Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Algorithms for Solving Satisfiability Problems with Qualitative Preferences

  • Chapter
Book cover Correct Reasoning

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 7265))

  • 1082 Accesses

Abstract

In this work we present a complete picture of our work on computing optimal solutions in satisfiability problems with qualitative preferences. With this task in mind, we first review our work on computing optimal solutions by imposing an ordering on the way the search space is explored, e.g., on the splitting heuristic in case the dpll algorithm is used. The main feature of this approach is that it guarantees to compute all and only the optimal solutions, i.e., models which are not optimal are not even computed: For this result, it is essential that the splitting heuristic of the solver follows the partial order on the expressed preferences. However, for each optimal solution, a formula that prunes non-optimal solutions needs to be retained, thus this procedure does not work in polynomial space when computing all optimal solutions.

We then extend our previous work and show how it is possible to compute optimal solutions using a generate-and-test approach: Such a procedure is based on the idea to first compute a model and then check for its optimality. As a consequence, no ordering on the splitting heuristic is needed, but it may compute also non-optimal models. This approach does not need to retain formulas indefinitely, thus it does work in polynomial space.

We start from a simple setting in which a preference is a partial order on a set of literals. We then show how other forms of preferences, i.e., quantitative, qualitative on formulas and mixed qualitative/quantitative can be captured by our framework, and present alternatives for computing “complete” sets of optimal solutions. We finally comment on the implementation of the two procedures on top of state-of-the-art satisfiability solvers, and discuss related work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloul, F.A., Ramani, A., Markov, I.L., Sakallah, K.A.: Generic ILP versus specialized 0-1 ILP: an update. In: Pileggi, L.T., Kuehlmann, A. (eds.) Proc. of the 2002 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design (ICCAD 2002), pp. 450–457. ACM (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., LeBerre, D.: Comparing arguments using preference ordering for argument-based reasoning. In: Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 1996), pp. 400–403. IEEE Computer Society (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bienvenu, M., Lang, J., Wilson, N.: From preference logics to preference languages, and back. In: Lin, F., Sattler, U., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010). AAAI Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 135–191 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: Preference-based constrained optimization with CP-nets. Computational Intelligence 20(2), 137–157 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Brewka, G.: Logic programming with ordered disjunction. In: Dechter, R., Sutton, R.S. (eds.) Proc. of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), pp. 100–105. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brewka, G.: Complex preferences for answer set optimization. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C.A., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 213–223. AAAI Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 109(1-2), 297–356 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Syrjänen, T.: Logic programs with ordered disjunction. Computational Intelligence 20(2), 335–357 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set optimization. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proc. of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 867–872. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Strong and Weak Constraints in Disjunctive Datalog. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Çakmak, D., Erdem, E., Erdoğan, H.: Computing Weighted Solutions in Answer Set Programming. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 416–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Castell, T., Cayrol, C., Cayrol, M., Le Berre, D.: Using the Davis and Putnam procedure for an efficient computation of preferred models. In: Wahlster, W. (ed.) Proc. of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1996), pp. 350–354. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Coudert, O.: On solving covering problems. In: Pennino, T., Yoffa, E.J. (eds.) Proc. of the 33rd Conference on Design Automation (DAC 1996), pp. 197–202. ACM Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.W.: A machine program for theorem proving. Communication of ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7, 201–215 (1960)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T.: Expressing preferences in default logic. Artificial Intelligence 123(1-2), 41–87 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Wang, K.: A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence 20(2), 308–334 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. DiRosa, E., Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: A new approach for solving satisfiability problems with qualitative preferences. In: Ghallab, M., Spyropoulos, C.D., Fakotakis, N., Avouris, N.M. (eds.) Proc. of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008). Frontiers in AI and Applications, vol. 178, pp. 510–514. IOS Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. DiRosa, E., Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: Solving satisfiability problems with preferences. Constraints 15(4), 485–515 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. DiRosa, E., Giunchiglia, E., O’Sullivan, B.: Optimal stopping methods for finding high quality solutions to satisfiability problems with preferences. In: Chu, W.C., Eric Wong, W., Palakal, M.J., Hung, C.-C. (eds.) Proc. of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2011), pp. 901–906. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Doyle, J., Junker, U.: Preferences. In: Tutotial at the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2004 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eén, N., Biere, A.: Effective Preprocessing in SAT Through Variable and Clause Elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Computing preferred answer sets by meta-interpretation in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4-5), 463–498 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Gavanelli, M.: Partially Ordered Constraint Optimization Problems. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) CP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2239, p. 763. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Multi-criteria optimization in answer set programming. In: Gallagherand, J.P., Gelfond, M. (eds.) Technical Communications of the 27th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2011). LIPIcs, vol. 11, pp. 1–10. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Schaub, T.: Complex optimization in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 11(4-5), 821–839 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., Schaub, T.: Conflict-driven answer set solving. In: Veloso, M.M. (ed.) Proc. of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), pp. 386–391 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski, R., Bowen, K. (eds.) Proc. of the 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICLP/SLP 1988), pp. 1070–1080 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Gent, I., Van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): SAT 2000. Satisfiability Research in the Year 2000. IOS Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Tacchella, A.: SAT-based decision procedures for classical modal logics. Journal of Automated Reasoning 28, 143–171 (2002), Reprinted in [32]

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: Solving optimization problems with DLL. In: Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.) Proc. of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 141, pp. 377–381. IOS Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Giunchiglia, E., Massarotto, A., Sebastiani, R.: Act, and the rest will follow: Exploiting determinism in planning as satisfiability. In: Mostow, J., Rich, C. (eds.) Proc. of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1998), pp. 948–953. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  36. de Givry, S., Larrosa, J., Meseguer, P., Schiex, T.: Solving Max-SAT as Weighted CSP. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) CP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 363–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Jackson, P., Sheridan, D.: Clause Form Conversions for Boolean Circuits. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 183–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Järvisalo, M., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I.: Unrestricted vs restricted cut in a tableau method for Boolean circuits. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 44(4), 373–399 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Järvisalo, M., Junttila, T.A.: Limitations of restricted branching in clause learning. Constraints 14(3), 325–356 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Jin, H., Han, H., Somenzi, F.: Efficient Conflict Analysis for Finding All Satisfying Assignments of a Boolean Circuit. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 287–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Jin, H., Somenzi, F.: Prime clauses for fast enumeration of satisfying assignments to Boolean circuits. In: Joyner Jr., W.H., Martin, G., Kahng, A.B. (eds.) Proc. of the 42nd Design Automation Conference (DAC 2005), pp. 750–753. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) Proc. of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1992), pp. 359–363. John Wiley and Sons (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Manquinho, V., Marques-Silva, J., Planes, J.: Algorithms for Weighted Boolean Optimization. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 495–508. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Maratea, M., Ricca, F., Veltri, P.: DLVMC Enhanced Model Checking in DLV. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 365–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT Methods in Unbounded Symbolic Model Checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking: an Approach to the State Explosion Problem. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mitchell, D.G.: A SAT solver Primer. Bulletin of the EATCS 85, 112–132 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Van Nieuwenborgh, D., Vermeir, D.: Preferred answer sets for ordered logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(1-2), 107–167 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Oikarinen, E., Järvisalo, M.: Max-ASP: Maximum Satisfiability of Answer Set Programs. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 236–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. Journal of Symbolic Computation 2, 293–304 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Prestwich, S.: Three implementation of branch-and-cut in CLP. In: Proc. of the 4th Compulog-Net Workshop on Parallelism and Implementation Technologies (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ramírez, M., Geffner, H.: Structural Relaxations by Variable Renaming and Their Compilation for Solving MinCostSAT. In: Bessiere, C. (ed.) CP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4741, pp. 605–619. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Ravi, K., Somenzi, F.: Minimal Assignments for Bounded Model Checking. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Saad, E., Brewka, G.: Aggregates in Answer Set Optimization. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 211–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Siekmann, J., Wrightson, G. (eds.): Automation of Reasoning: Classical Papers in Computational Logic 1967–1970, vol. 1-2. Springer (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Marques Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 131–153. IOS Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Timo, S.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138(1–2), 181–234 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Tseitin, G.: On the complexity of proofs in propositional logics. Seminars in Mathematics 8 (1970) Reprinted in [56]

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wang, K., Zhou, L., Lin, F.: Alternating Fixpoint Theory for Logic Programs with Priority. In: Lloyd, J., Dahl, V., Furbach, U., Kerber, M., Lau, K.-K., Palamidessi, C., Moniz Pereira, L., Sagiv, Y., Stuckey, P.J. (eds.) CL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1861, pp. 164–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Warners, J.P.: A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into conjunctive normal form. Information Processing Letters 68(2), 63–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DIST, Università di Genova, Viale Causa, 13, 16145, Genova, Italy

    Enrico Giunchiglia & Marco Maratea

Authors
  1. Enrico Giunchiglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Maratea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Natural Science, Sabanci University, Orhanli, 34956, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey

    Esra Erdem

  2. School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 878809, 85287, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Joohyung Lee

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky, 329 Rose Street, 40506, Lexington, KY, USA

    Yuliya Lierler

  4. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Politechnical University of Madrid, Campus de Montegancedo, 28660, Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain

    David Pearce

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M. (2012). Algorithms for Solving Satisfiability Problems with Qualitative Preferences. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds) Correct Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7265. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_22

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30742-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30743-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation