Advertisement

Extending the Smodels System with Cardinality and Weight Constraints

  • Ilkka Niemelä
  • Patrik Simons
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 597)

Abstract

The Smodels system is one of the state-of-the-art implementations of stable model computation for normal logic programs. In order to enable more realistic applications, the basic modeling language of normal programs has been extended with new constructs including cardinality and weight constraints and corresponding implementation techniques have been developed. This paper summarizes the extensions that have been included in the system, demonstrates their use, provides basic application methodology, illustrates the current level of performance of the system, and compares it to state-of-the-art satisfiability checkers.

Keywords

Logic programs stable model semantics constraints implementations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brewka, G. and Eiter, T. (1998). Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. In Cohn, A., Schubert, L., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 86–97, Trento, Italy. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., and Rullo, P. (1997). Strong and weak constraints in disjunctive Datalog. In Dix, J., Furbach, U., and Nerode, A., editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pages 2–17, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Cadoli, M., Palopoli, L., Schaerf, A., and Vasile, D. (1999). NP-SPEC: An executable specification language for solving all problems in NP. In Gupta, G., editor, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, pages 16–30, San Antonio, Texas. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Crawford, J. and Auton, L. (1996). Experimental results on the crossover point in random 3-SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1):31–57.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. (1995). On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15:289–323.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Mannila, H. (1997). Disjunctive Datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 22(3):364–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., and Scarnello, F. (1998). The KR system dlv: Progress report, comparisons and benchmarks. In Cohn, A., Schubert, L., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 406-417, Trento, Italy. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 1070–1080, Seattle, USA. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1990). Logic programs with classical negation. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 579–597, Jerusalem, Israel. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Greco, S. (1999). Dynamic programming in Datalog with aggregates. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 11(2):265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J.-L. (1987). Constraint logic programming. In O’Donnell, M. J., editor, Conference Record of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 111–119, Munich, FRG. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kautz, H. and Selman, B. (1999). Unifying sat-based and graph-based planning. In Dean, T., editor, Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 318–325, Stockholm, Sweden. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Knuth, D. (1993). The Stanford GraphBase. http://labrea.stanford.edu/pub/sgb/.
  14. Leone, N. et al. (1999). Dlv, a disjunctive Datalog system. http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/proj/dlv/.
  15. Li, C. and Anbulagan (1997). Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems. In Smolka, G., editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 341–355, Linz, Austria. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Lifschitz, V. (1999). Answer set planning. In De Schreye, D., editor, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 25–37, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lu, J., Nerode, A., and Subrahmanian, V. (1996). Hybrid knowledge bases. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 8(5):773–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. (1999a). Logic programming with costs. Manuscript which is available at http://www.cs.engr.uky.edu/~mirek/papers.html.
  19. Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. (1999b). Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In Apt, K., Marek, V., Truszczynski, M., and Warren, D., editors, The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pages 375–398. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. McCain, N. (1999). The causal calculator, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mccain/cc/.
  21. Ng, R. and Subrahmanian, V. (1994). Stable semantics for probabilistic deductive databases. Information and Computation, 110:42–83.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niemelä, I. (1999). Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25(3,4):241–273.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niemelä, I., Simons, P., and Soininen, T. (1999). Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules. In Gelfond, M., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G., editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 317–331, El Paso, Texas, USA. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Papadimitriou, C. (1995). Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Sakama, C. and Inoue, K. (1994). An alternative approach to the semantics of disjunctive logic programs and deductive databases. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13:145–172.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Selman, B., Kautz, H., and Cohen, B. (1994). Noise strategies for improving local search. In Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 337–343, Seattle, WA. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. Simons, P. (1999a). Extending the stable model semantics with more expressive rules. In Gelfond, M., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G., editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 305–316, El Paso, Texas, USA. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Simons, P. (1999b). smodels, a procedure for computing stable models of ground programs, http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/smodels/.
  29. Soininen, T. and Niemelä, I. (1999). Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In Gupta, G., editor, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, pages 305–319, San Antonio, Texas. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Syrjänen, T. (1999). lparse, a procedure for grounding domain-restricted logic programs. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/smodels/lparse/.
  31. Truszczynski, M. et al. (1999). DeReS, a default reasoning system, http://www.cs.engr.uky.edu/ai/deres.html.
  32. Tsang, E. (1993). Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  33. Warren, D. et al. (1999). The XSB programming system, http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/sbprolog/xsb-page.html.
  34. Zaniolo, C. et al. (1999). LDL++, a second-generation deductive database system, http://www.cs.ucla.edu/ldl/.
  35. Zhang, H. (1997). SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In McCune, W., editor, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 272–275, Townsville, North Queensland, Australia. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilkka Niemelä
    • 1
  • Patrik Simons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Laboratory for Theoretical Computer ScienceHelsinki University of TechnologyFinland

Personalised recommendations