Abstract
Cardinality and weight rules are important primitives in answer set programming. In this context, normalization means the translation of such rules back into normal rules, e.g., for the sake of boosting the search for answers sets. For instance, the normalization of cardinality rules can be based on Boolean circuits that effectively sort or select greatest elements amongst Boolean values. In this paper, we develop further constructions for the normalization of weight rules and adapt techniques that have been previously used to translate pseudo-Boolean constraints into the propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem. In particular, we consider mixed-radix numbers as an efficient way to represent and encode integer weights involved in a weight rule and propose a heuristic for selecting a suitable base. Moreover, we incorporate a scheme for structure sharing in the normalization procedure. In the experimental part, we study the effect of normalizing weight rules on compactness and search performance measured in terms of program size, search time, and number of conflicts.
The support from the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Computational Inference Research (COIN) funded by the Academy of Finland (under grant #251170) is gratefully acknowledged.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abío, I., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E.: A parametric approach for smaller and better encodings of cardinality constraints. In: Schulte, C. (ed.) CP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8124, pp. 80–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Abío, I., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E., Mayer-Eichberger, V.: A new look at BDDs for pseudo-Boolean constraints. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 45, 443–480 (2012)
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Ricca, F.: Preliminary report on WASP 2.0. In: NMR 2014 (2014)
Alviano, M., et al.: The fourth answer set programming competition: Preliminary report. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T.C. (eds.) LPNMR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8148, pp. 42–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Asín, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E.: Cardinality networks: A theoretical and empirical study. Constraints 16(2), 195–221 (2011)
Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., Roussel, O.: A translation of pseudo Boolean constraints to SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(1-4), 191–200 (2006)
Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., Roussel, O.: New encodings of pseudo-Boolean constraints into CNF. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 181–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Batcher, K.: Sorting networks and their applications. In: AFIPS 1968, pp. 307–314. ACM (1968)
Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS (2009)
Bomanson, J., Janhunen, T.: Normalizing cardinality rules using merging and sorting constructions. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T.C. (eds.) LPNMR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8148, pp. 187–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczyński, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011)
Codish, M., Fekete, Y., Fuhs, C., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Optimal base encodings for pseudo-Boolean constraints. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 189–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Corander, J., Janhunen, T., Rintanen, J., Nyman, H., Pensar, J.: Learning chordal Markov networks by constraint satisfaction. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, NIPS 2013, pp. 1349–1357 (2013)
Cussens, J.: Bayesian network learning with cutting planes. In: UAI 2011, pp. 153–160. AUAI (2011)
De Cat, B., Bogaerts, B., Bruynooghe, M., Denecker, M.: Predicate logic as a modelling language: The IDP system. CoRR abs/1401.6312 (2014)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(1-4), 1–26 (2006)
Faber, W., Pfeifer, G., Leone, N., Dell’Armi, T., Ielpa, G.: Design and implementation of aggregate functions in the DLV system. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(5-6), 545–580 (2008)
Ferraris, P., Lifschitz, V.: Weight constraints as nested expressions. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 5(1-2), 45–74 (2005)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.: Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Communications 24(2), 107–124 (2011)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: On the implementation of weight constraint rules in conflict-driven ASP solvers. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artificial Intelligence 187, 52–89 (2012)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: ICLP 1988, pp. 1070–1080. MIT (1988)
Giunchiglia, E., Lierler, Y., Maratea, M.: Answer set programming based on propositional satisfiability. Journal of Automated Reasoning 36(4), 345–377 (2006)
Hölldobler, S., Manthey, N., Steinke, P.: A compact encoding of pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. In: Glimm, B., Krüger, A. (eds.) KI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7526, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Jaakkola, T., Sontag, D., Globerson, A., Meila, M.: Learning Bayesian network structure using LP relaxations. In: AISTATS 2010, pp. 358–365. JMLR (2010)
Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I.: Compact translations of non-disjunctive answer set programs to propositional clauses. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Gelfond Festschrift. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6565, pp. 111–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I.: Applying visible strong equivalence in answer-set program transformations. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds.) Lifschitz Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 7265, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I., Sevalnev, M.: Computing stable models via reductions to difference logic. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 142–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7(3), 499–562 (2006)
Lifschitz, V.: Answer set planning. In: ICLP 1999, pp. 23–37. MIT (1999)
Lifschitz, V., Tang, L., Turner, H.: Nested expressions in logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3-4), 369–389 (1999)
Lin, F., Zhao, Y.: ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. Artificial Intelligence 157(1-2), 115–137 (2004)
Marek, V., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer (1999)
Nguyen, M., Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I.: Translating answer-set programs into bit-vector logic. In: Tompits, H., Abreu, S., Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., Seipel, D., Umeda, M., Wolf, A. (eds.) INAP/WLP 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7773, pp. 95–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3-4), 241–273 (1999)
Roussel, O., Manquinho, V.: Pseudo-Boolean and cardinality constraints. In: Handbook of Satisfiability, pp. 695–733. IOS (2009)
Simons, P.: Extending the stable model semantics with more expressive rules. In: Gelfond, M., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G. (eds.) LPNMR 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1730, pp. 305–316. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138(1-2), 181–234 (2002)
Tamura, N., Banbara, M., Soh, T.: PBSugar: Compiling pseudo-Boolean constraints to SAT with order encoding. In: PoS 2013 (2013)
Warners, J.: A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into conjunctive normal form. Information Processing Letters 68(2), 63–69 (1998)
Wittocx, J., Denecker, M., Bruynooghe, M.: Constraint propagation for first-order logic and inductive definitions. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 14(3), 17:1–17:45 (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bomanson, J., Gebser, M., Janhunen, T. (2014). Improving the Normalization of Weight Rules in Answer Set Programs. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8761. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11557-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11558-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)