Abstract
Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a declarative paradigm for solving search problems. State-of-the-art systems for ASP include smodels,dlv, cmodels, and assat.
In this paper, our goal is to study the computational properties of such systems both from a theoretical and an experimental point of view. From the theoretical point of view, we start our analysis with cmodels and smodels. We show that though these two systems are apparently different, they are equivalent on a significant class of programs, called tight. By equivalent, we mean that they explore search trees with the same branching nodes, (assuming, of course, a same branching heuristic). Given our result and that the cmodels search engine is based on the Davis Logemann Loveland procedure (dll) for propositional satisfiability (SAT), we are able to establish that many of the properties holding for dll also hold for cmodels and thus for smodels. On the other hand, we also show that there exist classes of non-tight programs which are exponentially hard for cmodels, but “easy” for smodels. We also discuss how our results extend to other systems.
From the experimental point of view, we analyze which combinations of reasoning strategies work best on which problems. In particular, we extended cmodels in order to obtain a unique platform with a variety of reasoning strategies, and conducted an extensive experimental analysis on “small” randomly generated and on “large” non randomly generated programs. Considering these programs, our results show that the reasoning strategies that work best on the small problems are completely different from the ones that are best on the large ones. These results point out, e.g., that we can hardly expect to develop one solver with the best performances on all the categories of problems. As a consequence, (i) developers should focus on specific classes of benchmarks, and (ii) benchmarking should take into account whether solvers have been designed for specific classes of programs.
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
Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M., Tacchella, A., Zambonin, D.: Evaluating search heuristics and optimization techniques in propositional satisfiability. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, p. 347. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M., Lierler, Y.: SAT-based answer set programming. In: Proc. AAAI (2004)
Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)
Fages, F.: Consistency of Clark’s completion and existence of stable models. Journal of Methods of Logic in Computer Science 1, 51–60 (1994)
Babovich, Y., Lifschitz, V.: Computing Answer Sets Using Program Completion (2003), http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tag/cmodels/cmodels-1.ps
Lin, F., Zhao, Y.: ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. In: Proc. AAAI (2002)
Simons, P.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. PhD Thesis (2000)
Ward, J., Schlipf, J.S.: Answer set programming with clause learning. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 302–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Haken: The intractability of resolution. TCS 39, 297–308 (1985)
Chvátal, V., Szemerédi, E.: Many hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 35(4), 759–768 (1988)
Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Experimenting with heuristics for ASP. In: Proc. IJCAI (2001)
Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Timo, S.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138(1–2), 181–234 (2002)
Liberatore, P.: On the complexity of choosing the branching literal in DPLL. Artificial Intelligence 116(1-2), 315–326 (2000)
Monasson, R.: On the analysis of backtrack procedures for the coloring of random graphs. In: Complex Networks. Lecture Notes in Physics, pp. 232–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Achlioptas, D., Beame, P., Molloy, M.: A sharp threshold in proof complexity. In: Proc. STOC, pp. 337–346 (2001)
Li, C.M., Anbulagan: Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In: Proc. IJCAI (1997)
Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In: Proc. DAC (2001)
Le Berre, D., Simon, L.: The essentials of the SAT 2003 competition. In: Proc. SAT (2003)
Lin, F., Zhao, Y.: ASP phase transition: A study on randomly generated programs. In: Proc. ICLP (2003)
Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 241–273 (1999)
Dixon, H., Ginsberg, M., Luks, E., Parkes, A.: Generalizing Boolean satisfiability II: Theory. In: JAIR, vol. 22, pp. 481–534 (2004)
Borchert, P., Anger, C., Schaub, T., Truszczynski, M.: Towards systematic benchmarking in answer set programming: The dagstuhl initiative. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 3–7. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M. (2005). On the Relation Between Answer Set and SAT Procedures (or, Between cmodels and smodels). In: Gabbrielli, M., Gupta, G. (eds) Logic Programming. ICLP 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3668. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11562931_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11562931_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29208-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31947-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)