Answer set programming unleashed!

Answer Set Programming faces an increasing popularity for problem solving in various domains. While its modeling language allows us to express many complex problems in an easy way, its solving technology enables their effective resolution. In what follows, we detail some of the key factors of its success. Answer Set Programming [ASP; Brewka et al. Commun ACM 54(12):92–103, (2011)] is seeing a rapid proliferation in academia and industry due to its easy and flexible way to model and solve knowledge-intense combinatorial (optimization) problems. To this end, ASP offers a high-level modeling language paired with high-performance solving technology. As a result, ASP systems provide out-off-the-box, general-purpose search engines that allow for enumerating (optimal) solutions. They are represented as answer sets, each being a set of atoms representing a solution. The declarative approach of ASP allows a user to concentrate on a problem’s specification rather than the computational means to solve it. This makes ASP a prime candidate for rapid prototyping and an attractive tool for teaching key AI techniques since complex problems can be expressed in a succinct and elaboration tolerant way. This is eased by the tuning of ASP’s modeling language to knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR). The resulting impact is nicely reflected by a growing range of successful applications of ASP [Erdem et al. AI Mag 37(3):53–68, 2016; Falkner et al. Industrial applications of answer set programming. K++nstliche Intelligenz (2018)].

[1]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  ASSAT: computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Alexander A. Razborov,et al.  Why are there so many loop formulas? , 2006, TOCL.

[3]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving , 2004 .

[4]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  A Tutorial on Hybrid Answer Set Solving with clingo , 2017, RW.

[5]  David Pearce,et al.  Answer Set Programming from a Logical Point of View , 2018, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.

[6]  Keith L. Clark,et al.  Negation as Failure , 1987, Logic and Data Bases.

[7]  John McCarthy,et al.  Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge , 1987, NMR.

[8]  H. Tompits,et al.  Catching the Ouroboros: On debugging non-ground answer-set programs , 2010, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[9]  J. McCarthy.  ELABORATION TOLERANCE , 1997 .

[10]  Timo Soininen,et al.  Extending and implementing the stable model semantics , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  asprin: Customizing Answer Set Preferences without a Headache , 2015, AAAI.

[12]  William F. Clocksin,et al.  Programming in Prolog , 1987, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[13]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Answer Set Programming: A Primer , 2009, Reasoning Web.

[14]  Francesco Ricca,et al.  ASPIDE: Integrated Development Environment for Answer Set Programming , 2011, LPNMR.

[15]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Modeling and Language Extensions , 2016, AI Mag..

[16]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  Predicate Logic as Programming Language , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[17]  David Pearce,et al.  Equilibrium logic , 2006, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Applications of Answer Set Programming , 2016, AI Mag..

[19]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Grounding and Solving in Answer Set Programming , 2016, AI Mag..

[20]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  A machine program for theorem-proving , 2011, CACM.

[21]  David K. Smith.  Theory of Linear and Integer Programming , 1987 .

[22]  Cesare Tinelli,et al.  Satisfiability Modulo Theories , 2021, Handbook of Satisfiability.

[23]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[24]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases , 1994 .

[25]  J. P. Marques,et al.  GRASP : A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability , 1999 .

[26]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Encodings for Equilibrium Logic and Logic Programs with Nested Expressions , 2001, EPIA.

[27]  Mario Alviano,et al.  Advances in WASP , 2015, LPNMR.

[28]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Answer Set Solving in Practice , 2012, Answer Set Solving in Practice.

[29]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm , 1999, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[30]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Answer set programming at a glance , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[31]  Christine Froidevaux,et al.  Minimalism subsumes Default Logic and Circumscription in Stratified Logic Programming , 1987, LICS.

[32]  Martin Gebser,et al.  ASP-Core-2 Input Language Format , 2019, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[33]  Letizia Tanca,et al.  Logic Programming and Databases , 1990, Surveys in Computer Science.

[34]  Mario Alviano,et al.  Aggregates in Answer Set Programming , 2018, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.

[35]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Handbook of Satisfiability: Volume 185 Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications , 2009 .

[36]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory , 1960, JACM.

[37]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[38]  Gerhard Friedrich,et al.  Industrial Applications of Answer Set Programming , 2018, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.

[39]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning , 2002, TOCL.

[40]  A. Heyting.  Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik , 1930 .

[41]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[42]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The Answer-Set Programming Approach , 2014 .

[43]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Constraint Processing , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.