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 Answer Set Programming (ASP) and FO(ċ) and a CSP modeling language such as 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 blow-up of the size of the theory caused by the grounding 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(ċ) 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. Experimental results illustrate the power and generality of this approach.

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

[2]  Antonius Weinzierl,et al.  OMiGA : An Open Minded Grounding On-The-Fly Answer Set Solver , 2012, JELIA.

[3]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Answer Set Solving with Lazy Nogood Generation , 2012, ICLP.

[4]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning : 11th international conference, LPNMR 2011, Vancouver, Canada, May 16-19, 2011 : proceedings , 2011 .

[5]  Marc Denecker,et al.  Extending Classical Logic with Inductive Definitions , 2000, Computational Logic.

[6]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Memory-Efficient Inference in Relational Domains , 2006, AAAI.

[7]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).

[8]  Alessandro Dal Palù,et al.  Answer Set Programming with Constraints Using Lazy Grounding , 2009, ICLP.

[9]  Reiner Hähnle,et al.  Tableaux and Related Methods , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[10]  David Detlefs,et al.  Simplify: a theorem prover for program checking , 2005, JACM.

[11]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Lazy Model Expansion by Incremental Grounding , 2012, ICLP.

[12]  Enrico Pontelli,et al.  Credulous Resolution for Answer Set Programming , 2008, AAAI.

[13]  Agostino Dovier,et al.  Technical Communications of the 28th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2012, September 4-8, 2012, Budapest, Hungary , 2012, International Conference on Logic Programming.

[14]  Gerda Janssens,et al.  Compiling Input* FO(·) inductive definitions into tabled prolog rules for IDP3 , 2013, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[15]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  ASP modulo CSP: The clingcon system , 2012, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[16]  Marc Denecker,et al.  Model Expansion in the Presence of Function Symbols Using Constraint Programming , 2013, 2013 IEEE 25th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[17]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  The Second Answer Set Programming Competition , 2009, LPNMR.

[18]  David G. Mitchell,et al.  A Framework for Representing and Solving NP Search Problems , 2005, AAAI.

[19]  Van GelderAllen.  The alternating fixpoint of logic programs with negation , 1993 .

[20]  Leonardo Mendonça de Moura,et al.  Complete Instantiation for Quantified Formulas in Satisfiabiliby Modulo Theories , 2009, CAV.

[21]  Giovambattista Ianni,et al.  The third open answer set programming competition , 2012, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[22]  Maarten Mariën,et al.  On the Relation Between ID-Logic and Answer Set Programming , 2004, JELIA.

[23]  Peter J. Stuckey.  Lazy Clause Generation: Combining the Power of SAT and CP (and MIP?) Solving , 2010, CPAIOR.

[24]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Answer Set Programming via Mixed Integer Programming , 2012, KR.

[25]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Engineering an Incremental ASP Solver , 2008, ICLP.

[26]  Eugenia Ternovska,et al.  A logic of nonmonotone inductive definitions , 2008, TOCL.

[27]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Propagation via lazy clause generation , 2009, Constraints.

[28]  Michael Codish,et al.  Compiling finite domain constraints to SAT with BEE* , 2012, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[29]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  In handbook of automated reasoning , 2001 .

[30]  Johan Wittocx,et al.  The IDP system: A model expansion system for an extension of classical logic , 2008 .

[31]  Luc De Raedt,et al.  On the implementation of the probabilistic logic programming language ProbLog , 2010, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[32]  Martin Gebser,et al.  GrinGo : A New Grounder for Answer Set Programming , 2007, LPNMR.

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

[34]  Pascal Nicolas,et al.  The First Version of a New ASP Solver : ASPeRiX , 2009, LPNMR.

[35]  Mario Alviano,et al.  The Fourth Answer Set Programming Competition: Preliminary Report , 2013, LPNMR.

[36]  Mutsunori Banbara,et al.  Compiling Finite Linear CSP into SAT , 2006, CP.

[37]  Enrico Pontelli,et al.  Two Applications of the ASP-Prolog System: Decomposable Programs and Multi-context Systems , 2014, PADL.

