Computing weighted solutions in ASP: representation-based method vs. search-based method

  • Duygu Cakmak
  • Esra ErdemEmail author
  • Halit Erdogan


For some problems with too many solutions, one way to obtain the more desirable solutions is to assign each solution a weight that characterizes its importance quantitatively, and then compute the solutions whose weights are over (resp. below) a given threshold. This paper studies computing weighted solutions for a given computational problem, in the context of Answer Set Programming (ASP). In particular, we investigate two sorts of methods for computing weighted solutions: one method suggests modifying the ASP representation of the problem to compute weighted solutions using an existing ASP solver and the other suggests modifying the search algorithm of the answer set solver to compute weighted solutions incrementally. The applicability of these methods are shown on two sorts of problems: reconstructing weighted phylogenies (for Indo-European languages and for Quercus species) and finding weighted plans (for Blocks World planning problems). In the experiments with the representation-based method, the answer set solver clasp is used and weight functions are represented in ASP. For the search-based method, the algorithm of clasp is modified (the modified solver is called clasp-w) and weight functions are implemented in C+ +. For phylogenies, two weight functions are introduced by incorporating domain-specific information about groupings of species; one of them cannot be represented in ASP due to some mathematical functions not supported by the ASP solvers. For plans, we define a weight function that characterizes the total cost of executing actions in a plan. In these experiments the following are observed. With weight measures that can be represented in ASP, the search-based method outperforms the representation-based method in terms of computational efficiency (both time and space). With weight functions that cannot be represented in ASP, the search-based method provides a tool for computing weighted solutions in ASP. The search-based method can be applied to different domains, without modifying the algorithm of clasp-w; in that sense, the search-based method is modular and can be useful to other ASP applications. With either method, plausible phylogenies among many can be found without computing all phylogenies and requiring historical linguists to go over them manually, and less costly plans can be found without computing all plans; in that sense, our methods contribute to phylogenetics and AI planning studies as well.


Weighted solutions Answer set programming Weighted phylogenies Weighted plans 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

92B10 92D15 68T20 68T27 68T30 68N17 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bakış, Y.: Morphometric Analysis of Oak (Quercus L.) Acorns in Turkey. Ph.D. thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal University (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewka, G., Niemela, I., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set optimization. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 867–872 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G.: Logic programming with ordered disjunction. In: Proc. of AAAI, pp. 100–105 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks, D.R., Erdem, E., Erdogan, S.T., Minett, J.W., Ringe, D.: Inferring phylogenetic trees using answer set programming. J. Autom. Reason. 39(4):471–511 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, D.R., Erdem, E., Minett, J.W., Ringe, D.: Character-based cladistics and answer set programming. In: Proc. of PADL, pp. 37–51 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Strong and weak constraints in disjunctive datalog. In: Proc. of LPNMR, pp. 2–17 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cakmak, D., Erdem, E., Erdogan, H.: Computing weighted solutions in answer set programming. In: Proc. of LPNMR, pp. 416–422 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cakmak, D., Erdogan, H., Erdem, E.: Computing weighted solutions in ASP: representation-based method vs. search-based method. In: Proc. of RCRA Workshop on Experimental Evaluation of Algorithms for Solving Problems with Combinatorial Explosion (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Day, W.H.E., Sankoff, D.: Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies by compatibility. Syst. Zool. 35(2), 224–229 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Erdogan, H., Fink, M.: Finding similar or diverse solutions in answer set programming. In: Proc. of ICLP (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Computing preferred and weakly preferred answer sets by meta interpretation in answer set programming. In: Proc. of ASP Workshop (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erdem, E.: Theory and applications of answer set programming. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erdem, E.: Phylo-ASP: phylogenetic systematics with answer set programming. In: Proc. of LPNMR, pp. 567–572 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faber, W.G., Leone, N., Dell’Armi, T., Ielpa, G.: Design and implementation of aggregate functions in the dlv system. Theory Pract. Log. Program 8(5–6), 545–580 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferraris, P., Lifschitz, V.: Weight constraints as nested expressions. Theory Pract. Log. Program 5, 45–74 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., and Schaub, T.: Conflict-driven answer set solving. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 386–392 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proc. of ICLP, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lifschitz, V.: Action languages, answer sets and planning. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective, pp. 357–373. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lifschitz, V.: What is answer set programming? In: Proc. of AAAI (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lifschitz, V., Tang, L.R., Turner, H.: Nested expressions in logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25, 369–389 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakhleh, L.: Phylogenetic networks. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Niemelä, I., Simons, P.: Extending the Smodels System with Cardinality and Weight Constraints, pp. 491–521. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nieuwenborgh, D.V., Heymans, S., Vermeir, D.: Weighted answer sets and applications in intelligence analysis. In: Proc. of LPAR, pp. 169–183 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nogueira, M., Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M., Watson, R., Barry, M.: An A-Prolog decision support system for the space shuttle. In: Proc. of PADL, pp. 169–183 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oikarinen, E., Järvisalo, M.: Max-ASP: maximum satisfiability of answer set programs. In: Proc. of LPNMR, pp. 236–249 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ringe, D., Warnow, T., Taylor, A.: Indo-European and computational cladistics. Trans. Philol. Soc. 100(1), 59–129 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artif. Intell. 123(1–2), 185–222 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artif. Intell. 138, 181–234 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simons, P., Soininen, T.: Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules. In: Proc. of LPNMR, pp. 317–331 (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Soininen, T., Niemelä, I.: Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In: Proc. of PADL, pp. 305–319 (1998)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Son, T.C., Pontelli, E.: A constructive semantic characterization of aggregates in answer set programming. Theory Pract. Log. Program 7(3), 355–375 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Son, T.C., Pontelli, E., Sakama, C.: Logic programming for multiagent planning with negotiation. In: Proc. of ICLP, pp. 99–114 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tran, N., Baral, C.: Reasoning about triggered actions in ansprolog and its application to molecular interactions in cells. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 554–564 (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    White, J.P., O’Connell, J.F.: A Prehistory of Australia, New Guinea, and Sahul. Academic (1982)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    You, J.-H., Yuan, L.-Y., Zhang, M.: On the equivalence between answer sets and models of completion for nested logic programs. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 859–864 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesSabancı UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations