Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Return of xorro

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11481))

Abstract

Although parity constraints are at the heart of many relevant reasoning modes like sampling or model counting, little attention has so far been paid to their integration into ASP systems. We address this shortcoming and investigate a variety of alternative approaches to implementing parity constraints, ranging from rather basic ASP encodings to more sophisticated theory propagators (featuring Gauss-Jordan elimination). All of them are implemented in the xorro system by building on the theory reasoning capabilities of the ASP system clingo. Our comparative empirical study investigates the impact of the number and size of parity constraints on performance and indicates the merits of the respective implementation techniques. Finally, we benefit from parity constraints to equip xorro with means to sample answer sets, paving the way for new applications of ASP.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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 EPUB and 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is achieved by uncompiling them during grounding using meta-encodings.

  2. 2.

    https://sourceforge.net/p/potassco/code/HEAD/tree/branches/xorro.

  3. 3.

    The distinction of eager and lazy approaches follows the methodology in Satisfiability modulo theories [1].

  4. 4.

    In turn, multiple conditional terms within an aggregate are separated by semicolons.

  5. 5.

    Our implementation of parity constraints fits perfectly with the parity constraints used in sampling and model counting.

  6. 6.

    This is analogous to parity evaluation using binary decision diagrams (BDDs).

  7. 7.

    https://github.com/potassco/xorro.

  8. 8.

    The transformation process mimicks the use of a theory grammar for clingo [8].

  9. 9.

    http://flavioeverardo.com/research/benchmarks/xorro/.

  10. 10.

    For more detailed benchmarks results, including individual times per classes please go to http://flavioeverardo.com/research/benchmarks/xorro/.

References

  1. Barrett, C., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S., Tinelli, C.: Satisfiability modulo theories. In: Biere et al. [2], chap. 26, pp. 825–885

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chakraborty, S., Meel, K.S., Vardi, M.Y.: A scalable and nearly uniform generator of SAT witnesses. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 608–623. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Chakraborty, S., Meel, K.S., Vardi, M.Y.: A scalable approximate model counter. In: Schulte, C. (ed.) CP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8124, pp. 200–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40627-0_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Denecker, M., Vennekens, J., Bond, S., Gebser, M., Truszczyński, M.: The second answer set programming competition. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5753, pp. 637–654. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04238-6_75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Gebser, M., Harrison, A., Kaminski, R., Lifschitz, V., Schaub, T.: Abstract Gringo. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 15(4–5), 449–463 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Gebser, M., et al.: Potassco User Guide, 2 edn. (2015). http://potassco.org

  8. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Wanko, P.: Theory solving made easy with clingo 5. In: Carro, M., King, A. (eds.) Technical Communications of the Thirty-second International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2016), vol. 52, pp. 2:1–2:15. Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer Set Solving in Practice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan and Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., König, A., Schaub, T.: Advances in gringo series 3. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6645, pp. 345–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20895-9_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Gomes, C.P., Hoffmann, J., Sabharwal, A., Selman, B.: Short XORs for model counting: from theory to practice. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 100–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72788-0_13

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomes, C., Sabharwal, A., Selman, B.: Near-uniform sampling of combinatorial spaces using XOR constraints. In: Schölkopf, B., Platt, J., Hofmann, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2006), pp. 481–488. MIT Press (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Greßler, A., Oetsch, J., Tompits, H.: \(\sf Harvey\): a system for random testing in ASP. In: Balduccini, M., Janhunen, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10377, pp. 229–235. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61660-5_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Haanpää, H., Järvisalo, M., Kaski, P., Niemelä, I.: Hard satisfiable clause sets for benchmarking equivalence reasoning techniques. J. Satisfiability Boolean Model. Comput. 2(1–4), 27–46 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Han, C.-S., Jiang, J.-H.R.: When boolean satisfiability meets gaussian elimination in a simplex way. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 410–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaminski, R., Schaub, T., Wanko, P.: A tutorial on hybrid answer set solving with clingo. In: Ianni, G., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2017. LNCS, vol. 10370, pp. 167–203. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61033-7_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaufmann, B., Leone, N., Perri, S., Schaub, T.: Grounding and solving in answer set programming. AI Mag. 37(3), 25–32 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Laitinen, T.: Extending SAT solver with parity reasoning. Dissertation, Aalto University, November 2014

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meel, K.: Constrained counting and sampling: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Dissertation, Rice University, August 2018

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Conference on Design Automation (DAC 2001), pp. 530–535. ACM Press (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schaefer, T.: The complexity of satisfiability problems. In: Lipton, R., Burkhard, W., Savitch, W., Friedman, E., Aho, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOCS 1978), pp. 216–226. ACM Press (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Soos, M.: Enhanced Gaussian elimination in DPLL-based SAT solvers. In: Le Berre, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the First Workshop on Pragmatics of SAT (PoS 2010). EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 8, pp. 2–14. EasyChair (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Soos, M., Meel, K.: Bird: Engineering an efficient CNF-XOR sat solver and its applications to approximate model counting. In: Van Hentenryck, P., Zhou, Z. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2019). AAAI Press (2019, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Soos, M., Nohl, K., Castelluccia, C.: Extending SAT solvers to cryptographic problems. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 244–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

    Tomi Janhunen

  2. Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

    Tomi Janhunen

  3. University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Flavio Everardo, Roland Kaminski & Torsten Schaub

  4. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

    Torsten Schaub

  5. Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Torsten Schaub

Authors
  1. Flavio Everardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomi Janhunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roland Kaminski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Torsten Schaub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torsten Schaub .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Marcello Balduccini

  2. University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, USA

    Yuliya Lierler

  3. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Woltran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Everardo, F., Janhunen, T., Kaminski, R., Schaub, T. (2019). The Return of xorro. In: Balduccini, M., Lierler, Y., Woltran, S. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11481. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20528-7_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20528-7_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20527-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20528-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation