ASPMT(QS): Non-Monotonic Spatial Reasoning with Answer Set Programming Modulo Theories

  • Przemysław Andrzej WałęgaEmail author
  • Mehul Bhatt
  • Carl Schultz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9345)


The systematic modelling of dynamic spatial systems [9] is a key requirement in a wide range of application areas such as comonsense cognitive robotics, computer-aided architecture design, dynamic geographic information systems. We present ASPMT(QS), a novel approach and fully-implemented prototype for non-monotonic spatial reasoning —a crucial requirement within dynamic spatial systems– based on Answer Set Programming Modulo Theories (ASPMT). ASPMT(QS) consists of a (qualitative) spatial representation module (QS) and a method for turning tight ASPMT instances into Sat Modulo Theories (SMT) instances in order to compute stable models by means of SMT solvers. We formalise and implement concepts of default spatial reasoning and spatial frame axioms using choice formulas. Spatial reasoning is performed by encoding spatial relations as systems of polynomial constraints, and solving via SMT with the theory of real nonlinear arithmetic. We empirically evaluate ASPMT(QS) in comparison with other prominent contemporary spatial reasoning systems. Our results show that ASPMT(QS) is the only existing system that is capable of reasoning about indirect spatial effects (i.e. addressing the ramification problem), and integrating geometric and qualitative spatial information within a non-monotonic spatial reasoning context.


Non-monotonic spatial reasoning Answer set programming modulo theories Declarative spatial reasoning 



This research is partially supported by: (a) the Polish National Science Centre grant 2011/02/A/HS1/0039; and (b). the DesignSpace Research Group


  1. 1.
    Allen, J.F.: Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun. ACM 26(11), 832–843 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartholomew, M., Lee, J.: Stable models of formulas with intensional functions. In: KR (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartholomew, M., Lee, J.: Functional stable model semantics and answer set programming modulo theories. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 718–724. AAAI Press (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartholomew, M., Lee, J.: System aspmt2smt: computing ASPMT theories by SMT solvers. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 529–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatt, M.: (Some) Default and non-monotonic aspects of qualitative spatial reasoning. In: AAAI 2008 Technical reports, Workshop on Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, pp. 1–6 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhatt, M.: Reasoning about space, actions and change: a paradigm for applications of spatial reasoning. In: Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning: Trends and Future Directions. IGI Global, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhatt, M., Guesgen, H., Wölfl, S., Hazarika, S.: Qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning: emerging applications, trends, and directions. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 11(1), 1–14 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhatt, M., Lee, J.H., Schultz, C.: CLP(QS): a declarative spatial reasoning framework. In: Egenhofer, M., Giudice, N., Moratz, R., Worboys, M. (eds.) COSIT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6899, pp. 210–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhatt, M., Loke, S.: Modelling dynamic spatial systems in the situation calculus. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 8(1), 86–130 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhatt, M., Wallgrün, J.O.: Geospatial narratives and their spatio-temporal dynamics: commonsense reasoning for high-level analyses in geographic information systems. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 3(1), 166–205 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bouhineau, D.: Solving geometrical constraint systems using CLP based on linear constraint solver. In: Pfalzgraf, J., Calmet, J., Campbell, J. (eds.) AISMC 1996. LNCS, vol. 1138. Springer, Heidelberg (1996) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bouhineau, D., Trilling, L., Cohen, J.: An application of CLP: checking the correctness of theorems in geometry. Constraints 4(4), 383–405 (1999)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferraris, P.: Answer sets for propositional theories. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 119–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferraris, P., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V.: Stable models and circumscription. Artif. Intell. 175(1), 236–263 (2011)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frank, A.U.: Qualitative spatial reasoning with cardinal directions. In: Kaindl, H. (ed.) 7. Österreichische Artificial-Intelligence-Tagung/Seventh Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Informatik-Fachberichte, vol. 287, pp. 157–167. Springer, Heidelberg (1991) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freksa, C.: Using orientation information for qualitative spatial reasoning. In: Frank, A.U., Formentini, U., Campari, I. (eds.) GIS 1992. LNCS, vol. 639, pp. 162–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1992) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gantner, Z., Westphal, M., Wölfl, S.: GQR-A fast reasoner for binary qualitative constraint calculi. In: Proceedings of AAAI, vol. 8 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Clingo= ASP+ control: Preliminary report. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.3694 (2014)
  19. 19.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. ICLP/SLP, vol. 88, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guesgen, H.W.: Spatial reasoning based on Allen’s temporal logic. Technical report TR-89-049, International Computer Science Institute Berkeley (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, J.H.: The complexity of reasoning with relative directions. In: 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2014) (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moratz, R.: Representing relative direction as a binary relation of oriented points. In: Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.) ECAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 141, pp. 407–411. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pesant, G., Boyer, M.: QUAD-CLP(R): adding the power of quadratic constraints. In: Borning, A. (ed.) PPCP 1994. LNCS, vol. 874, pp. 95–108. Springer, Heidelberg (1994) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pesant, G., Boyer, M.: Reasoning about solids using constraint logic programming. J. Autom. Reasoning 22(3), 241–262 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Randell, D.A., Cui, Z., Cohn, A.G.: A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In: KR, vol. 92, pp. 165–176 (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz, C., Bhatt, M.: Towards a declarative spatial reasoning system. In: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schultz, C., Bhatt, M.: Declarative spatial reasoning with boolean combinations of axis-aligned rectangular polytopes. In: ECAI 2014–21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 795–800 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Varzi, A.C.: Parts, wholes, and part-whole relations: the prospects of mereotopology. Data Knowl. Eng. 20(3), 259–286 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wölfl, S., Westphal, M.: On combinations of binary qualitative constraint calculi. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI 2009, Pasadena, California, USA, 11–17 July 2009, pp. 967–973 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Przemysław Andrzej Wałęga
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mehul Bhatt
    • 2
  • Carl Schultz
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations