Document Open Access Logo

Rewriting Optimization Statements in Answer-Set Programs

Authors Jori Bomanson, Martin Gebser, Tomi Janhunen

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.ICLP.2016.5.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.59 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Jori Bomanson
Martin Gebser
Tomi Janhunen

Cite AsGet BibTex

Jori Bomanson, Martin Gebser, and Tomi Janhunen. Rewriting Optimization Statements in Answer-Set Programs. In Technical Communications of the 32nd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2016). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 52, pp. 5:1-5:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)
https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.ICLP.2016.5

Abstract

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.
Keywords
  • Answer-Set Programming
  • Pseudo-Boolean optimization
  • Translation methods

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Ignasi Abío, Robert Nieuwenhuis, Albert Oliveras, Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell, and Valentin Mayer-Eichberger. A new look at BDDs for Pseudo-Boolean constraints. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 45:443-480, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1613/jair.3653.
  2. Ignasi Abío, Robert Nieuwenhuis, Albert Oliveras, Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell, and Peter J. Stuckey. To encode or to propagate? The best choice for each constraint in SAT. In Proceedings of CP 2013, volume 8124 of LNCS, pages 97-106. Springer, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40627-0_10.
  3. Ignasi Abío and Peter J. Stuckey. Conflict directed lazy decomposition. In Proceedings of CP 2012, volume 7514 of LNCS, pages 70-85. Springer, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_8.
  4. Mario Alviano, Carmine Dodaro, Nicola Leone, and Francesco Ricca. Advances in WASP. In Calimeri et al. [16], pages 40-54. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5_5.
  5. Roberto Asín, Robert Nieuwenhuis, Albert Oliveras, and Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell. Cardinality networks: A theoretical and empirical study. Constraints, 16(2):195-221, 2011. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10601-010-9105-0.
  6. Olivier Bailleux, Yacine Boufkhad, and Olivier Roussel. New encodings of Pseudo-Boolean constraints into CNF. In Proceedings of SAT 2009, volume 5584 of LNCS, pages 181-194. Springer, 2009. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_19.
  7. Mutsunori Banbara, Takehide Soh, Naoyuki Tamura, Katsumi Inoue, and Torsten Schaub. Answer set programming as a modeling language for course timetabling. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 13(4-5):783-798, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1471068413000495.
  8. Kenneth E. Batcher. Sorting networks and their applications. In Proceedings of AFIPS 1968, pages 307-314. ACM, 1968. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1468075.1468121.
  9. Yael Ben-Haim, Alexander Ivrii, Oded Margalit, and Arie Matsliah. Perfect hashing and CNF encodings of cardinality constraints. In Proceedings of SAT 2012, volume 7317 of LNCS, pages 397-409. Springer, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_30.
  10. Jori Bomanson, Martin Gebser, and Tomi Janhunen. Improving the normalization of weight rules in answer set programs. In Proceedings of JELIA 2014, volume 8761 of LNCS, pages 166-180. Springer, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_12.
  11. Jori Bomanson and Tomi Janhunen. Normalizing cardinality rules using merging and sorting constructions. In Proceedings of LPNMR 2013, volume 8148 of LNCS, pages 187-199. Springer, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_19.
  12. Alex Bonutti, Fabio De Cesco, Luca Di Gaspero, and Andrea Schaerf. Benchmarking curriculum-based course timetabling: Formulations, data formats, instances, validation, visualization, and results. Annals of Operations Research, 194(1):59-70, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-010-0707-0.
  13. Gerhard Brewka, Thomas Eiter, and Mirosław Truszczyński. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM, 54(12):92-103, 2011. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2043174.2043195.
  14. Francesco Calimeri, Wolfgang Faber, Martin Gebser, Giovambattista Ianni, Roland Kaminski, Thomas Krennwallner, Nicola Leone, Francesco Ricca, and Torsten Schaub. ASP-Core-2: Input language format. Available at https://www.mat.unical.it/aspcomp2013/ASPStandardization/, 2012.
  15. Francesco Calimeri, Martin Gebser, Marco Maratea, and Francesco Ricca. Design and results of the fifth answer set programming competition. Artificial Intelligence, 231:151-181, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.09.008.
  16. Francesco Calimeri, Giovambattista Ianni, and Miroslaw Truszczynski, editors. Proceedings of LPNMR 2015, volume 9345 of LNCS. Springer, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5.
  17. Broes De Cat, Bart Bogaerts, Maurice Bruynooghe, Gerda Janssens, and Marc Denecker. Predicate logic as a modelling language: The IDP system. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6312, 2016.
  18. Michael Codish, Yoav Fekete, Carsten Fuhs, and Peter Schneider-Kamp. Optimal base encodings for Pseudo-Boolean constraints. In Proceedings of TACAS 2011, volume 6605 of LNCS, pages 189-204. Springer, 2011. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19835-9_16.
  19. Jukka Corander, Tomi Janhunen, Jussi Rintanen, Henrik J. Nyman, and Johan Pensar. Learning chordal Markov networks by constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of NIPS 2014, pages 1349-1357. NIPS Foundation, 2013. Google Scholar
  20. James Cussens. Bayesian network learning with cutting planes. In Proceedings of UAI 2011, pages 153-160. AUAI, 2011. Google Scholar
  21. Niklas Eén and Niklas Sörensson. Translating Pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 2(1-4):1-26, 2006. Google Scholar
  22. Martin Gebser, Benjamin Kaufmann, and Torsten Schaub. Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artificial Intelligence, 187-188:52-89, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.04.001.
  23. Martin Gebser, Marco Maratea, and Francesco Ricca. The design of the sixth answer set programming competition. In Calimeri et al. [16], pages 531-544. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5_44.
  24. Tommi S. Jaakkola, David A. Sontag, Amir Globerson, and Marina Meila. Learning Bayesian network structure using LP relaxations. In Proceedings of AISTATS 2010, pages 358-365. JMLR Proceedings, 2010. Google Scholar
  25. Tomi Janhunen, Martin Gebser, Jussi Rintanen, Henrik J. Nyman, Johan Pensar, and Jukka Corander. Learning discrete decomposable graphical models via constraint optimization. Statistics and Computing, online access, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11222-015-9611-4.
  26. Tomi Janhunen and Ilkka Niemelä. Applying visible strong equivalence in answer-set program transformations. In Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz, volume 7265 of LNCS, pages 363-379. Springer, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_24.
  27. Nicola Leone, Gerald Pfeifer, Wolfgang Faber, Thomas Eiter, Georg Gottlob, Simona Perri, and Francesco Scarcello. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 7(3):499-562, 2006. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1149114.1149117.
  28. Panagiotis Manolios and Vasilis Papavasileiou. Pseudo-Boolean solving by incremental translation to SAT. In Proceedings of FMCAD 2011, pages 41-45. FMCAD Inc., 2011. Google Scholar
  29. Norbert Manthey, Tobias Philipp, and Peter Steinke. A more compact translation of Pseudo-Boolean constraints into CNF such that generalized arc consistency is maintained. In Proceedings of KI 2014, volume 8736 of LNCS, pages 123-134. Springer, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11206-0_13.
  30. Olivier Roussel and Vasco M. Manquinho. Pseudo-Boolean and cardinality constraints. In Handbook of Satisfiability, pages 695-733. IOS, 2009. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-695.
  31. Patrik Simons, Ilkka Niemelä, and Timo Soininen. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 138(1-2):181-234, 2002. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00187-X.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact