Structural measures of graphs, such as treewidth, are central tools in computational complexity resulting in efficient algorithms when exploiting the parameter. It is even known that modern SAT solvers work efficiently on instances of small treewidth. Since these solvers are widely applied, research interests in compact encodings into (Q)SAT for solving and to understand encoding limitations. Even more general is the graph parameter clique-width, which unlike treewidth can be small for dense graphs. Although algorithms are available for clique-width, little is known about encodings. We initiate the quest to understand encoding capabilities with clique-width by considering abstract argumentation, which is a robust framework for reasoning with conflicting arguments. It is based on directed graphs and asks for computationally challenging properties, making it a natural candidate to study computational properties. We design novel reductions from argumentation problems to (Q)SAT. Our reductions linearly preserve the clique-width, resulting in directed decomposition-guided (DDG) reductions. We establish novel results for all argumentation semantics, including counting. Notably, the overhead caused by our DDG reductions cannot be significantly improved under reasonable assumptions.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a mature and widely used framework for modeling and solving problems in AI, knowledge representation and reasoning, and combinatorial search. Counting answer sets is of growing importance for analyzing search spaces, navigating ASP programs, and enabling probabilistic reasoning. While Truszczynski established a complete hierarchy for the computational complexity of ASP decision and reasoning problems (skeptical and credulous), a corresponding systematic treatment of counting problems has been missing so far. We close this gap by providing an almost complete characterisation of the counting complexity landscape for ASP. A remaining gap arises between Krom and Horn programs, caused by the minimality of disjunctions in Krom rule heads for guessing. To address this issue, we replace disjunctions with choice rules and introduce a controlled fragment in which choices are allowed and every rule is simultaneously Horn and Krom (Choice-Horn-Krom). We show that this fragment does not admit an polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPRAS) under standard complexity-theoretic assumptions. However, we prove that counting answer sets of an arbitrary ASP program can already be done by counting answer sets of two Choice-Horn-Krom programs. This result demonstrates the expressive power of ASP and yields a conceptually simpler alternative to Valiant's classical reduction from #SAT to #Krom-SAT, which a very well-known result in propositional logic.

Abstract The propositional model counting problem #SAT asks to compute the number of satisfying assignments for a given propositional formula. Recently, three #SAT proof systems $$\textsf{kcps}$$ kcps (knowledge compilation proof system), $$\textsf{MICE}$$ MICE (model counting induction by claim extension), and $$\textsf{CPOG}$$ CPOG (certified partitioned-operation graphs) have been introduced with the aim to model #SAT solving and enable proof logging for solvers. A fourth system, $$\textsf{CLIP}$$ CLIP (circuit linear introduction proposition), is a very powerful proof system of theoretical interest. Prior to this paper, it was only known that $$\textsf{CLIP}$$ CLIP simulates the three other systems. All the remaining relations between the systems have been unclear and very few proof complexity results are known. We completely determine the simulation order of the four systems, establishing that $$\textsf{CPOG}$$ CPOG simulates both $$\textsf{MICE}$$ MICE and $$\textsf{kcps}$$ kcps , while $$\textsf{MICE}$$ MICE and $$\textsf{kcps}$$ kcps are exponentially incomparable. This implies that $$\textsf{CPOG}$$ CPOG is strictly stronger than the other two systems.

Classical planning asks for a sequence of operators reaching a given goal. While the most common case is to compute a plan, many scenarios require more than that. However, quantitative reasoning on the plan space remains mostly unexplored. A fundamental problem is to count plans, which relates to the conditional probability on the plan space. Indeed, qualitative and quantitative approaches are well-established in various other areas of automated reasoning. We present the first study to quantitative and qualitative reasoning on the plan space. In particular, we focus on polynomially bounded plans. On the theoretical side, we study its complexity, which gives rise to rich reasoning modes. Since counting is hard in general, we introduce the easier notion of facets, which enables understanding the significance of operators. On the practical side, we implement quantitative reasoning for planning. Thereby, we transform a planning task into a propositional formula and use knowledge compilation to count different plans. This framework scales well to large plan spaces, while enabling rich reasoning capabilities such as learning pruning functions and explainable planning.

The connection between inconsistent databases and Dung’s abstract argumentation framework has recently drawn growing interest. Specifically, an inconsistent database, involving certain types of integrity constraints such as functional and inclusion dependencies, can be viewed as an argumentation framework in Dung’s setting. Nevertheless, no prior work has explored the exact expressive power of Dung’s theory of argumentation when compared to inconsistent databases and integrity constraints. In this paper, we close this gap by arguing that an argumentation framework can also be viewed as an inconsistent database. We first establish a connection between subset-repairs for databases and extensions for AFs considering conflict-free, naive, admissible, and preferred semantics. Further, we define a new family of attribute-based repairs based on the principle of maximal content preservation. The effectiveness of these repairs is then highlighted by connecting them to stable, semi-stable, and stage semantics. Our main contributions include translating an argumentation framework into a database together with integrity constraints. Moreover, this translation can be achieved in polynomial time, which is essential in transferring complexity results between the two formalisms.

Argumentation is a central subarea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for modeling and reasoning about arguments. The semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is given by sets of arguments (extensions) and conditions on the relationship between arguments, such as stable or admissible. Today's solvers implement tasks such as finding extensions, deciding credulously or skeptically acceptance, counting, or enumerating extensions. While these tasks are well charted, the area between decision and counting/enumeration and fine-grained reasoning requires expensive reasoning so far. We introduce a novel concept (facets) for reasoning between decision and enumeration. Facets are arguments that belong to some extensions (credulous) but not to all extensions (skeptical). They are most natural when a user aims to navigate, filter, or comprehend specific arguments, according to their needs. We study the complexity and show that tasks involving facets are much easier than counting extensions. Finally, we provide an implementation, and conduct experiments to demonstrate feasibility.

Many planning applications require not only a single solution but benefit substantially from having a set of possible plans from which users can select, for example, when explaining plans. For decades, research in classical AI planning has primarily focused on quickly finding single plans. Only recently researchers have started to investigate preferences, enumerate plans by top-k planning, or count plans to reason about the plan space. Unfortunately, reasoning about the plan space is computationally extremely hard and feeding many similar plans to the user is hardly practical. To circumvent computational shortcomings while still being able to reason about variability in plans, faceted actions have been introduced very recently. These are meaningful actions that can be used by some plan but are not required by all plans. Enforcing or forbidding such facets allows for navigating even large plan spaces while ensuring desired properties quickly and step by step. In this paper, we illustrate an industrial challenge, the Beluga logistics problem of Airbus, where reasoning with facets enables targeted plan space navigation. We present an approach to handle large plan spaces iteratively and interactively and present a tool that we call PlanPilot.

Statistical statements are an expressive tool for representing statistical information of a domain of interest. Recently, these statements were given a meaning in the context of Probabilistic Answer Set Programming (PASP), allowing one to encode properties like "x% of elements of a domain have the feature y". Although the computational complexity of different tasks in PASP is well known, the complexity of restricted programs composed only of statistical statements and probabilistic facts has not been studied. As a first contribution, we address this problem, confirming that even in seemingly restricted cases the complexity is high. Indeed, even with this restriction we do not lose expressiveness, reaching higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy. To mitigate these high complexities, we focus on the structure of the programs. Thereby, we design novel structure-guided reductions, demonstrating how one can efficiently answer queries along treewidth decompositions. We obtain precise upper bounds and we show that under reasonable assumptions in complexity theory we cannot significantly improve, as we give matching lower bounds.

Model counting is a powerful extension of constraint reasoning that, instead of finding a solution to a constraint system, allows to identify the number of such solutions. Cardinality constraints are used to filter solutions of a certain quality by restricting the number of elements that can be added to the solution. Naturally, one would like to combine both in order to count the number of solutions of good quality. Unfortunately, the two concepts do not get along so well as (1) cardinality constraints may not be parsimonious (due to auxiliary variables, the system’s number of solutions may change in an uncontrolled way) and (2) such constraints may destroy structural properties, which are crucial for the performance of modern solvers. This article provides a systematic study of existing cardinality constraints in the light of model counting, observing that none of them are both, parsimonious and treewidth-preserving. We present structure-aware cardinality constraints that are parsimonious and guaranteed to increase the input’s treewidth only in a controlled way. Detailed experiments reveal that our encodings outperform existing ones.

The grounding bottleneck in Answer Set Programming prohibits large instances from being solved. This is caused by a combinatorial explosion in the grounding phase of standard ground&solve systems. A promising alternative is Body-Decoupled Grounding (BDG), which grounds each body predicate on its own. However, BDG faces challenges in terms of worst-case grounding size and limited interoperability with other systems. This paper addresses shortcomings of BDG by introducing FastFound: an alternative foundedness check that significantly reduces grounding sizes, by grounding each predicate on its own. FastFound’s foundedness check is done implicitly, which leads to a quadratic reduction in grounding size. We start by introducing FastFound for tight normal rules, where we observe that this cannot be substantially improved. Then we extend FastFound to head-cycle-free programs and give novel interoperability results for full disjunctive programs. An experimental evaluation on our prototype shows promising results, as we solve more grounding-heavy tasks than both standard ground&solve systems and BDG.

The canonical class in the realm of counting complexity is #P. It is well known that the problem of counting the models of a propositional formula in disjunctive normal form (#DNF) is complete for #P under Turing reductions. On the other hand, #DNF ∈ spanL and spanL ⊋ #P unless#DNFNL = NPis a strict. Hence, the class of functions logspace-reducible to subset of #P under plausible complexity-theoretic assumptions. By contrast, we show that two calls to a (restricted) #2DNF oracle suffice to capture gapP, namely, that the logspace many-one closure of the subtraction between the results of two #2DNF calls is gapP. Because #P ⊋ gapP, #P is strictly contained between one and two #2DNF oracle calls.Surprisingly, the propositional formulas needed in both calls are linear-time computable, and the reduction preserves interesting structural as well as symmetry properties, leading to algorithmic applications. We show that a single subtraction suffices to compensate for the absence of negation while still capturing gapP, i.e., our results carry over to the monotone fragments of #2SAT and #2DNF. Since our reduction is linear-time, it preserves sparsity and, as a consequence we obtain a sparsification lemma for both #2SAT and #2DNF. This has only been known for kSAT with k ≥ 3 and respective counting versions.We further show that both single call if we allow a little postprocessing (computable by AC0-or TC0-circuits). Consequently, we derive refined versions of Toda’s Theorem: ${\text{PH}} \subseteq [\# {\text{MON}}2{\text{SAT}}]_{{\text{T}}{{\text{C}}^0}}^{\log } = [\# {\text{MON}}2{\text{DNF}}]_{{\text{T}}{{\text{C}}^0}}^{\log }$. Our route to these results is via structure-aware reductions that preserve parameters like treewidth up to an additive overhead. The absence of multiplicative overhead indeed yields parameterized SETH-tight lower bounds.

Algorithmic meta-theorems state that problems definable in a fixed logic can be solved efficiently on structures with certain properties. An example is Courcelle’s Theorem, which states that all problems expressible in monadic second-order logic can be solved efficiently on structures of small treewidth. Such theorems are usually proven by algorithms for the model-checking problem of the logic, which is often complex and rarely leads to highly efficient solutions. Alternatively, we can solve the model-checking problem by grounding the given logic to propositional logic, for which dedicated solvers are available. Such encodings will, however, usually not preserve the input’s treewidth. This paper investigates whether all problems definable in monadic second-order logic can efficiently be encoded into SAT such that the input’s treewidth bounds the treewidth of the resulting formula. We answer this in the affirmative and, hence, provide an alternative proof of Courcelle’s Theorem. Our technique can naturally be extended: There are treewidth-aware reductions from the optimization version of Courcelle’s Theorem to MAXSAT and from the counting version of the theorem to #SAT. By using encodings to SAT, we obtain, ignoring polynomial factors, the same running time for the model-checking problem as we would with dedicated algorithms. Another immediate consequence is a treewidth-preserving reduction from the model-checking problem of monadic second-order logic to integer linear programming (ILP). We complement our upper bounds with new lower bounds based on ETH; and we show that the block size of the input’s formula and the treewidth of the input’s structure are tightly linked. Finally, we present various side results needed to prove the main theorems: A treewidth-preserving cardinality constraints, treewidth-preserving encodings from CNFs into DNFs, and a treewidth-aware quantifier elimination scheme for QBF implying a treewidth-preserving reduction from QSAT to SAT. We also present a reduction from projected model counting to #SAT that increases the treewidth by at most a factor of 2^{k+3.59}, yielding a algorithm for projected model counting that beats the currently best running time of 2^{2^{k+4}}⋅poly(|ψ|).

