al.

Anytime Computation of Cautious Consequences in Answer Set Programming

Download ALVIANO et al.(PDF)
PDF 83.9 KB