Abstract Answer Set Solvers with Backjumping and Learning

Nieuwenhuis et al. (2006. Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: From an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM 53(6), 937977 showed how to describe enhancements of the Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland algorithm using transition systems, instead of pseudocode. We design a similar framework for several algorithms that generate answer sets for logic programs: SMODELS, SMODELScc, asp-sat with Learning (CMODELS), and a newly designed and implemented algorithm sup. This approach to describe answer set solvers makes it easier to prove their correctness, to compare them, and to design new systems

Constraint CNF: SAT and CSP Language Under One Roof

A new language, called constraint CNF, is proposed. It integrates propositional logic with constraints stemming from constraint programming. A family of algorithms is designed to solve problems expressed in constraint CNF. These algorithms build on techniques from both propositional satisfiability and constraint programming. The result is a uniform language and an algorithmic framework, which allow us to gain a deeper understanding of the relation between the solving techniques used in propositional satisfiability and in constraint programming and apply them together

Abstract Modular Inference Systems and Solvers

Integrating diverse formalisms into modular knowledge representation systems offers increased expressivity, modeling convenience and computational benefits. We introduce the concepts of abstract inference modules and abstract modular inference systems to study general principles behind the design and analysis of model-generating programs, or solvers, for integrated multilogic systems.We show how modules and modular systems give rise to transition graphs, which are a natural and convenient representation of solvers, an idea pioneered by the SAT community. We illustrate our approach by showing how it applies to answer-set programming and propositional logic, and to multi-logic systems based on these two formalisms

Technical Communications of ICLP

Abstract Abstract solvers are a recently employed method to formally analyze algorithms that earns some advantages w.r.t. traditional ways such as pseudo-code-based description. Abstract solvers proved to be a useful tool for describing, comparing and composing solving techniques in various fields such as SAT, SMT, ASP, CASP. In ASP, abstract solvers have been so far employed for describing solvers for brave reasoning tasks. In this paper we apply, for the first time, this methodology to the analysis of ASP solvers for cautious reasoning tasks. We describe and compare the available approaches in the literature, which employ techniques for computing over-and under-approximations of the solution, the last including "coherence tests" for deciding the inclusion of a single atom in the solution, a technique borrowed from backbone computation of CNF formulas. Then, we show how to improve the current abstract solvers with new techniques, in order to design new solving algorithms

Transition Systems for Model Generators - A Unifying Approach

A fundamental task for propositional logic is to compute models of propositional formulas. Programs developed for this task are called satisfiability solvers. We show that transition systems introduced by Nieuwenhuis, Oliveras, and Tinelli to model and analyze satisfiability solvers can be adapted for solvers developed for two other propositional formalisms: logic programming under the answer-set semantics, and the logic PC(ID). We show that in each case the task of computing models can be seen as "satisfiability modulo answer-set programming," where the goal is to find a model of a theory that also is an answer set of a certain program. The unifying perspective we develop shows, in particular, that solvers CLASP and MINISATID are closely related despite being developed for different formalisms, one for answer-set programming and the latter for the logic PC(ID).Comment: 30 pages; Accepted for presentation at ICLP 2011 and for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming; contains the appendix with proof

Disjunctive Answer Set Solvers via Templates

Answer set programming is a declarative programming paradigm oriented towards difficult combinatorial search problems. A fundamental task in answer set programming is to compute stable models, i.e., solutions of logic programs. Answer set solvers are the programs that perform this task. The problem of deciding whether a disjunctive program has a stable model is $\Sigma^P_2$-complete. The high complexity of reasoning within disjunctive logic programming is responsible for few solvers capable of dealing with such programs, namely DLV, GnT, Cmodels, CLASP and WASP. In this paper we show that transition systems introduced by Nieuwenhuis, Oliveras, and Tinelli to model and analyze satisfiability solvers can be adapted for disjunctive answer set solvers. Transition systems give a unifying perspective and bring clarity in the description and comparison of solvers. They can be effectively used for analyzing, comparing and proving correctness of search algorithms as well as inspiring new ideas in the design of disjunctive answer set solvers. In this light, we introduce a general template, which accounts for major techniques implemented in disjunctive solvers. We then illustrate how this general template captures solvers DLV, GnT and Cmodels. We also show how this framework provides a convenient tool for designing new solving algorithms by means of combinations of techniques employed in different solvers.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

What is answer set programming to propositional satisfiability

Propositional satisfiability (or satisfiability) and answer set programming are two closely related subareas of Artificial Intelligence that are used to model and solve difficult combinatorial search problems. Satisfiability solvers and answer set solvers are the software systems that find satisfying interpretations and answer sets for given propositional formulas and logic programs, respectively. These systems are closely related in their common design patterns. In satisfiability, a propositional formula is used to encode problem specifications in a way that its satisfying interpretations correspond to the solutions of the problem. To find solutions to a problem it is then sufficient to use a satisfiability solver on a corresponding formula. Niemelä, Marek, and Truszczyński coined answer set programming paradigm in 1999: in this paradigm a logic program encodes problem specifications in a way that the answer sets of a logic program represent the solutions of the problem. As a result, to find solutions to a problem it is sufficient to use an answer set solver on a corresponding program. These parallels that we just draw between paradigms naturally bring up a question: what is a fundamental difference between the two? This paper takes a close look at this question

Relating Constraint Answer Set Programming Languages and Algorithms

Recently a logic programming language AC was proposed by Mellarkod et al. (2008) to integrate answer set programming and constraint logic programming. Soon after that, a CLINGCON language integrating answer set programming and finite domain constraints, as well as an EZCSP language integrating answer set programming and constraint logic programming were introduced. The development of these languages and systems constitutes the appearance of a new AI subarea called constraint answer set programming. All these languages have something in common. In particular, they aim at developing new efficient inference algorithms that combine traditional answer set programming procedures and other methods in constraint programming. Yet, the exact relation between the constraint answer set programming languages and the underlying systems is not well understood. In this paper we address this issue by formally stating the precise relation between several constraint answer set programming languages - AC, CLINGCON, EZCSP - as well as the underlying systems