Characterizing ASP Inferences by Unit Propagation

Computational approaches to Satisfiability Checking (SAT) and Answer Set Programming (ASP) have many aspects in common. In fact, the basic algorithms of ASP solvers are very similar to the Davis-Logemann-Loveland procedure (DLL) for SAT. The major difference lies in the inference rules, which are more complex in ASP. In this paper, we provide a generic framework, based on concepts from Constraint Processing (CSP), which allows us to view ASP inferences as forms of unit propagation. We develop declarative characterizations of ASP solvers nomore++ and smodels in terms of constraints. By putting ASP solving into a common context with SAT and CSP, we shed new light on ASP solving techniques and their relationships to neighboring fields.

[1]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Computing answer sets using program completion , 2003 .

[2]  V. Lifschitz,et al.  Foundations of Logic Programming , 1997 .

[3]  Thomas Linke,et al.  Graph Theoretical Characterization and Computation of Answer Sets , 2001, IJCAI.

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

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

[6]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Recursive Aggregates in Disjunctive Logic Programs: Semantics and Complexity , 2004, JELIA.

[7]  Yuliya Lierler,et al.  A SAT-based polynomial space algorithm for answer set programming , 2004, NMR.

[8]  Esra Erdem,et al.  Tight logic programs , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[9]  G. Brewka.  Principles of Knowledge Representation , 1996 .

[10]  Martin Gebser,et al.  The nomore++ Approach to Answer Set Solving , 2005, LPAR.

[11]  Kenneth A. Ross,et al.  The well-founded semantics for general logic programs , 1991, JACM.

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

[13]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Pruning operators for answer set programming systems , 2002, NMR.

[14]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  On the Relation Between Answer Set and SAT Procedures (or, Between cmodels and smodels) , 2005, ICLP.

[15]  John S. Schlipf,et al.  Answer Set Programming with Clause Learning , 2004, LPNMR.

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

[17]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  Semantics of (disjunctive) Logic Programs Based on Partial Evaluation , 1999, J. Log. Program..

[18]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Graphs and colorings for answer set programming , 2005, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

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

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

[21]  David G. Mitchell,et al.  A SAT Solver Primer , 2005, Bull. EATCS.

[22]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 2006 .

[23]  Yuliya Lierler,et al.  Elementary Sets of Logic Programs , 2006, AAAI.

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

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

[26]  Joohyung Lee,et al.  A Model-Theoretic Counterpart of Loop Formulas , 2005, IJCAI.

[27]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Tableau Calculi for Answer Set Programming , 2006, ICLP.

[28]  François Fages,et al.  Consistency of Clark's completion and existence of stable models , 1992, Methods Log. Comput. Sci..