Abstract
Answer set programming (ASP) solvers have advanced in recent years, with a variety of different specialisation and overall development. Thus, even more complex and detailed programs can be solved. A side effect of this development are growing solution spaces and the problem of how to find those answer sets one is interested in. One general approach is to give an overview in form of a small number of highly diverse answer sets. By choosing a favourite and repeating the process, the user is able to leap through the solution space. But finding highly diverse answer sets is computationally expensive. In this paper we introduce a new approach called Tunas for Trade Up Navigation for Answer Sets to find diverse answer sets by reworking existing solution collections. The core idea is to collect diverse answer sets one after another by iteratively solving and updating the program. Once no more answer sets can be added to the collection, the program is allowed to trade answer sets from the collection for different answer sets, as long as the collection grows and stays diverse. Elaboration of the approach is possible in three variations, which we implemented and compared to established methods in an empirical evaluation. The evaluation shows that the Tunas approach is competitive with existing methods, and that efficiency of the approach is highly connected to the underlying logic program.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
\(\Gamma \) \(^{\,n\bar{\uparrow }}_{\!{{\mathcal {P}\!\Delta }}}\) asks for \(\subseteq \)-maximal sets and restricts the maximal value to bound output size.
- 2.
This implication even holds if S and \(S'\) share elements (\(S\cap {}S'\ne \emptyset \)) or if \( \Delta (S) < k\).
- 3.
Not all timelines cover the same k due to the time limit, distorting the mean value. The median is robust against those outliers by setting missing data to the time limit.
References
Abels, D., Jordi, J., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Toletti, A., Wanko, P.: Train scheduling with hybrid answer set programming. TPLP 21(3), 317–347 (2021)
Alviano, M., et al.: The ASP System DLV2. In: Balduccini, M., Janhunen, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10377, pp. 215–221. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61660-5_19
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C.: Anytime answer set optimization via unsatisfiable core shrinking. TPLP 16(5–6), 533–551 (2016)
Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Faber, W., Leone, N., Ricca, F.: WASP: a native ASP solver based on constraint learning. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T.C. (eds.) LPNMR 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8148, pp. 54–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_6
Alviano, M., Romero, J., Schaub, T.: Preference relations by approximation. In: Thielscher, M., Toni, F., Wolter, F. (eds.) Proceedings of KR 2018, pp. 2–11. AAAI Press (2018)
Brewka, G., Delgrande, J.P., Romero, J., Schaub, T.: asprin: Customizing answer set preferences without a headache. In: Bonet, B., Koenig, S. (eds.) Proceedings of AAAI 2015, pp. 1467–1474. AAAI Press (2015)
Böhl, E., Gaggl, S.A.: Tunas - Fishing for diverse Answer Sets: a Multi- Shot Trade up Strategy (Tool & Experiments), June 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6762554
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Koehler, J.: Encoding planning problems in nonmonotonic logic programs. In: Steel, S., Alami, R. (eds.) ECP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1348, pp. 169–181. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63912-8_84
Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Erdogan, H., Fink, M.: Finding similar/diverse solutions in answer set programming. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 13(3), 303–359 (2013)
Eiter, T., Falkner, A.A., Schneider, P., Schüller, P.: Asp-based signal plan adjustments for traffic flow optimization. In: Giacomo, G.D., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of ECAI 2020, FAIA, vol. 325, pp. 3026–3033. IOS Press (2020)
Erdem, E., Lifschitz, V.: Transformations of logic programs related to causality and planning. In: Gelfond, M., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G. (eds.) LPNMR 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1730, pp. 107–116. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46767-X_8
Faber, W.: An introduction to answer set programming and some of its extensions. In: Manna, M., Pieris, A. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2020. LNCS, vol. 12258, pp. 149–185. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60067-9_6
Fichte, J.K., Gaggl, S.A., Rusovac, D.: Rushing and strolling among answer sets - navigation made easy. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2022 (2022)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Multi-shot asp solving with clingo. TPLP 19(1), 27–82 (2019)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Schaub, T.: Complex optimization in answer set programming. TPLP 11(4–5), 821–839 (2011)
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.: Potassco: the potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)
Gebser, M., Maratea, M., Ricca, F.: The seventh answer set programming competition: design and results. TPLP 20(2), 176–204 (2020)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski, R., Bowen, Kenneth (eds.) Proceedings of International Logic Programming Conference and Symposium, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)
Gençay, E., Schüller, P., Erdem, E.: Applications of non-monotonic reasoning to automotive product configuration using answer set programming. J. Intell. Manuf. 30(3), 1407–1422 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1333-3
Gorczyca, P.: Configuration Problem ASP Encoding Generator (2020). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5777217
Janhunen, T., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schellhorn, S., Wanko, P., Schaub, T.: Clingo goes linear constraints over reals and integers. TPLP 17(5–6), 872–888 (2017)
Kahraman, M.K., Erdem, E.: Personalized course schedule planning using answer set programming. In: Alferes, J.J., Johansson, M. (eds.) PADL 2019. LNCS, vol. 11372, pp. 37–45. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05998-9_3
Romero, J., Schaub, T., Wanko, P.: Computing diverse optimal stable models. In: Carro, M., King, A., Saeedloei, N., Vos, M.D. (eds.) TC of ICLP 2016. OASIcs, vol. 52, pp. 3:1–3:14. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2016)
Soininen, T., Niemelä, I.: Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In: Gupta, G. (ed.) PADL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1551, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49201-1_21
Soininen, T., Niemelä, I., Tiihonen, J., Sulonen, R.: Representing configuration knowledge with weight constraint rules. In: Provetti, A., Son, T.C. (eds.) Proceedings of ASP 2001 (2001)
Acknowledgements
This work was partly supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in project 389792660 (TRR 248, Center for Perspicuous Systems), and by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) in project 01IS20056_NAVAS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Böhl, E., Gaggl, S.A. (2022). Tunas - Fishing for Diverse Answer Sets: A Multi-shot Trade up Strategy. In: Gottlob, G., Inclezan, D., Maratea, M. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13416. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15706-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15707-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)