Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:20:22.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stable model semantics for founded bounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

REHAN ABDUL AZIZ ,
GEOFFREY CHU  and
PETER J. STUCKEY
REHAN ABDUL AZIZ
Affiliation:
National ICT Australia*, Victoria Laboratory, Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Australia (e-mail: raziz@student.unimelb.edu.au, gchu@csse.unimelb.edu.au, pjs@csse.unimelb.edu.au)
GEOFFREY CHU
Affiliation:
National ICT Australia*, Victoria Laboratory, Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Australia (e-mail: raziz@student.unimelb.edu.au, gchu@csse.unimelb.edu.au, pjs@csse.unimelb.edu.au)
PETER J. STUCKEY
Affiliation:
National ICT Australia*, Victoria Laboratory, Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Australia (e-mail: raziz@student.unimelb.edu.au, gchu@csse.unimelb.edu.au, pjs@csse.unimelb.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful form of declarative programming used in areas such as planning or reasoning. ASP solvers enforce stable model semantics, which rule out solutions representing certain kinds of circular reasoning. Unfortunately, current ASP solvers are incapable of solving problems involving cyclic dependencies between multiple integer or continuous quantities effectively. In this paper, we generalize the notion of stable models to bound founded variables with arbitrary domains, where bounds on such variables need to be justified by some rule in the program in order for the model to be stable. We show how to handle significantly more general rule forms where bound founded variables can act as head or body variables, and where head and body variables can be related via complex constraints subject to certain monotonicity requirements. We describe a new unfounded set detection algorithm which allows us to enforce this generalization of the stable model semantics. We also show how these unfounded sets can be explained in order to allow effective conflict-directed clause learning. The new solver merges the best features of CP, SAT and ASP solvers and allows new types of problems to be solved very efficiently.

Keywords

answer set programmingstable model semanticsfinite domain solving
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. 517 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 [REHAN ABDUL AZIZ, GEOFFREY CHU and PETER J. STUCKEY] 

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

*

NICTA is funded by the Australian Government as represented by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence program.

References

Anger, C., Gebser, M. and Schaub, T. 2006. Approaching the core of unfounded sets. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Clausthal University of Technology, Institute for Informatics, 58–66.Google Scholar
Aziz, R. A., Stuckey, P. J. and Somogyi, Z. 2013. Inductive definitions in constraint programming. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Australasian Computer Science Conference, Thomas, B., Ed. CRPIT, vol. 135. ACS, 41–50.Google Scholar
Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baselice, S., Bonatti, P. A. and Gelfond, M. 2005. Towards an integration of answer set and constraint solving. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Logic Programming. ICLP'05. Springer-Verlag, 52–66.Google Scholar
Blondeel, M., Schockaert, S., Vermeir, D. and De Cock, M. 2013. Fuzzy answer set programming: An introduction. In Soft Computing: State of the Art Theory and Novel Applications. Springer, 209–222.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 input language format. https://www.mat.unical.it/aspcomp2013/ASPStandardization.Google Scholar
Drescher, C. and Walsh, T. 2010. A translational approach to constraint answer set solving. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 10, 4–6, 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drescher, C. and Walsh, T. 2012. Answer set solving with lazy nogood neneration. In Technical Communications of the 28th International Conference on Logic Programming. 188–200.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan and Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A. and Schaub, T. 2007. Conflict-driven answer set solving. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, 386.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2012. Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artif. Intell 187, 52–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebser, M., Ostrowski, M. and Schaub, T. 2009. Constraint answer set solving. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Logic Programming. Springer, 235–249.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Janssen, J., Heymans, S., Vermeir, D. and Cock, M. D. 2008. Compiling fuzzy answer set programs to fuzzy propositional theories. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Logic Programming. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 362–376.Google Scholar
Liu, G., Janhunen, T. and Niemela, I. 2012. Answer set programming via mixed integer programming. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press, 32–42.Google Scholar
Marques-Silva, J. P. and Sakallah, K. A. 1999. GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48, 5, 506–521.CrossRefGoogle 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
Moskewicz, M. W., Madigan, C. F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L. and Malik, S. 2001. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference. ACM, 530–535.Google Scholar
Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P. J., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G. J. and Tack, G. 2007. MiniZinc: Towards a standard CP modelling language. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, vol. 4741. Springer, 529–543.Google Scholar
Nieuwenborgh, D. V., Cock, M. D. and Vermeir, D. 2006. Fuzzy answer set programming. In Proceedings of Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 10th European Conference, JELIA 2006. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 359–372.Google Scholar
Osorio, M. and Jayaraman, B. 1996. Aggregation and well-founded semantics. In Proceedings of Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming, NMELP '96. Springer-Verlag, 71–90.Google Scholar
Rossi, F., Beek, P. v. and Walsh, T. 2006. Handbook of Constraint Programming (Foundations of Artificial Intelligence). Elsevier Science, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Schulte, C. and Stuckey, P. J. 2008. Efficient constraint propagation engines. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 31, 1, Article No. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P., Niemelä, I. and Soininen, T. 2002. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138, 1–2, 181–234.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, A., Ross, K. A. and Schlipf, J. S. 1988. Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. ACM, 221–230.Google Scholar