Advertisement

Pruning Search Space for Weighted First Order Horn Clause Satisfiability

  • Naveen Nair
  • Anandraj Govindan
  • Chander Jayaraman
  • T V S Kiran
  • Ganesh Ramakrishnan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6489)

Abstract

Many SRL models pose logical inference as weighted satisfiability solving. Performing logical inference after completely grounding clauses with all possible constants is computationally expensive and approaches such as LazySAT [8] utilize the sparseness of the domain to deal with this. Here, we investigate the efficiency of restricting the Knowledge Base (Σ) to the set of first order horn clauses. We propose an algorithm that prunes the search space for satisfiability in horn clauses and prove that the optimal solution is guaranteed to exist in the pruned space. The approach finds a model, if it exists, in polynomial time; otherwise it finds an interpretation that is most likely given the weights. We provide experimental evidence that our approach reduces the size of search space substantially.

Keywords

First Order Logic Horn Clauses MaxSAT Satisfiability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Selman, B., Levesque, H., Mitchell, D.: A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems. In: AAAI 1992, San Jose, CA, pp. 440–446 (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Selman, B., Kautz, H., Cohen, B.: Local Search Strategies for Satisfiability Testing. In: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge on Cliques, Coloring and Satisfiability (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hogger, C.J.: Essentials of logic programming. Oxford University Press, New York (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heras, F., Larrosa, J., Oliveras, A.: MINIMAXSAT: an efficient weighted max-SAT solver. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31(1), 1–32 (2008)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kisynski, J., Poole, D.: Lifted aggregation in directed first-order probabilistic models. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, California, USA, pp. 1922–1929 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, M., Putnam, H., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.W.: A Machine Program for Theorem Proving. Communications of the ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singla, P., Domingos, P.: Discriminative training of Markov Logic Networks. In: AAAI 2005, pp. 868–873 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singla, P., Domingos, P.: Memory-Efficient Inference in Relational Domains. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 488–493. AAAI Press, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alsinet, T., Many, F., Planes, J.: An efficient solver for weighted Max-SAT. Journal of Global Optimization, 61–73 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shavlik, J., Natarajan, S.: Speeding up inference in Markov logic networks by preprocessing to reduce the size of the resulting grounded network. In: Proceedings of the 21st International JCAI (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fern, A.: A Penalty-Logic Simple-Transition Model for Structured Sequences. In: Computational Intelligence, pp. 302–334 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mihalkova, L., Richardson, M.: Speeding up inference in statistical relational learning by clustering similar query literals. In: De Raedt, L. (ed.) ILP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5989, pp. 110–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naveen Nair
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anandraj Govindan
    • 2
  • Chander Jayaraman
    • 2
  • T V S Kiran
    • 2
  • Ganesh Ramakrishnan
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.IITB-Monash Research AcademyIIT BombayIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIIT BombayIndia
  3. 3.Faculty of Information TechnologyMonash UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations