A Versatile Intermediate Language for Answer Set Programming

The attractiveness of Answer Set Programming (ASP) and related paradigms for declarative problem solving is considerably due to the availability of highly efficient yet easy-to-use implementations. A major driving force for the development and improvement of tools are standardized problem representations, for several reasons. First, they relieve developers from the burden of inventing their own input formats. Second, they establish interoperability between separate tools, allowing users to easily compare and exchange them without extensively converting their problem representations. Third, they facilitate the acquisition of problem descriptions from distinct sources, which is useful for benchmarking and assessment purposes. Historically, however, standards for representing logic programs, serving as inputs to ASP systems, were mainly dictated by the few available tools. In fact, there currently are two quasi standards, namely, the formats used by lparse and dlv, incompatible with each other. As a first step towards overcoming this deficiency, this work proposes an intermediate format for ground logic programs, intended for the representation of inputs to ASP solvers. The format is not designed to be a primary input language, given that ASP systems usually deploy a second component, called a grounder, to deal with the inputs provided by users. In view of this, our format is situated intermediate a grounder and a solver, guided by the example of grounder lparse and solver smodels, the latter marking the first among nowadays a variety of solvers processing the output of lparse. However, the output format of lparse has some decisive drawbacks, namely, its restrictive range and limited extensibility. We thus propose a new intermediate language, where our major design goals are flexibility in problem representation and easy extensibility to new language constructs.

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

[2]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving , 2003 .

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

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

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

[6]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Nested expressions in logic programs , 1999, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

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

[8]  Tomi Janhunen Intermediate Languages of ASP Systems and Tools , 2007 .

[9]  Paolo Ferraris,et al.  Answer Sets for Propositional Theories , 2005, LPNMR.

[10]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation , 1994, J. Log. Program..

[11]  Victor W. Marek,et al.  The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective , 2011 .

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

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

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

[15]  Martin Gebser,et al.  clasp : A Conflict-Driven Answer Set Solver , 2007, LPNMR.

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

[17]  Tomi Janhunen,et al.  Modular Equivalence for Normal Logic Programs , 2006, ECAI.

[18]  Peter Szolovits,et al.  What Is a Knowledge Representation? , 1993, AI Mag..

[19]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  The First Answer Set Programming System Competition , 2007, LPNMR.

[20]  Cesare Tinelli,et al.  The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 1.2 , 2005 .

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

[22]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  GRASP: A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability , 1999, IEEE Trans. Computers.

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

[24]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Logic programming and knowledge representation—The A-Prolog perspective , 2002 .

[25]  Yuliya Lierler,et al.  cmodels - SAT-Based Disjunctive Answer Set Solver , 2005, LPNMR.

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

[27]  Yuliya Lierler,et al.  Answer Set Programming Based on Propositional Satisfiability , 2006, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

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

[29]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases , 1991, New Generation Computing.

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

[31]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Pbmodels - Software to Compute Stable Models by Pseudoboolean Solvers , 2005, LPNMR.

[32]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Towards an Efficient Tableau Method for Boolean Circuit Satisfiability Checking , 2000, Computational Logic.

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

[34]  Armin Biere,et al.  Effective Preprocessing in SAT Through Variable and Clause Elimination , 2005, SAT.