Speeding up Lazy-Grounding Answer Set Solving

The grounding bottleneck is an important open issue in Answer Set Programming. Lazy grounding addresses it by interleaving grounding and search. The performance of current lazy-grounding solvers is not yet comparable to that of ground-and-solve systems, however. The aim of this thesis is to extend prior work on lazy grounding by novel heuristics and other techniques like non-ground conflict learning in order to speed up solving. Parts of expected results will be beneficial for ground-and-solve systems as well

\u3ci\u3eCorrect Reasoning: Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz\u3c/i\u3e

Co-edited by Yuliya Lierler, UNO faculty member. Essay, Parsing Combinatory Categorial Grammar via Planning in Answer Set Programming, co-authored by Yuliya Lierler, UNO faculty member. This Festschrift published in honor of Vladimir Lifschitz on the occasion of his 65th birthday presents 39 articles by colleagues from all over the world with whom Vladimir Lifschitz had cooperation in various respects. The 39 contributions reflect the breadth and the depth of the work of Vladimir Lifschitz in logic programming, circumscription, default logic, action theory, causal reasoning and answer set programming.https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/facultybooks/1231/thumbnail.jp

First-Order Stable Model Semantics with Intensional Functions

In classical logic, nonBoolean fluents, such as the location of an object, can be naturally described by functions. However, this is not the case in answer set programs, where the values of functions are pre-defined, and nonmonotonicity of the semantics is related to minimizing the extents of predicates but has nothing to do with functions. We extend the first-order stable model semantics by Ferraris, Lee, and Lifschitz to allow intensional functions -- functions that are specified by a logic program just like predicates are specified. We show that many known properties of the stable model semantics are naturally extended to this formalism and compare it with other related approaches to incorporating intensional functions. Furthermore, we use this extension as a basis for defining Answer Set Programming Modulo Theories (ASPMT), analogous to the way that Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) is defined, allowing for SMT-like effective first-order reasoning in the context of ASP. Using SMT solving techniques involving functions, ASPMT can be applied to domains containing real numbers and alleviates the grounding problem. We show that other approaches to integrating ASP and CSP/SMT can be related to special cases of ASPMT in which functions are limited to non-intensional ones.Comment: 69 page

Rewriting recursive aggregates in answer set programming: back to monotonicity

Aggregation functions are widely used in answer set programming for representing and reasoning on knowledge involving sets of objects collectively. Current implementations simplify the structure of programs in order to optimize the overall performance. In particular, aggregates are rewritten into simpler forms known as monotone aggregates. Since the evaluation of normal programs with monotone aggregates is in general on a lower complexity level than the evaluation of normal programs with arbitrary aggregates, any faithful translation function must introduce disjunction in rule heads in some cases. However, no function of this kind is known. The paper closes this gap by introducing a polynomial, faithful, and modular translation for rewriting common aggregation functions into the simpler form accepted by current solvers. A prototype system allows for experimenting with arbitrary recursive aggregates, which are also supported in the recent version 4.5 of the grounder gringo, using the methods presented in this paper

A Tarskian Informal Semantics for Answer Set Programming

In their seminal papers on stable model semantics, Gelfond and Lifschitz introduced ASP by casting programs as epistemic theories, in which rules represent statements about the knowledge of a rational agent. To the best of our knowledge, theirs is still the only published systematic account of the intuitive meaning of rules and programs under the stable semantics. In current ASP practice, however, we find numerous applications in which rational agents no longer seem to play any role. Therefore, we propose here an alternative explanation of the intuitive meaning of ASP programs, in which they are not viewed as statements about an agent\u27s beliefs, but as objective statements about the world. We argue that this view is more natural for a large part of current ASP practice, in particular the so-called Generate-Define-Test programs