[38]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[39]  Maarten Mariën.  Model Generation for ID-Logic (Modelgeneratie voor ID-logica) ; Model Generation for ID-Logic , 2009 .

[40]  Maurice Bruynooghe,et al.  SAT(ID): Satisfiability of Propositional Logic Extended with Inductive Definitions , 2008, SAT.

[41]  Ian P. Gent,et al.  Short and Long Supports for Constraint Propagation , 2013, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[42]  Sebastian Riedel.  Cutting Plane MAP Inference for Markov Logic , 2009 .

[43]  DAVID MITCHELL,et al.  Model Expansion as a Framework for Modelling and Solving Search Problems , 2007 .

[44]  Gopal Gupta,et al.  Goal-directed execution of answer set programs , 2012, PPDP.

[45]  Marcello Balduccini,et al.  Industrial-Size Scheduling with ASP+CP , 2011, LPNMR.

[46]  John E. Hopcroft,et al.  Complexity of Computer Computations , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[47]  G. S. Tseitin.  On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus , 1983 .

[48]  Allen Van Gelder,et al.  The Alternating Fixpoint of Logic Programs with Negation , 1993, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[49]  Johan Wittocx,et al.  Grounding FO and FO(ID) with Bounds , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[50]  Herbert B. Enderton,et al.  A mathematical introduction to logic , 1972 .

[51]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[52]  Victor W. Marek,et al.  Logic programming revisited , 2001, ACM Trans. Comput. Log..

[53]  Joost Vennekens,et al.  Predicate Introduction for Logics with a Fixpoint Semantics. Part I: Logic Programming , 2007, Fundam. Informaticae.

[54]  Victor W. Marek,et al.  Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm , 1998, The Logic Programming Paradigm.

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

[56]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning : 10th international conference, LPNMR 2009, Potsdam, Germany, September 14-18, 2009 : proceedings , 2009, LPNMR 2009.

[57]  Nikolaj Bjørner,et al.  Open-World Logic Programs: A New Foundation for Formal Specifications , 2013 .

[58]  Marc Denecker,et al.  The Well-Founded Semantics Is the Principle of Inductive Definition , 1998, JELIA.

[59]  Hans Tompits,et al.  A Uniform Integration of Higher-Order Reasoning and External Evaluations in Answer-Set Programming , 2005, IJCAI.

[60]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Principles of constraint programming , 2003 .

[61]  Marc Denecker,et al.  Separating Knowledge from Computation An FO( ) Knowledge Base System and its Model Expansion Inference , 2014 .

[62]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  MiniZinc: Towards a Standard CP Modelling Language , 2007, CP.

[63]  Z. Hanna,et al.  A Lazy and Layered SMT ( B V ) Solver for Hard Industrial Verification Problems ⋆ , 2007 .

[64]  Mutsunori Banbara,et al.  Compiling finite linear CSP into SAT , 2006, Constraints.

[65]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Conflict-Driven Constraint Answer Set Solving with Lazy Nogood Generation , 2011, AAAI.

[66]  Anil Nerode,et al.  Justification semantics: a unifying framework for the semantics of Logic Programs , 1993 .

[67]  Maurice Bruynooghe,et al.  Constraint Propagation for First-Order Logic and Inductive Definitions , 2013, TOCL.

[68]  Inês Lynce,et al.  Conflict-Driven Clause Learning SAT Solvers , 2009, Handbook of Satisfiability.

[69]  Koen Claessen,et al.  New techniques that improve mace-style model nding , 2003 .

[70]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  A Tarskian Informal Semantics for Answer Set Programming , 2012, ICLP.

[71]  Felix Sheng-Ho Chang,et al.  Finding Minimal Unsatisfiable Cores of Declarative Specifications , 2008, FM.

[72]  K. A. Ross,et al.  Tabled Evaluation with Delaying for General Logic Programs , 1996 .

[73]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Advances in gringo Series 3 , 2011, LPNMR.

[74]  Luís Moniz Pereira,et al.  Towards Practical Tabled Abduction in Logic Programs , 2013, EPIA.