Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:32:40.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

selp: A Single-Shot Epistemic Logic Program Solver

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2020

MANUEL BICHLER ,
MICHAEL MORAK Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL MORAK [Opens in a new window]  and
STEFAN WOLTRAN
MANUEL BICHLER
Affiliation:
TU Wien, Vienna, Austria, (e-mails: bichler@dbai.tuwien.ac.at, michael.morak@aau.at, woltran@dbai.tuwien.ac.at)
MICHAEL MORAK
Affiliation:
TU Wien, Vienna, Austria, (e-mails: bichler@dbai.tuwien.ac.at, michael.morak@aau.at, woltran@dbai.tuwien.ac.at)
STEFAN WOLTRAN
Affiliation:
TU Wien, Vienna, Austria, (e-mails: bichler@dbai.tuwien.ac.at, michael.morak@aau.at, woltran@dbai.tuwien.ac.at)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Epistemic logic programs (ELPs) are an extension of answer set programming (ASP) with epistemic operators that allow for a form of meta-reasoning, that is, reasoning over multiple possible worlds. Existing ELP solving approaches generally rely on making multiple calls to an ASP solver in order to evaluate the ELP. However, in this paper, we show that there also exists a direct translation from ELPs into non-ground ASP with bounded arity. The resulting ASP program can thus be solved in a single shot. We then implement this encoding method, using recently proposed techniques to handle large, non-ground ASP rules, into the prototype ELP solving system “selp,” which we present in this paper. This solver exhibits competitive performance on a set of ELP benchmark instances.

Keywords

logic programming methodology and applicationsknowledge representation and nonmonotonic reasoningtechnical notes and rapid communications
Type
Rapid Communication
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , July 2020 , pp. 435 - 455
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Footnotes

*

This work was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under grant numbers Y698 and P30930.

References

Abseher, M., Musliu, N. and Woltran, S. 2017. htd - A free, open-source framework for (customized) tree decompositions and beyond. In Proc. CPAIOR, 376–386.Google Scholar
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Faber, W., Leone, N. and Ricca, F. 2013. WASP: A native ASP solver based on constraint learning. In Proc. LPNMR, 54–66.Google Scholar
Bichler, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2016a. lpopt: A rule optimization tool for answer set programming. In Proc. LOPSTR, 114–130.Google Scholar
Bichler, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2016b. The power of non-ground rules in answer set programming. TPLP 16, 5–6, 552–569.Google Scholar
Bichler, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2018a. Single-shot epistemic logic program solving. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 1714–1720.Google Scholar
Bichler, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2018b. Single-shot epistemic logic program solving. In Proceedings of ASPOCP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliem, B., Moldovan, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2017. The impact of treewidth on ASP grounding and solving. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 852–858.Google Scholar
Bodlaender, H. L. 1993. A tourist guide through treewidth. Acta Cybernetica 11, 1–2, 1–21.Google Scholar
Brewka, G., Eiter, T. and Truszczynski, M. 2011. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM 54, 12, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calimeri, F., Fuscà, D., Perri, S. and Zangari, J. 2017. I-DLV: The new intelligent grounder of DLV. Intelligenza Artificiale 11, 1, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Cerro, L. F., Herzig, A. and Su, E. I. 2015. Epistemic equilibrium logic. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 2964–2970.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H.-D. and Flum, J. 1995. Finite Model Theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T., Faber, W., Fink, M. and Woltran, S. 2007. Complexity results for answer set programming with bounded predicate arities and implications. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 51, 2–4, 123–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15, 3–4, 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, W., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2019. Strong equivalence for epistemic logic programs made easy. In Proceedings of AAAI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, W., Pfeifer, G. and Leone, N. 2011. Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artificial Intelligence 175, 1, 278–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraris, P., Lee, J. and Lifschitz, V. 2011. Stable models and circumscription. Artificial Intelligence 175, 1, 236–263.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice. Morgan & Claypool.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2014. clingo = ASP + control: Preliminary report. In ICLP Technical CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2019. Multi-shot ASP solving with clingo. TPLP 19, 1, 27–82.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., König, A. and Schaub, T. 2011. Advances in gringo series 3. In Proceedings of LPNMR, 345–351.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2009. Solution enumeration for projected boolean search problems. In Proceedings of CPAIOR, 71–86.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2012. Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artificial Intelligence 187, 52–89.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1991. Strong introspection. In Proc. AAAI, Vol. 1, 386–391.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1994. Logic programming and reasoning with incomplete information. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 12, 1–2, 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. 2011. New semantics for epistemic specifications. In Proceedings of LPNMR, 260–265.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of ICLP/SLP, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 3/4, 365–386.Google Scholar
Kahl, P. T. 2014. Refining the semantics for epistemic logic programs. Ph.D. thesis, Texas Tech University, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
Kahl, P. T., Leclerc, A. P. and Son, T. C. 2016. A parallel memory-efficient epistemic logic program solver: Harder, better, faster. In Proceedings of ASPOCP.Google Scholar
Kahl, P. T., Watson, R., Balai, E., Gelfond, M. and Zhang, Y. 2015. The language of epistemic specifications (refined) including a prototype solver. Journal of Logic and Computation, exv065.Google Scholar
Leclerc, A. P. and Kahl, P. T. 2018. A survey of advances in epistemic logic program solvers. CoRR abs/1809.07141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V., Tang, L. R. and Turner, H. 1999. Nested expressions in logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3–4, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2012. Preprocessing of complex non-ground rules in answer set programming. In ICLP Technical Communications, 247–258.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. 2006. Equilibrium logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 47, 1–2, 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelov, N., Denecker, M. and Bruynooghe, M. 2007. Well-founded and stable semantics of logic programs with aggregates. TPLP 7, 3, 301–353.Google Scholar
Pulina, L. 2016. The ninth QBF solvers evaluation – preliminary report. In Proc. QBF. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1719. CEUR-WS.org, 1–13.Google Scholar
Shen, Y. and Eiter, T. 2016. Evaluating epistemic negation in answer set programming. Artificial Intelligence 237, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., Wang, K., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Redl, C., Krennwallner, T. and Deng, J. 2014. FLP answer set semantics without circular justifications for general logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 213, 1–41.Google Scholar
Son, T. C., Le, T., Kahl, P. T. and Leclerc, A. P. 2017. On computing world views of epistemic logic programs. In Proc. IJCAI, 1269–1275.Google Scholar
Truszczynski, M. 2011. Revisiting epistemic specifications. In Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning – Essays Dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, 315–333.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Wang, B. and Zhang, S. 2015. Logic programming with graded introspection. In Proceedings of ASPOCP.Google Scholar