Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1999)
Using database optimization techniques for nonmonotonic reasoning
P. Simons, I. Niemelä, T. Soininen (2000)
Extending and implementing the stable model semanticsArtif. Intell., 138
Fangzhen Lin, Yuting Zhao (2002)
ASSAT: computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers
Ian Gent, T. Walsh (1999)
Beyond NP: the QSAT phase transition
N. Leone, P. Rullo, Francesco Scarcello (1997)
Disjunctive Stable Models: Unfounded Sets, Fixpoint Semantics, and ComputationInf. Comput., 135
Wolfgang Faber, N. Leone, M. Maratea, F. Ricca (2007)
Experimenting with Look-Back Heuristics for Hard ASP Programs
Francesco Calimeri, Wolfgang Faber, G. Pfeifer, N. Leone (2006)
Pruning Operators for Disjunctive Logic Programming SystemsFundam. Informaticae, 71
Chu Li, Sylvain Gérard (2000)
On the limit of branching rules for hard random unsatisfiable 3-SATDiscret. Appl. Math., 130
Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob, H. Mannila (1997)
Disjunctive datalogACM Trans. Database Syst., 22
Y. Lierler (2005)
cmodels - SAT-Based Disjunctive Answer Set Solver
Wolfgang Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer (2001)
Optimizing the Computation of Heuristics for Answer Set Programming Systems
Chitta Baral, M. Gelfond (1994)
Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation, 1471
J. Freeman (1995)
Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms
I. Niemelä, P. Simons (1996)
Efficient Implementation of the Well-founded and Stable Model Semantics
Wolfgang Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer (1999)
Pushing Goal Derivation in DLP Computations
Chu Li, Anbulagan (1997)
Look-Ahead Versus Look-Back for Satisfiability Problems
J. Hooker, V. Vinay (1995)
Branching rules for satisfiabilityJournal of Automated Reasoning, 15
R. Ben-Eliyahu-Zohary, R. Dechter (1994)
Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programsAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 12
W. Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer (1999)
Proc. 5th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’99). Lecture Notes in AI (LNAI), vol. 1730
J. Crawford, Larry Auton (1996)
Experimental Results on the Crossover Point in Random 3-SATArtif. Intell., 81
M. Moskewicz, Conor Madigan, Ying Zhao, Lintao Zhang, S. Malik (2001)
Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solverProceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232)
V. Marek, V. Subrahmanian (1989)
The Relationship Between Logic Program Semantics and Non-Monotonic Reasoning
N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, Wolfgang Faber, Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob, S. Perri, Francesco Scarcello (2002)
The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoningACM Trans. Comput. Log., 7
Chu Li, Anbu Anbulagan (1997)
Heuristics Based on Unit Propagation for Satisfiability Problems
M. Gebser, B. Kaufmann, A. Neumann, Torsten Schaub (2007)
Conflict-Driven Answer Set Solving
F. Lin, Y. Zhao (2002)
Proc. Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2002)
Marco Cadoli, Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob (1997)
Default Logic as a Query LanguageIEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 9
J. Minker (1987)
On Indefinite Databases and the Closed World Assumption
Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer (2000)
Declarative problem-solving using the DLV system
W. Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer (2001)
Proc. Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) 2001
M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz (1991)
Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databasesNew Generation Computing, 9
Y. Lierler (2005)
Disjunctive Answer Set Programming via Satisfiability
Wolfgang Faber (2002)
Enhancing Eciency and Expressiveness in Answer Set Programming Systems
J. Rintanen (1999)
Improvements to the Evaluation of Quantified Boolean Formulae
Chitta Baral (2003)
Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving
Wolfgang Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer (2001)
Experimenting with Heuristics for Answer Set Programming
Teodor Przymusinski (1991)
Stable semantics for disjunctive programsNew Generation Computing, 9
J. Minker (1994)
Overview of disjunctive logic programmingAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 12
O. Dubois, Gilles Dequen (2001)
A backbone-search heuristic for efficient solving of hard 3-SAT formulae
Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob (1995)
On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional caseAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15
Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob (1993)
The complexity of logic-based abduction
Wolfgang Faber, F. Ricca (2005)
Solving Hard ASP Programs Efficiently
Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, Christoph Koch, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer (2000)
DLV - A System for Declarative Problem SolvingArXiv, cs.AI/0003036
J. Rintanen (1999)
Proc. Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) 1999
E. Goldberg, Y. Novikov (2002)
BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solverProceedings 2002 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition
I. Niemelä, P. Simons (1996)
Proc. 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICLP’96)
Disjunctive logic programming (DLP), also called answer set programming (ASP), is a convenient programming paradigm which allows for solving problems in a simple and highly declarative way. The language of DLP is very expressive and able to represent even problems of high complexity (every problem in the complexity class ${{\Sigma}_{2}^{P}} = {\rm NP}^{{\rm NP}}$ ). During the last decade, efficient systems supporting DLP have become available. Virtually all of these systems internally rely on variants of the Davis–Putnam procedure (for deciding propositional satisfiability [SAT]), combined with a suitable model checker. The heuristic for the selection of the branching literal (i.e., the criterion determining the literal to be assumed true at a given stage of the computation) dramatically affects the performance of a DLP system. While heuristics for SAT have received a fair deal of research, only little work on heuristics for DLP has been done so far. In this paper, we design, implement, optimize, and experiment with a number of heuristics for DLP. We focus on different look-ahead heuristics, also called “dynamic heuristics” (the DLP equivalent of unit propagation [UP] heuristics for SAT). These are branching rules where the heuristic value of a literal Q depends on the result of taking Q true and computing its consequences. We motivate and formally define a number of look-ahead heuristics for DLP programs. Furthermore, since look-ahead heuristics are computationally expensive, we design two techniques for optimizing the burden of their computation. We implement all the proposed heuristics and optimization techniques in DLV—the state-of-the-art implementation of disjunctive logic programming, and we carry out experiments, thoroughly comparing the heuristics and optimization techniques on a large number of instances of well-known benchmark problems. The results of these experiments are very interesting, showing that the proposed techniques significantly improve the performance of the DLV system.
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 5, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.