Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:31:46.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2017

AGOSTINO DOVIER Open the ORCID record for AGOSTINO DOVIER [Opens in a new window]
AGOSTINO DOVIER*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Physics, CLPLAB, University of Udine 33100 Udine, Italy (e-mail: agostino.dovier@uniud.it)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Magic squares, chess-like problems, cryptarithmetic puzzles, and similar classes of problems have been extensively used to challenge human reasoning capabilities. Lo Shu magic square can be traced back to 650 B.C., the eight-queens problem was proposed in 1848 by the chess player Max Bazzel TWO × TWO = THREE puzzle appeared in Strand Magazine in 1924. These puzzles are nowadays widely used in constraint programming courses. The first programming language provided with constraint modelling primitives (Sketchpad) has been proposed by the Turing award winner Ivan Sutherland in his PhD thesis (1963). Logemann and Loveland, when implementing the Davis–Putnam procedure (Davis and Putnam 1960) for testing the satisfiability of a propositional formula (SAT), devised an algorithm (Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland (DPLL)) that has become the core of all SAT/and Answer Set Programming solvers (50 years later). It consists in choosing an un-assigned variable, assigning it a value 0 or 1, propagating the chosen value (unit propagation), and proceeding with the alternative value, if the original assignment leads to a contradiction (backtracking). Some years later Waltz (1975) introduced the notion of domain filtering (arc-consistency-based constraint propagation). With this idea the same DPLL scheme can be used for verifying the satisfiability of a constraint satisfaction problem, where the assignment is no longer 0/1 and the unit propagation is replaced by constraint propagation. For a detailed history of these early years achievements, we refer the reader to the works by Loveland et al. (2017), Jaffar and Maher (1994), and Freuder and Mackworth (2006).

Type
Invited Editorial
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , July 2017 , pp. 359 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

References

Baselice, S., Bonatti, P. and Gelfond, M. 2015. Proc. of the 21st International Conference on Logic Programming, Gabbrielli, M. and Gupta, G., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3668, 52–66.Google Scholar
Brass, S., Dix, J., Freitag, B. and Zukowski, U. 2001. Transformation-based bottom-up computation of the well-founded model. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, 5, 497–538.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Palù, A., Dovier, A., Pontelli, E. and Rossi, G. 2009. Answer set programming with constraints using lazy grounding. In Proc. of 25th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2009, Pasadena, CA, USA, July 14–17, 2009, Hill, P. M. and Warren, D. S., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5649. Springer, 115–129.Google Scholar
Davis, M. and Putnam, H. 1960. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7, 3, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovier, A., Formisano, A. and Pontelli, E. 2005. A comparison of CLP (FD) and ASP solutions to NP-complete problems. In Proc. of 21st International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2005, Sitges, Spain, October 2–5, 2005, Gabbrielli, M. and Gupta, G., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3668. Springer, 67–82.Google Scholar
Dovier, A., Pontelli, E. and Rossi, G. 2000. A necessary condition for constructive negation in constraint logic programming. Information Processing Letters 74, 3–4, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15, 3–4, 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freuder, E. C. and Mackworth, A. K. 2006. Constraint satisfaction: An emerging paradigm. In Handbook of Constraint Programming, Rossi, F., van Beek, P., and Walsh, T., Eds. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2. Elsevier, 13–27.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2009. The conflict-driven answer set solver clasp: Progress report. In Proc. of 10th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2009, Potsdam, Germany, September 14-18, 2009, Erdem, E., Lin, F., and Schaub, T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5753. Springer, 509–514.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. of the 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, Seattle, Washington, August 15–19, 1988 (2 Volumes), Kowalski, R. A. and Bowen, K. A., Eds. MIT press, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J. 1987. Constraint logic programming. In Conference Record of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Munich, Germany, January 21–23, 1987. ACM, 111–119.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J., Lassez, J. and Maher, M. J. 1986. Logic programming language scheme. In Logic Programming: Functions, Relations, and Equations. Prentice-Hall, 441–467.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J. and Maher, M. J. 1994. Constraint logic programming: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming 19/20, 503–581.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, 499–562.Google Scholar
Lierler, Y. and Maratea, M. 2004. Cmodels-2: Sat-based answer set solver enhanced to non-tight programs. In Proc. of 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, January 6–8, 2004, Lifschitz, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2923. Springer, 346–350.Google Scholar
Loveland, D., Sabharwal, A. and Selman, B. 2017. DPLL: The core of modern satisfiability solvers. In Martin Davis on Computability, Computational Logic, and Mathematical Foundations, Omodeo, E. G. and Policriti, A., Eds. Springer, 315–335.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, W., Truszczyński, M., and Warren, D. S., Eds. Springer, 375–398 (also CoRR cs.LO/9809032, 1998).Google Scholar
Mellarkod, V. S., Gelfond, M. and Zhang, Y. 2008. Integrating answer set programming and constraint logic programming. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 53, 1–4, 251–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minker, J. 1988. Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3–4, 241–273.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
Rao, P., Sagonas, K., Swift, T., Warren, D. S. and Freire, J. 1997. XSB: A system for efficiently computing well-founded semantics. In Proc. of Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning—, LNCS, vol. 1265. Springer Verlag, 431–440.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
Simons, P. 2000. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Doctoral dissertation. Report 58, Helsinki University of Technology.Google Scholar
Stuckey, P. J. 1991. Constructive negation for constraint logic programming. In Proc. of the 6th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS '91), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 15–18, 1991. IEEE Computer Society, 328–339.Google Scholar
Stuckey, P. J. 2010. Lazy clause generation: Combining the power of SAT and CP (and MIP?) solving. In Proc. of Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, 7th International Conference, CPAIOR 2010, Bologna, Italy, June 14–18, 2010, Lodi, A., Milano, M., and Toth, P., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6140. Springer, 5–9.Google Scholar
Stuckey, P. J., Feydy, T., Schutt, A., Tack, G. and Fischer, J. 2014. The miniZinc challenge 2008–2013. AI Magazine 35, 2, 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, I. E. 1963. Sketchpad: A Man-Machine Graphical Communications System. Technical Report 296, MIT, Lincoln Laboratory.Google Scholar
van, Maaren, H. and Franco, J. 2002. SAT Competition. http://www.satcompetition.org/ Google Scholar
Waltz, D. 1975. Understanding line drawings of scenes with shadows. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, Winston, P. H., Ed. McGraw-Hill, 19–91.Google Scholar
Zhou, N., Kjellerstrand, H. and Fruhman, J. 2015. Constraint Solving and Planning with Picat. Springer Briefs in Intelligent Systems. Springer.Google Scholar