Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aggregates in Answer Set Programming

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aggregates are among the most important linguistic extensions of Answer Set Programming (ASP), allowing for compact representations of properties and inductive definitions involving sets of propositions. Common use cases of aggregates in ASP are reported in this paper, which mainly focus on the semantics implemented by mainstream solvers, namely the F-stable model semantics. Other well-established semantics are also briefly discussed, providing a historical perspective on the foundation of logic programs with aggregates.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alviano M (2016) Evaluating answer set programming with non-convex recursive aggregates. Fundam Inform 149(1–2):1–34. https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2016-1441

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Alviano M, Calimeri F, Dodaro C, Fuscà D, Leone N, Perri S, Ricca F, Veltri P, Zangari J (2017) The ASP system DLV2. In: Balduccini M, Janhunen T (eds) Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning—14th international conference, LPNMR 2017, Espoo, Finland, July 3–6, 2017, Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 10377, pp 215–221. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61660-5_19

  3. Alviano M, Dodaro C, Leone N, Ricca F (2015) Advances in WASP. In: Calimeri F, Ianni G, Truszczynski M (eds) Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning—13th international conference, LPNMR 2015, Lexington, KY, USA, September 27–30, 2015. Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 9345, pp 40–54. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5_5

  4. Alviano M, Faber W (2013) The complexity boundary of answer set programming with generalized atoms under the FLP semantics. In: Cabalar P, Son TC (eds) Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, 12th international conference, LPNMR 2013, Corunna, Spain, September 15–19, 2013. Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 8148, pp 67–72. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_7

  5. Alviano M, Faber W (2015) Supportedly stable answer sets for logic programs with generalized atoms. In: ten Cate B, Mileo A (eds) Web reasoning and rule systems—9th international conference, RR 2015, Berlin, Germany, August 4–5, 2015, Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 9209, pp 30–44. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22002-4_4

  6. Alviano M, Faber W, Gebser M (2015) Rewriting recursive aggregates in answer set programming: back to monotonicity. TPLP 15(4–5):559–573. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068415000228

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Alviano M, Faber W, Gebser M (2016) From non-convex aggregates to monotone aggregates in ASP. In: Kambhampati S (ed) Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9–15 July 2016, pp 4100–4194. IJCAI/AAAI Press. http://www.ijcai.org/Abstract/16/610

  8. Alviano M, Faber W, Leone N, Perri S, Pfeifer G, Terracina G (2010) The disjunctive datalog system DLV. In: de Moor O, Gottlob G, Furche T, Sellers AJ (eds) Datalog reloaded—first international workshop, datalog 2010, Oxford, UK, March 16–19, 2010. Revised selected papers, lecture notes in computer science, vol 6702, pp 282–301. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24206-9_17

  9. Alviano M, Faber W, Strass H (2016) Boolean functions with ordered domains in answer set programming. In: Schuurmans D, Wellman MP (eds) Proceedings of the thirtieth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, February 12–17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pp 879–885. AAAI Press. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI16/paper/view/12078

  10. Alviano M, Leone N (2015) Complexity and compilation of gz-aggregates in answer set programming. TPLP 15(4–5):574–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147106841500023X

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Alviano M, Leone N (2016) On the properties of gz-aggregates in answer set programming. In: Kambhampati S (ed) Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9–15 July 2016, pp 4105–4109. IJCAI/AAAI Press. http://www.ijcai.org/Abstract/16/611

  12. Bartholomew M, Lee J, Meng Y (2011) First-order semantics of aggregates in answer set programming via modified circumscription. In: Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning, papers from the 2011 AAAI spring symposium, technical report SS-11-06, Stanford, California, USA, March 21–23, 2011. AAAI

  13. Berman P, Karpinski M, Larmore LL, Plandowski W, Rytter W (2002) On the complexity of pattern matching for highly compressed two-dimensional texts. J Comput Syst Sci 65(2):332–350. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2002.1852

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Bomanson J, Gebser M, Janhunen T (2014) Improving the normalization of weight rules in answer set programs. In: Fermé E, Leite J (eds) JELIA 2014, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, September 24–26, 2014. Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 8761, pp 166–180. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_12

  15. Bomanson J, Janhunen T (2013) Normalizing cardinality rules using merging and sorting constructions. Springer, Berlin, pp 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_19

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Brewka G, Eiter T, Truszczynski M (2011) Answer set programming at a glance. Commun ACM 54(12):92–103. https://doi.org/10.1145/2043174.2043195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bruynooghe M, Blockeel H, Bogaerts B, de Cat B, Pooter SD, Jansen J, Labarre A, Ramon J, Denecker M, Verwer S (2015) Predicate logic as a modeling language: modeling and solving some machine learning and data mining problems with IDP3. TPLP 15(6):783–817. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147106841400009X

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Devriendt J, Bogaerts B, Bruynooghe M, Denecker M (2016) On local domain symmetry for model expansion. TPLP 16(5–6):636–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068416000508

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Faber W, Pfeifer G, Leone N (2011) Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artif Intell 175(1):278–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2010.04.002

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Faber W, Pfeifer G, Leone N, Dell’Armi T, Ielpa G (2008) Design and implementation of aggregate functions in the DLV system. TPLP 8(5–6):545–580. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068408003323

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Ferraris P (2011) Logic programs with propositional connectives and aggregates. ACM Trans Comput Log 12(4):25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1970398.1970401

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Gebser M, Kaminski R, König A, Schaub T (2011) Advances in gringo series 3. In: Delgrande JP, Faber W (eds) LPNMR 2011, Vancouver, Canada, May 16–19, 2011. Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 6645, pp 345–351. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20895-9_39

  23. Gebser M, Kaufmann B, Schaub T (2012) Conflict-driven answer set solving: from theory to practice. Artif Intell 187:52–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.04.001

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1988) The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski RA, Bowen KA (eds) Logic programming, proceedings of the fifth international conference and symposium, Seattle, Washington, August 15–19, 1988 (vol 2). MIT Press, pp 1070–1080

  25. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1991) Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener Comput. 9(3/4):365–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037169

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Gelfond M, Zhang Y (2014) Vicious circle principle and logic programs with aggregates. TPLP 14(4–5):587–601. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068414000222

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Giunchiglia E, Lierler Y, Maratea M (2006) Answer set programming based on propositional satisfiability. J Autom Reason 36(4):345–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9033-2

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Janhunen T (2006) Some (in)translatability results for normal logic programs and propositional theories. J Appl Non-Clas Log 16(1–2):35–86. https://doi.org/10.3166/jancl.16.35-86

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Leone N, Pfeifer G, Faber W, Eiter T, Gottlob G, Perri S, Scarcello F (2006) The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans Comput Log 7(3):499–562. https://doi.org/10.1145/1149114.1149117

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu G, You J (2013) Relating weight constraint and aggregate programs: semantics and representation. TPLP 13(1):1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147106841100038X

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu L, Pontelli E, Son TC, Truszczynski M (2010) Logic programs with abstract constraint atoms: the role of computations. Artif Intell 174(3–4):295–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2009.11.016

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu L, Truszczynski M (2006) Properties and applications of programs with monotone and convex constraints. J Artif Intell Res 27:299–334. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2009

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Maratea M, Pulina L, Ricca F (2014) A multi-engine approach to answer-set programming. TPLP 14(6):841–868. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068413000094

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Marek VW, Niemelä I, Truszczynski M (2008) Logic programs with monotone abstract constraint atoms. TPLP 8(2):167–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147106840700302X

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Mariën M, Wittocx J, Denecker M, Bruynooghe M (2008) SAT(ID): satisfiability of propositional logic extended with inductive definitions. In: Büning HK, Zhao X (eds) Theory and applications of satisfiability testing—SAT 2008, 11th international conference, SAT 2008, Guangzhou, China, May 12–15, 2008. Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 4996, pp 211–224. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79719-7_20

  36. Niemelä I, Simons P, Soininen T (1999) Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules. In: Gelfond M, Leone N, Pfeifer G (eds) Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, 5th international conference, LPNMR’99, El Paso, Texas, USA, December 2–4, 1999, Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 1730, pp 317–331. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46767-X_23

  37. Pelov N, Denecker M, Bruynooghe M (2007) Well-founded and stable semantics of logic programs with aggregates. TPLP 7(3):301–353. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068406002973

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Shen Y, Wang K, Eiter T, Fink M, Redl C, Krennwallner T, Deng J (2014) FLP answer set semantics without circular justifications for general logic programs. Artif Intell 213:1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.05.001

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Simons P, Niemelä I, Soininen T (2002) Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artif Intell 138(1–2):181–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00187-X

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Son TC, Pontelli E (2007) A constructive semantic characterization of aggregates in answer set programming. TPLP 7(3):355–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068406002936

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Zaniolo C, Yang M, Das A, Shkapsky A, Condie T, Interlandi M (2017) Fixpoint semantics and optimization of recursive datalog programs with aggregates. TPLP 17(5–6):1048–1065. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068417000436

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Mario Alviano has been partially supported by the POR CALABRIA FESR 2014-2020 project “DLV Large Scale” (CUP J28C17000220006), by the EU H2020 PON I&C 2014-2020 project “S2BDW” (CUP B28I17000250008), and by Gruppo Nazionale per il Calcolo Scientifico (GNCS-INdAM). Wolfgang Faber has been partially supported by the EU H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie project “MIREL” (#690974) while at the University of Huddersfield, UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DEMACS, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Mario Alviano

  2. AINF, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Wolfgang Faber

Authors
  1. Mario Alviano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Faber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Alviano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alviano, M., Faber, W. Aggregates in Answer Set Programming. Künstl Intell 32, 119–124 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-018-0545-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-018-0545-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation