MASP-Reduce: A Proposal for Distributed Computation of Stable Models

There has been an increasing interest in recent years towards the development of efficient solvers for Answer Set Programming (ASP) and towards the application of ASP to solve increasing more challenging problems. In particular, several recent efforts have explored the issue of scalability of ASP solvers when addressing the challenges caused by the need to ground the program before resolution. This paper offers an alternative solution to this challenge, focused on the use of distributed programming techniques to reason about ASP programs whose grounding would be prohibitive for mainstream ASP solvers. The work builds on a proposal of a characterization of answer set solving as a form of non-standard graph coloring. The paper expands this characterization to include syntactic extensions used in modern ASP (e.g., choice rules, weight constraints). We present an implementation of the solver using a distributed programming framework specifically designed to manipulate very large graphs, as provided by Apache Spark, which in turn builds on the MapReduce programming framework. Finally, we provide a few preliminary results obtained from the first prototype implementation of this approach

Comparing the Reasoning Capabilities of Equilibrium Theories and Answer Set Programs

[Abstract] Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a well established logical approach in artificial intelligence that is widely used for knowledge representation and problem solving. Equilibrium logic extends answer set semantics to more general classes of programs and theories. When intertheory relations are studied in ASP, or in the more general form of equilibrium logic, they are usually understood in the form of comparisons of the answer sets or equilibrium models of theories or programs. This is the case for strong and uniform equivalence and their relativised and projective versions. However, there are many potential areas of application of ASP for which query answering is relevant and a comparison of programs in terms of what can be inferred from them may be important. We formulate and study some natural equivalence and entailment concepts for programs and theories that are couched in terms of inference and query answering. We show that, for the most part, these new intertheory relations coincide with their model-theoretic counterparts. We also extend some previous results on projective entailment for theories and for the new connective called fork.This research has received partial support from the European Cooperation in Science & Technology (COST) Action CA17124. The third author acknowledges the funding of project PID 2020-116201GB-I00 (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain) and also the financial support supplied by the Consellería de Educación, Universidade e Formación Profesional (accreditations GPC ED431B 2022/23 and 2019–2022 ED431G-2019/01). The last author has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grant Y698Xunta de Galicia; ED431B 2022/23Xunta de Galicia; ED431G-2019/0

Answer Sets for Logic Programs with Arbitrary Abstract Constraint Atoms

In this paper, we present two alternative approaches to defining answer sets for logic programs with arbitrary types of abstract constraint atoms (c-atoms). These approaches generalize the fixpoint-based and the level mapping based answer set semantics of normal logic programs to the case of logic programs with arbitrary types of c-atoms. The results are four different answer set definitions which are equivalent when applied to normal logic programs. The standard fixpoint-based semantics of logic programs is generalized in two directions, called answer set by reduct and answer set by complement. These definitions, which differ from each other in the treatment of negation-as-failure (naf) atoms, make use of an immediate consequence operator to perform answer set checking, whose definition relies on the notion of conditional satisfaction of c-atoms w.r.t. a pair of interpretations. The other two definitions, called strongly and weakly well-supported models, are generalizations of the notion of well-supported models of normal logic programs to the case of programs with c-atoms. As for the case of fixpoint-based semantics, the difference between these two definitions is rooted in the treatment of naf atoms. We prove that answer sets by reduct (resp. by complement) are equivalent to weakly (resp. strongly) well-supported models of a program, thus generalizing the theorem on the correspondence between stable models and well-supported models of a normal logic program to the class of programs with c-atoms. We show that the newly defined semantics coincide with previously introduced semantics for logic programs with monotone c-atoms, and they extend the original answer set semantics of normal logic programs. We also study some properties of answer sets of programs with c-atoms, and relate our definitions to several semantics for logic programs with aggregates presented in the literature

Modularity in answer set programs

Answer set programming (ASP) is an approach to rule-based constraint programming allowing flexible knowledge representation in variety of application areas. The declarative nature of ASP is reflected in problem solving. First, a programmer writes down a logic program the answer sets of which correspond to the solutions of the problem. The answer sets of the program are then computed using a special purpose search engine, an ASP solver. The development of efficient ASP solvers has enabled the use of answer set programming in various application domains such as planning, product configuration, computer aided verification, and bioinformatics. The topic of this thesis is modularity in answer set programming. While modern programming languages typically provide means to exploit modularity in a number of ways to govern the complexity of programs and their development process, relatively little attention has been paid to modularity in ASP. When designing a module architecture for ASP, it is essential to establish full compositionality of the semantics with respect to the module system. A balance is sought between introducing restrictions that guarantee the compositionality of the semantics and enforce a good programming style in ASP, and avoiding restrictions on the module hierarchy for the sake of flexibility of knowledge representation. To justify a replacement of a module with another, that is, to be able to guarantee that changes made on the level of modules do not alter the semantics of the program when seen as an entity, a notion of equivalence for modules is provided. In close connection with the development of the compositional module architecture, a transformation from verification of equivalence to search for answer sets is developed. The translation-based approach makes it unnecessary to develop a dedicated tool for the equivalence verification task by allowing the direct use of existing ASP solvers. Translations and transformations between different problems, program classes, and formalisms are another central theme in the thesis. To guarantee efficiency and soundness of the translation-based approach, certain syntactical and semantical properties of transformations are desirable, in terms of translation time, solution correspondence between the original and the transformed problem, and locality/globality of a particular transformation. In certain cases a more refined notion of minimality than that inherent in ASP can make program encodings more intuitive. Lifschitz' parallel and prioritized circumscription offer a solution in which certain atoms are allowed to vary or to have fixed values while others are falsified as far as possible according to priority classes. In this thesis a linear and faithful transformation embedding parallel and prioritized circumscription into ASP is provided. This enhances the knowledge representation capabilities of answer set programming by allowing the use of existing ASP solvers for computing parallel and prioritized circumscription

Experiments with SAT-based Answer Set Programming

Answer Set Programming (ASP) emerged in the late 1990s as a new logic programming paradigm which has been successfully applied in various application domains. Propositional satisfiability (SAT) is one of the most studied problems in Computer Science. ASP and SAT are closely related: Recent works have studied their relation, and efficient SAT-based ASP solvers (like assat and Cmodels) exist. In this paper we report about (i) the extension of the basic procedures in Cmodels in order to incorporate the most popular SAT reasoning strategies, and (ii) an extensive comparative analysis involving also other state-of-the-art answer set solvers. The experimental analysis points out, besides the fact that Cmodels is highly competitive, that the reasoning strategies that work best on “small but hard” problems are ineffective on “big but easy” problems and vice-versa