Skip to main content

Lookahead in Smodels Compared to Local Consistencies in CSP

  • Conference paper
Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3662))

Abstract

In answer set programming systems like Smodels and some SAT solvers, constraint propagation is carried out by a mechanism called lookahead. The question arises as what is the pruning power of lookahead, and how such pruning power fares in comparison with the consistency techniques in solving CSPs. In this paper, we study the pruning power of lookahead by relating it to local consistencies under two different encodings from CSPs to answer set programs. This leads to an understanding of how the search space is pruned in an answer set solver with lookahead for solving CSPs. On the other hand, lookahead as a general constraint propagation mechanism provides a uniform algorithm for enforcing a variety of local consistencies. We also study the impact on the search efficiency under these encodings.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bessière, C.: Uniform random binary csp generator. Website, http://www.lirmm.fr/~bessiere/generator.html (Retrieved December 19, 2004)

  2. Bessière, C., Debruyne, R.: Theoretical analysis of singleton arc consistency. In: Proc. ECAI 2004 Workshop on Modeling and Solving Problems with Constraints, pp. 20–29 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bessière, C., Hebrard, E., Walsh, T.: Local consistencies in SAT. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 299–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Debruyne, R., Bessière, C.: Some practical filtering techniques. In: Proc. IJCAI 1997, pp. 412–417 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Debruyne, R., Bessière, C.: Domain filtering consistencies. J. Artificial Intelligence Research 14, 205–230 (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Elkabani, I., Pontelli, E., Son, T.C.: Smodels with CLP and its applications: a simple and effective approach to aggregates in ASP. In: Demoen, B., Lifschitz, V. (eds.) ICLP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3132, pp. 73–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman, J.W.: Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proc. 5th ICLP, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gent, I.: Arc consistency in SAT. In: Proc. ECAI 2003, pp. 121–125 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kasif, S.: On the parallel complexity of discrete relaxation in constraint satisfaction networks. Artificial Intelligence, 275–286 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Math. and Artificial Intelligence 25(3-4), 241–273 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Prosser, P., Stergiou, K., Walsh, T.: Singleton consistencies. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 353–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Simons, P.: Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Walsh, T.: CSP vs. SAT. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. You, J., Hou, G.: Arc consistency + unit propagation = lookahead. In: Demoen, B., Lifschitz, V. (eds.) ICLP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3132, pp. 314–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

You, JH., Liu, G., Yuan, L.Y., Onuczko, C. (2005). Lookahead in Smodels Compared to Local Consistencies in CSP. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3662. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11546207_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11546207_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-28538-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31827-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics