Logic-Based Encodings for Ricochet Robots

  • Filipe Gouveia
  • Pedro T. Monteiro
  • Vasco Manquinho
  • Inês Lynce
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10423)

Abstract

Studying the performance of logic tools on solving a specific problem can bring new insights on the use of different paradigms. This paper provides an empirical evaluation of logic-based encodings for a well known board game: Ricochet Robots. Ricochet Robots is a board game where the goal is to find the smallest number of moves needed for one robot to move from the initial position to a target position, while taking into account the existing barriers and other robots. Finding a solution to the Ricochet Robots problem is NP-hard. In this work we develop logic-based encodings for the Ricochet Robots problem to feed into Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solvers. When appropriate, advanced techniques are applied to further boost the performance of a solver. A comparison between the performance of SAT solvers and an existing ASP solution clearly shows that SAT is by far the more adequate technology to solve the Ricochet Robots problem.

Keywords

Ricochet Robots Encodings Boolean Satisfiability Answer Set Programming 

References

  1. 1.
    Ansótegui, C., Manyà, F.: Mapping problems with finite-domain variables into problems with Boolean variables. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pp. 1–15 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Audemard, G., Lagniez, J.-M., Simon, L.: Improving glucose for incremental SAT solving with assumptions: application to MUS extraction. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 309–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39071-5_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Lazy clause exchange policy for parallel SAT solvers. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 197–205. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_15 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barták, R., Dovier, A., Zhou, N.F.: Multiple-origin-multiple-destination path finding with minimal arc usage: complexity and models. In: International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 91–97. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butko, N., Lehmann, K.A., Ramenzoni, V.: Ricochet robots-a case study for human complex problem solving. Project thesis from the Complex System Summer School, Santa Fe Institute (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J.: A new SAT encoding of the at-most-one constraint. In: International Workshop on Modelling and Reformulating Constraint Satisfaction Problems (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engels, B., Kamphans, T.: Randolphs robot game is NP-hard!. Electron. Notes Discret. Math. 25, 49–53 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frisch, A.M., Peugniez, T.J., Doggett, A.J., Nightingale, P.: Solving non-Boolean satisfiability problems with stochastic local search: a comparison of encodings. J. Autom. Reason. 35(1–3), 143–179 (2005)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gebser, M., Jost, H., Kaminski, R., Obermeier, P., Sabuncu, O., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.: Ricochet robots: a transverse ASP benchmark. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T.C. (eds.) LPNMR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8148, pp. 348–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Obermeier, P., Schaub, T.: Ricochet Robots reloaded: a case-study in multi-shot ASP solving. In: Eiter, T., Strass, H., Truszczyński, M., Woltran, S. (eds.) Advances in Knowledge Representation, Logic Programming, and Abstract Argumentation. LNCS, vol. 9060, pp. 17–32. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14726-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., Schaub, T.: clasp: a conflict-driven answer set solver. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4483, pp. 260–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72200-7_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gebser, M., Schaub, T., Thiele, S.: GrinGo: a new grounder for answer set programming. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4483, pp. 266–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72200-7_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gent, I.P., Nightingale, P.: A new encoding of All different into SAT. In: International Workshop on Modelling and Reformulating Constraint Satisfaction Problems (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klieber, W., Kwon, G.: Efficient CNF encoding for selecting 1 from N objects. In: International Workshop on Constraints in Formal Verification (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martins, R., Joshi, S., Manquinho, V., Lynce, I.: Incremental cardinality constraints for MaxSAT. In: O’Sullivan, B. (ed.) CP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8656, pp. 531–548. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10428-7_39 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P.J., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G.J., Tack, G.: MiniZinc: towards a standard CP modelling language. In: Bessière, C. (ed.) CP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4741, pp. 529–543. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74970-7_38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prestwich, S.: Variable dependency in local search: prevention is better than cure. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 107–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72788-0_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence - A Modern Approach, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, London (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharma, A., Sharma, D.: An incremental approach to solving dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Huang, T., Zeng, Z., Li, C., Leung, C.S. (eds.) ICONIP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7665, pp. 445–455. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34487-9_54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shtrichman, O.: Pruning techniques for the SAT-based bounded model checking problem. In: Margaria, T., Melham, T. (eds.) CHARME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2144, pp. 58–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-44798-9_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Surynek, P.: Simple direct propositional encoding of cooperative path finding simplified yet more. In: Gelbukh, A., Espinoza, F.C., Galicia-Haro, S.N. (eds.) MICAI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8857, pp. 410–425. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13650-9_36 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filipe Gouveia
    • 1
  • Pedro T. Monteiro
    • 1
  • Vasco Manquinho
    • 1
  • Inês Lynce
    • 1
  1. 1.INESC-ID/Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations