Dynamic systems play a central role in fields such as planning, verification, and databases. Fragmented throughout these fields, we find a multitude of languages to formally specify dynamic systems and a multitude of systems to reason on such specifications. Often, such systems are bound to one specific language and one specific inference task. It is troublesome that performing several inference tasks on the same knowledge requires translations of your specification to other languages. In this paper we study whether it is possible to perform a broad set of well-studied inference tasks on one specification. More concretely, we extend IDP 3 with several inferences from fields concerned with dynamic specifications.
The above discussion focuses on general fields tackling (only) one of the problems we are typically interested in (in a dynamic context). To be fair, it is worth mentioning that systems in these domains often tackle a more general problem (for example ASP systems can do much more than only planning). tackles these more general problems efficiently as well. Over the years, and (the solver underlying ) have proven to be among the best ASP and CP systems @cite_7 @cite_26 @cite_10 .
@cite_26 @cite_10 @cite_7
2096621306 2579855366 1552295314 2619622334
We present a new approach to integrating Constraint Processing (CP) techniques into Answer Set Programming (ASP). Based on an alternative semantic approach, we develop an algorithmic framework for conflict-driven ASP solving that exploits CP solving capacities. A significant technical issue concerns the combination of conflict information from different solver types. We have implemented our approach, combining ASP solver clingo with the generic CP solver gecode , and we empirically investigate its computational impact. We introduce a comprehensive framework for computing diverse (or similar) solutions to logic programs with preferences. Our framework provides a wide spectrum of complete and incomplete methods for solving this task. Apart from proposing several new methods, it also accommodates existing ones and generalizes them to programs with preferences. Interestingly, this is accomplished by integrating and automating several basic ASP techniques - being of general interest even beyond diversification. The enabling factor of this lies in the recent advance of multi-shot ASP solving that provides us with fine-grained control over reasoning processes and abolishes the need for solver modifications and wrappers that were indispensable in previous approaches. Our framework is implemented as an extension to the ASP-based preference handling system asprin. We use the resulting system asprin 2 for an empirical evaluation of the diversification methods comprised in our framework. Automatic specialization of algorithms to a limited domain is an interesting and industrially applicable problem. We calculate the optimal assignment of computational resources to several different solvers that solve the same problem. Optimality is considered with regard to the expected solution time on a set of problem instances from the domain of interest. We present two approaches, a static and dynamic one. The static approach leads to a simple analytically calculable solution. The dynamic approach results in formulation of the problem as a Markov Decision Process. Our tests on the SAT Problem show that the presented methods are quite effective. Therefore, both methods are attractive for applications and future research. We introduce a new flexible paradigm of grounding and solving in Answer Set Programming (ASP), which we refer to as multi-shot ASP solving, and present its implementation in the ASP system clingo. Multi-shot ASP solving features grounding and solving processes that deal with continuously changing logic programs. In doing so, they remain operative and accommodate changes in a seamless way. For instance, such processes allow for advanced forms of search, as in optimization or theory solving, or interaction with an environment, as in robotics or query-answering. Common to them is that the problem specification evolves during the reasoning process, either because data or constraints are added, deleted, or replaced. This evolutionary aspect adds another dimension to ASP since it brings about state changing operations. We address this issue by providing an operational semantics that characterizes grounding and solving processes in multi-shot ASP solving. This characterization provides a semantic account of grounder and solver states along with the operations manipulating them. The operative nature of multi-shot solving avoids redundancies in relaunching grounder and solver programs and benefits from the solver's learning capacities. clingo accomplishes this by complementing ASP's declarative input language with control capacities. On the declarative side, a new directive allows for structuring logic programs into named and parameterizable subprograms. The grounding and integration of these subprograms into the solving process is completely modular and fully controllable from the procedural side. To this end, clingo offers a new application programming interface that is conveniently accessible via scripting languages.