Abstract We present plingo, an extension of the answer set programming (ASP) system clingo that incorporates various probabilistic reasoning modes. Plingo is based on $\textit{Lpmln}^{\pm }$ , a simple variant of the probabilistic language Lpmln, which follows a weighted scheme derived from Markov logic. This choice is motivated by the fact that the main probabilistic reasoning modes can be mapped onto enumeration and optimization problems and that $\textit{Lpmln}^{\pm }$ may serve as a middle-ground formalism connecting to other probabilistic approaches. Plingo offers three alternative frontends, for Lpmln, P-log, and ProbLog. These input languages and reasoning modes are implemented by means of clingo’s multi-shot and theory-solving capabilities. In this way, the core of plingo is an implementation of $\textit{Lpmln}^{\pm }$ in terms of modern ASP technology. On top of that, plingo implements a new approximation technique based on a recent method for answer set enumeration in the order of optimality. Additionally, in this work, we introduce a novel translation from $\textit{Lpmln}^{\pm }$ to ProbLog. This leads to a new solving method in plingo where the input program is translated and a ProbLog solver is executed. Our empirical evaluation shows that the different solving approaches of plingo are complementary and that plingo performs similarly to other probabilistic reasoning systems.

Abstract The representation of a temporal problem in answer set programming (ASP) usually boils down to using copies of variables and constraints, one for each time stamp, no matter whether it is directly encoded or expressed via an action or temporal language. The multiplication of variables and constraints is commonly done during grounding, and the solver is completely ignorant about the temporal relationship among the different instances. On the other hand, a key factor in the performance of today’s ASP solvers is conflict-driven constraint learning. Our question in this paper is whether a constraint learned for particular time steps can be generalized and reused at other time steps, and ultimately whether this enhances the overall solver performance on temporal problems. Knowing well the domain of time, we study conditions under which learned dynamic constraints can be generalized. Notably, we identify a property of temporal representations that enables the generalization of learned constraints across all time steps. It turns out that most ASP planning encodings either satisfy this property or can be easily adapted to do so. In addition, we propose a general translation that transforms programs to fulfill this property. Finally, we empirically evaluate the impact of adding the generalized constraints to an ASP solver.

Abstract We are interested in automating reasoning with and about study regulations, catering to various stakeholders, ranging from administrators, over faculty, to students at different stages. Our work builds on an extensive analysis of various study programs at the University of Potsdam. The conceptualization of the underlying principles provides us with a formal account of study regulations. In particular, the formalization reveals the properties of admissible study plans. With these at end, we propose an encoding of study regulations in Answer Set Programming that produces corresponding study plans. Finally, we show how this approach can be extended to a generic user interface for exploring study plans.

Abstract Answer Set Programming, or ASP for short, has become a popular and sophisticated approach to declarative problem solving. Its popularity is due to its attractive modeling-grounding-solving workflow that provides an easy approach to problem solving, even for laypersons outside computer science. However, in contrast to ASP’s ease of use, the high degree of sophistication of the underlying technology makes it even hard for ASP experts to put ideas into practice whenever this involves modifying ASP’s machinery. For addressing this issue, this tutorial aims at enabling users to build their own ASP-based systems. More precisely, we show how the ASP system clingo can be used for extending ASP and for implementing customized special-purpose systems. To this end, we propose two alternatives. We begin with a traditional AI technique and show how metaprogramming can be used for extending ASP. This is a rather light approach that relies on clingo ’s reification feature to use ASP itself for expressing new functionalities. The second part of this tutorial uses traditional programming (in Python) for manipulating clingo via its application programming interface. This approach allows for changing and controlling the entire model-ground-solve workflow of ASP. Central to this is clingo ’s new Application class that allows us to draw on clingo ’s infrastructure by customizing processes similar to the one in clingo . For instance, we may apply manipulations to programs’ abstract syntax trees, control various forms of multi-shot solving, and set up theory propagators for foreign inferences. A cross-sectional structure, spanning meta as well as application programming, is clingo ’s intermediate format, aspif , that specifies the interface among the underlying grounder and solver. We illustrate the aforementioned concepts and techniques throughout this tutorial by means of examples and several nontrivial case studies. In particular, we show how clingo can be extended by difference constraints and how guess-and-check programming can be implemented with both meta and application programming.

Recently Bonet and Geffner have shown that first-order representations for planning domains can be learned from the structure of the state space without any prior knowledge about the action schemas or domain predicates. For this, the learning problem is formulated as the search for a simplest first-order domain description D that along with information about instances I_i (number of objects and initial state) determine state space graphs G(P_i) that match the observed state graphs G_i where P_i = (D, I_i). The search is cast and solved approximately by means of a SAT solver that is called over a large family of propositional theories that differ just in the parameters encoding the possible number of action schemas and domain predicates, their arities, and the number of objects. In this work, we push the limits of these learners by moving to an answer set programming (ASP) encoding using the CLINGO system. The new encodings are more transparent and concise, extending the range of possible models while facilitating their exploration. We show that the domains introduced by Bonet and Geffner can be solved more efficiently in the new approach, often optimally, and furthermore, that the approach can be easily extended to handle partial information about the state graphs as well as noise that prevents some states from being distinguished.

Abstract We present a general approach to planning with incomplete information in Answer Set Programming (ASP). More precisely, we consider the problems of conformant and conditional planning with sensing actions and assumptions. We represent planning problems using a simple formalism where logic programs describe the transition function between states, the initial states and the goal states. For solving planning problems, we use Quantified Answer Set Programming (QASP), an extension of ASP with existential and universal quantifiers over atoms that is analogous to Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs). We define the language of quantified logic programs and use it to represent the solutions different variants of conformant and conditional planning. On the practical side, we present a translation-based QASP solver that converts quantified logic programs into QBFs and then executes a QBF solver, and we evaluate experimentally the approach on conformant and conditional planning benchmarks.

Abstract We describe eclingo, a solver for epistemic logic programs under Gelfond 1991 semantics built upon the Answer Set Programming system clingo. The input language of eclingo uses the syntax extension capabilities of clingo to define subjective literals that, as usual in epistemic logic programs, allow for checking the truth of a regular literal in all or in some of the answer sets of a program. The eclingo solving process follows a guess and check strategy. It first generates potential truth values for subjective literals and, in a second step, it checks the obtained result with respect to the cautious and brave consequences of the program. This process is implemented using the multi-shot functionalities of clingo. We have also implemented some optimisations, aiming at reducing the search space and, therefore, increasing eclingo ’s efficiency in some scenarios. Finally, we compare the efficiency of eclingo with two state-of-the-art solvers for epistemic logic programs on a pair of benchmark scenarios and show that eclingo generally outperforms their obtained results.

Conditional preference networks (CP-nets) express qualitative preferences over features of interest.A Boolean CP-net can express that a feature is preferable under some conditions, as long as all other features have the same value.This is often a convenient representation, but sometimes one would also like to express a preference for maximizing a set of features, or some other objective function on the features of interest.ASPRIN is a flexible framework for preferences in ASP, where one can mix heterogeneous preference relations, and this paper reports on the integration of Boolean CP-nets.In general, we extend ASPRIN with a preference program for CP-nets in order to compute most preferred answer sets via an iterative algorithm.For the specific case of acyclic CP-nets, we provide an approximation by partially ordered set preferences, which are in turn normalized by ASPRIN to take advantage of several highly optimized algorithms implemented by ASP solvers for computing optimal solutions.Finally, we take advantage of a linear-time computable function to address dominance testing for tree-shaped CP-nets.

Abstract We describe the new version of the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL)-to-Answer Set Programming (ASP) translator plasp . First, it widens the range of accepted PDDL features. Second, it contains novel planning encodings, some inspired by Satisfiability Testing (SAT) planning and others exploiting ASP features such as well-foundedness. All of them are designed for handling multivalued fluents in order to capture both PDDL as well as SAS planning formats. Third, enabled by multishot ASP solving, it offers advanced planning algorithms also borrowed from SAT planning. As a result, plasp provides us with an ASP-based framework for studying a variety of planning techniques in a uniform setting. Finally, we demonstrate in an empirical analysis that these techniques have a significant impact on the performance of ASP planning.

In this paper we describe asprin, a general, flexible, and extensible framework for handling preferences among the stable models of a logic program. We show how complex preference relations can be specified through user-defined preference types and their arguments. We describe how preference specifications are handled internally by so-called preference programs, which are used for dominance testing. We also give algorithms for computing one, or all, optimal stable models of a logic program. Notably, our algorithms depend on the complexity of the dominance tests and make use of multi-shot answer set solving technology.

The Game Description Language GDL is the standard input language for general game-playing systems. While players can gain a lot of traction by an efficient inference algorithm for GDL, state-of-the-art reasoners suffer from a variant of a classical KR problem, the inferential frame problem. We present a method by which general game players can transform any given game description into a representation that solves this problem. Our experimental results demonstrate that with the help of automatically generated domain knowledge, a significant speedup can thus be obtained for the majority of the game descriptions from the AAAI competition.

We introduce a general declarative framework for incorporating domain-specific heuristics into ASP solving. We accomplish this by extending the first-order modeling language of ASP by a distinguished heuristic predicate. The resulting heuristic information is processed as an equitable part of the logic program and subsequently exploited by the solver when it comes to non-deterministically assigning a truth value to an atom. We implemented our approach as a dedicated heuristic in the ASP solver clasp and show its great prospect by an empirical evaluation.