Rewriting Optimization Statements in Answer-Set Programs

Constraints on Pseudo-Boolean (PB) expressions can be translated into Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) using several known translations. In Answer-Set Programming (ASP), analogous expressions appear in weight rules and optimization statements. Previously, we have translated weight rules into normal rules, using normalizations designed in accord with existing CNF encodings. In this work, we rededicate such designs to rewrite optimization statements in ASP. In this context, a rewrite of an optimization statement is a replacement accompanied by a set of normal rules that together replicate the original meaning. The goal is partially the same as in translating PB constraints or weight rules: to introduce new meaningful auxiliary atoms that may help a solver in the search for (optimal) solutions. In addition to adapting previous translations, we present selective rewriting techniques in order to meet the above goal while using only a limited amount of new rules and atoms. We experimentally evaluate these methods in preprocessing ASP optimization statements and then searching for optimal answer sets. The results exhibit significant advances in terms of numbers of optimally solved instances, reductions in search conflicts, and shortened computation times. By appropriate choices of rewriting techniques, improvements are made on instances involving both small and large weights. In particular, we show that selective rewriting is paramount on benchmarks involving large weights.

[1]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Applying Visible Strong Equivalence in Answer-Set Program Transformations , 2020, Correct Reasoning.

[2]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Conflict Directed Lazy Decomposition , 2012, CP.

[3]  Tommi S. Jaakkola,et al.  Learning Bayesian Network Structure using LP Relaxations , 2010, AISTATS.

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

[5]  Panagiotis Manolios,et al.  Pseudo-Boolean Solving by incremental translation to SAT , 2011, 2011 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD).

[6]  Martin Gebser,et al.  The Design of the Fifth Answer Set Programming Competition , 2014, ArXiv.

[7]  V. S. Costa,et al.  Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , 2010 .

[8]  Jori Bomanson,et al.  Normalizing Cardinality Rules Using Merging and Sorting Constructions , 2013, LPNMR.

[9]  Katsumi Inoue,et al.  Answer set programming as a modeling language for course timetabling , 2013, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[10]  Yael Ben-Haim,et al.  Perfect Hashing and CNF Encodings of Cardinality Constraints , 2012, SAT.

[11]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Improving the Normalization of Weight Rules in Answer Set Programs , 2014, JELIA.

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

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

[14]  Albert Oliveras,et al.  A New Look at BDDs for Pseudo-Boolean Constraints , 2012, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[15]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  To Encode or to Propagate? The Best Choice for Each Constraint in SAT , 2013, CP.

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

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

[18]  Jukka Corander,et al.  Learning Chordal Markov Networks by Constraint Satisfaction , 2013, NIPS.

[19]  Albert Oliveras,et al.  Cardinality Networks: a theoretical and empirical study , 2011, Constraints.

[20]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Learning discrete decomposable graphical models via constraint optimization , 2017, Stat. Comput..

[21]  Tobias Philipp,et al.  A More Compact Translation of Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into CNF Such That Generalized Arc Consistency Is Maintained , 2014, KI.

[22]  Olivier Roussel,et al.  New Encodings of Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into CNF , 2009, SAT.

[23]  M. De Vos,et al.  Rewriting Optimization Statements in Answer-Set Programs∗ , 2016 .

[24]  James Cussens,et al.  Bayesian network learning with cutting planes , 2011, UAI.

[25]  Peter Schneider-Kamp,et al.  Optimal Base Encodings for Pseudo-Boolean Constraints , 2010, TACAS.

[26]  Kenneth E. Batcher,et al.  Sorting networks and their applications , 1968, AFIPS Spring Joint Computing Conference.

[27]  Luca Di Gaspero,et al.  Benchmarking curriculum-based course timetabling: formulations, data formats, instances, validation, visualization, and results , 2012, Ann. Oper. Res..

[28]  Vasco M. Manquinho,et al.  Pseudo-Boolean and Cardinality Constraints , 2021, Handbook of Satisfiability.

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

[30]  Maurice Bruynooghe,et al.  Predicate logic as a modeling language: the IDP system , 2014, Declarative Logic Programming.

[31]  Martin Gebser,et al.  The Design of the Sixth Answer Set Programming Competition - - Report - , 2014, LPNMR.

[32]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  Translating Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into SAT , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..