Degrees of Laziness in Grounding: Effects of Lazy-Grounding Strategies on ASP Solving

The traditional ground-and-solve approach to Answer Set Programming (ASP) suffers from the grounding bottleneck, which makes large-scale problem instances unsolvable. Lazy grounding is an alternative approach that interleaves grounding with solving and thus uses space more efficiently. The limited view on the search space in lazy grounding poses unique challenges, however, and can have adverse effects on solving performance. In this paper we present a novel characterization of degrees of laziness in grounding for ASP, i.e. of compromises between lazily grounding as little as possible and the traditional full grounding upfront. We investigate how these degrees of laziness compare to each other formally as well as, by means of an experimental analysis using a number of benchmarks, in terms of their effects on solving performance. Our contributions are the introduction of a range of novel lazy grounding strategies, a formal account on their relationships and their correctness, and an investigation of their effects on solving performance. Experiments show that our approach performs significantly better than state-of-the-art lazy grounding in many cases.

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

[2]  Simona Perri,et al.  I-DLV: The new intelligent grounder of DLV , 2017, Intelligenza Artificiale.

[3]  Daniele Pretolani,et al.  Efficiency and stability of hypergraph SAT algorithms , 1993, Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability.

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

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

[6]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Design and results of the Fifth Answer Set Programming Competition , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Viktor Kuncak,et al.  Counterexample-Guided Quantifier Instantiation for Synthesis in SMT , 2015, CAV.

[9]  Alessandro Dal Palù,et al.  GASP: Answer Set Programming with Lazy Grounding , 2009, Fundam. Informaticae.

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

[11]  Tommi Syrjänen Omega-Restricted Logic Programs , 2001, LPNMR.

[12]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Progress in clasp Series 3 , 2015, LPNMR.

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

[14]  Igor Stéphan,et al.  ASPeRiX, a first-order forward chaining approach for answer set computing , 2017, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[15]  Antonius Weinzierl,et al.  Blending Lazy-Grounding and CDNL Search for Answer-Set Solving , 2017, LPNMR.

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

[17]  Antonius Weinzierl,et al.  Techniques for Efficient Lazy-Grounding ASP Solving , 2017, DECLARE.

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

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

[20]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Complexity results for answer set programming with bounded predicate arities and implications , 2007, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[21]  Christoph Redl Automated Benchmarking of KR-systems , 2016, RCRA@AI*IA.

[22]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

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

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