Lazy Model Expansion: Interleaving Grounding with Search

Finding satisfying assignments for the variables involved in a set of constraints can be cast as a (bounded) model generation problem: search for (bounded) models of a theory in some logic. The state-of-the-art approach for bounded model generation for rich knowledge representation languages, like ASP, FO(.) and Zinc, is ground-and-solve: reduce the theory to a ground or propositional one and apply a search algorithm to the resulting theory. An important bottleneck is the blowup of the size of the theory caused by the reduction phase. Lazily grounding the theory during search is a way to overcome this bottleneck. We present a theoretical framework and an implementation in the context of the FO(.) knowledge representation language. Instead of grounding all parts of a theory, justifications are derived for some parts of it. Given a partial assignment for the grounded part of the theory and valid justifications for the formulas of the non-grounded part, the justifications provide a recipe to construct a complete assignment that satisfies the non-grounded part. When a justification for a particular formula becomes invalid during search, a new one is derived; if that fails, the formula is split in a part to be grounded and a part that can be justified. The theoretical framework captures existing approaches for tackling the grounding bottleneck such as lazy clause generation and grounding-on-the-fly, and presents a generalization of the 2-watched literal scheme. We present an algorithm for lazy model expansion and integrate it in a model generator for FO(ID), a language extending first-order logic with inductive definitions. The algorithm is implemented as part of the state-of-the-art FO(ID) Knowledge-Base System IDP. Experimental results illustrate the power and generality of the approach

Synthesizing Short-Circuiting Validation of Data Structure Invariants

This paper presents incremental verification-validation, a novel approach for checking rich data structure invariants expressed as separation logic assertions. Incremental verification-validation combines static verification of separation properties with efficient, short-circuiting dynamic validation of arbitrarily rich data constraints. A data structure invariant checker is an inductive predicate in separation logic with an executable interpretation; a short-circuiting checker is an invariant checker that stops checking whenever it detects at run time that an assertion for some sub-structure has been fully proven statically. At a high level, our approach does two things: it statically proves the separation properties of data structure invariants using a static shape analysis in a standard way but then leverages this proof in a novel manner to synthesize short-circuiting dynamic validation of the data properties. As a consequence, we enable dynamic validation to make up for imprecision in sound static analysis while simultaneously leveraging the static verification to make the remaining dynamic validation efficient. We show empirically that short-circuiting can yield asymptotic improvements in dynamic validation, with low overhead over no validation, even in cases where static verification is incomplete

Toward an automaton Constraint for Local Search

We explore the idea of using finite automata to implement new constraints for local search (this is already a successful technique in constraint-based global search). We show how it is possible to maintain incrementally the violations of a constraint and its decision variables from an automaton that describes a ground checker for that constraint. We establish the practicality of our approach idea on real-life personnel rostering problems, and show that it is competitive with the approach of [Pralong, 2007]

Logic programming in the context of multiparadigm programming: the Oz experience

Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented, sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This article has two goals: to give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz and to show how logic programming fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms. Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which results in less than optimal support for each class. To explain the essential difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming (committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style). Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional, higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We conclude with lessons learned from this work, a brief history of Oz, and many entry points into the Oz literature.Comment: 48 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming