Constraint Lingo: towards high-level constraint programming

Logic programming requires that the programmer convert a problem into a set of constraints based on predicates. Choosing the predicates and introducing appropriate constraints can be intricate and error prone. If the problem domain is structured enough, we can let the programmer express the problem in terms of more abstract, higher-level constraints. A compiler can then convert the higher-level program into a logic-programming formalism. The compiler writer can experiment with alternative low-level representations of the higher-level constraints in order to achieve a high-quality translation. The programmer can then take advantage of both a reduction in complexity and an improvement in runtime speed for all problems within the domain. We apply this analysis to the domain of tabular constraint-satisfaction problems. Examples of such problems include logic puzzles solvable on a hatch grid and combinatorial problems such as graph coloring and independent sets. The proper abstractions for these problems are rows, columns, entries, and their interactions. We present a higher-level language, Constraint Lingo, dedicated to problems in this domain. We also describe how we translate programs from Constraint Lingo into lower-level logic formalisms such as the logic of propositional schemata. These translations require that we choose among competing lower-level representations in order to produce efficient results. The overall effectiveness of our approach depends on the appropriateness of Constraint Lingo, our ability to translate Constraint Lingo programs into high-quality representations in logic formalisms, and the efficiency with which logic engines can compute answer sets. We comment on our computational experience with these tools in solving both graph problems and logic puzzles. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Gerald Pfeifer,et al.  The KR System dlv: Progress Report, Comparisons and Benchmarks , 1998, KR.

[2]  John K. Ousterhout,et al.  Tcl and the Tk Toolkit , 1994 .

[3]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  Predicate Logic as Programming Language , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[4]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

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

[6]  I. Niemelä,et al.  Extending the Smodels system with cardinality and weight constraints , 2001 .

[7]  Bart Selman,et al.  Planning as Satisfiability , 1992, ECAI.

[8]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Declarative problem-solving in DLV , 2001 .

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

[10]  Toni Mancini,et al.  Automated reformulation of specifications by safe delay of constraints , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Bart Selman,et al.  Unifying SAT-based and Graph-based Planning , 1999, IJCAI.

[12]  Christophe Gefflot,et al.  Combining Propagation Information and Search Tree Visualization using ILOG OPL Studio , 2001, WLPE.

[13]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Declarative problem-solving using the DLV system , 2000 .

[14]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Propositional Satisfiability in Answer-Set Programming , 2001, KI/ÖGAI.

[15]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Programming with Constraints: An Introduction , 1998 .

[16]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis , 1997 .