Abstract The grounding bottleneck poses one of the key challenges that hinders the widespread adoption of answer set programming in industry. Hybrid grounding is a step in alleviating the bottleneck by combining the strength of standard bottom-up grounding with recently proposed techniques where rule bodies are decoupled during grounding. However, it has remained unclear when hybrid grounding shall use body-decoupled grounding (BDG) and when to use standard bottom-up grounding. In this paper, we address this issue by developing automated hybrid grounding: we introduce a splitting algorithm based on data-structural heuristics that detects when to use BDG and when standard grounding is beneficial. We base our heuristics on the structure of rules and an estimation procedure that incorporates the data of the instance. The experiments conducted on our prototypical implementation demonstrate promising results, which show an improvement on hard-to-ground scenarios, whereas on hard-to-solve instances, we approach state-of-the-art performance.

Computational evaluations are crucial in modern problem-solving when we surpass theoretical algorithms or bounds. These experiments frequently take much work, and the sheer amount of needed resources makes it impossible to execute them on a single personal computer or laptop. Cluster schedulers allow for automatizing these tasks and scale to many computers. But, when we evaluate implementations of combinatorial algorithms, we depend on stable runtime results. Common approaches either limit parallelism or suffer from unstable runtime measurements due to interference among jobs on modern hardware. The former is inefficient and not sustainable. The latter results in unreplicable experiments. In this work, we address this issue and offer an acceptable balance between efficiency, software, hardware complexity, reliability, and replicability. We investigate effects towards replicability stability and illustrate how to efficiently use widely employed cluster resources for parallel evaluations. Furthermore, we present solutions which mitigate issues that emerge from the concurrent execution of benchmark jobs. Our experimental evaluation shows that – despite parallel execution – our approach reduces the runtime instability on the majority of instances to one second.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a generic problem modeling and solving framework with a strong focus on knowledge representation and a rapid growth of industrial applications. So far, the study of complexity resulted in characterizing hardness and determining their sources, fine-grained insights in the form of dichotomy-style results, as well as detailed parameterized complexity landscapes. Unfortunately, for the well-known parameter treewidth disjunctive programs require double-exponential runtime under reasonable complexity assumptions. This quickly becomes out of reach. We deal with the classification of structural parameters for disjunctive ASP on the program's rule structure (incidence graph). First, we provide a polynomial kernel to obtain single-exponential runtime in terms of vertex cover size, despite subset-minimization being not represented in the program’s structure. Then we turn our attention to strictly better structural parameters between vertex cover size and treewidth. Here, we provide double-exponential lower bounds for the most prominent parameters in that range: treedepth, feedback vertex size, and cliquewidth. Based on this, we argue that unfortunately our options beyond vertex cover size are limited. Our results provide an in-depth hardness study, relying on a novel reduction from normal to disjunctive programs, trading the increase of complexity for an exponential parameter compression.

Molecular programmers and nanostructure engineers use domain-level design to abstract away messy DNA/RNA sequence, chemical and geometric details. Such domain-level abstractions are enforced by sequence design principles and provide a key principle that allows scaling up of complex multistranded DNA/RNA programs and structures. Determining the most favoured secondary structure, or Minimum Free Energy (MFE), of a set of strands, is typically studied at the sequence level but has seen limited domain-level work. We analyse the computational complexity of MFE for multistranded systems in a simple setting were we allow only 1 or 2 domains per strand. On the one hand, with 2-domain strands, we find that the MFE decision problem is NP-complete, even without pseudoknots, and requires exponential time algorithms assuming SAT does. On the other hand, in the simplest case of 1-domain strands there are efficient MFE algorithms for various binding modes. However, even in this single-domain case, MFE is P-hard for promiscuous binding, where one domain may bind to multiple as experimentally used by Nikitin [Nat Chem., 2023], which in turn implies that strands consisting of a single domain efficiently implement arbitrary Boolean circuits.

Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that allow AFs to be evaluated. For more expressiveness, AFs are augmented with acceptance conditions on directly interacting arguments or a constraint on the admissible sets of arguments, resulting in dialectic frameworks or constrained argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider flexible conditions for rejecting an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs). On the technical level, we associate each argument with a specific logic program. We analyze the resulting complexity, including the structural parameter treewidth. Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

Maximum model counting$(\text{MAX}\#\exists \text{SAT})$is a recently introduced extension of projected model counting$(\#\exists \text{SAT})$that maximizes over a set of variables$X$the number of assignments over a set$Y$that can be extended to a satisfying assignment over$Z$. It is known that$\text{MAX}\#\exists \text{SAT}$also generalizes weighted$\#\exists \text{SAT}$and MAXSAT if weights are introduced to the problem. However, for the latter a non-trivial gadget is needed. We propose a more generic weighting scheme that evaluates a fitness term and a probability term simultaneously. In this setting,$\text{MAX}\#\exists \text{SAT}$extends weighted MAXSAT and$\#\exists \text{SAT}$without the need of gadgets. As MAXSAT is the canonical problem of cost-optimal reasoning and$\#\exists \text{SAT}$can be seen as canonical problem of probabilistic reasoning,$\text{MAX}\# 3\text{SAT}$with the proposed weighting scheme naturally fills the role as canonical problem for cost-optimal probabilistic reasoning. We study the problem from a complexity-theoretic point of view for unary weights and prove that the decision version is$\mathrm{D}_{2}^{\mathrm{P}}{-}$complete. We then focus on structural parameters and provide an ETH lower bound with respect to the inputs treewidth, as well as a treewidth-aware reduction from$\text{MAX}\#\exists \text{SAT}$to$\text{MAX}\#\exists \text{SAT}$.

Counting solutions is a central task in mathematics and computer science. By counting, we can directly compute the probability of an event, making it fundamental to many application domains. However, often, we are interested in counting solutions only with respect to a “shown part” of the instance while still satisfying the “forgotten (hidden) part” called projected solution counting (PSC). In this paper, we introduce algorithms for PSC and a large variety of knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) formalisms. Our algorithms employ small treewidth of the input instance, which yields polynomial-time solvability in the input size for instances of bounded treewidth. We obtain a generic result that allows lifting many existing given dynamic programming (DP) algorithms from decisions to PSC. Exemplarily, we present PSC for quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs), which is a canonical reasoning problem. Finally, we present computational lower bounds for various KRR formalisms where we cannot expect significant improvement for PSC assuming that the exponential-time hypothesis (ETH) holds.

Answer set programming is a popular declarative paradigm with countless applications for modeling and solving combinatorial problems. We can view a program as a knowledge database compactly representing conditions for solutions. Often we are interested in reasoning about solutions of filtering answer sets. At the heart of these questions is brave and cautious reasoning. For browsing answer sets, we combine both as restricting atoms of answer sets is only meaningful for atoms called facets that belong to some (brave) but not to all answer sets (cautious). Surprisingly, the precise computational complexity of facet problems remained widely open so far. In this paper, we study the complexity of answer set facets. We establish tight results for reasoning with facets, deciding upper and lower bounds as well as the exact number of facets, and comparing facets. Facet reasoning seems to be a natural problem formalism, residing in complexity families Σᴾ, Πᴾ, Dᴾ, and Θᴾ, up to the third level. Moreover, our study considers quantitative importance questions on facets and generalizing from facets to conjunctions, disjunctions, and arbitrary queries. We complete our results by an experimental evaluation.

In the last decade, there has been increasing interest in extensions of answer set programming (ASP) that cater for quantitative information such as weights or probabilities. A wide range of quantitative reasoning tasks for ASP and logic programming, among them probabilistic inference and parameter learning in the neuro-symbolic setting, can be expressed as algebraic answer set counting (AASC) tasks, i.e., weighted model counting for ASP with weights calculated over some semiring, which makes makes efficient solvers for AASC desirable. In this article, we present , a new solver for AASC that pushes the limits of efficient solvability. Notably, provides improved performance compared to the state of the art in probabilistic inference by exploiting three insights gained from thorough theoretical investigations in our work. Namely, we consider the knowledge compilation step in the AASC pipeline, where the underlying logical theory specified by the answer set program is converted into a tractable circuit representation, on which AASC is feasible in polynomial time. First, we provide a detailed comparison of different approaches to knowledge compilation for programs, revealing that translation to propositional formulas followed by compilation to sd-DNNF seems favorable. Second, we study how the translation to propositional formulas should proceed to result in efficient compilation. This leads to the second and third insight, namely a novel way of breaking the positive cyclic dependencies in a program, called TP-Unfolding, and an improvement to the Clark Completion, the procedure used to transform programs without positive cyclic dependencies into propositional formulas. Both improvements are tailored towards efficient knowledge compilation. Our empirical evaluation reveals that while all three advancements contribute to the success of , TP-Unfolding improves performance significantly by allowing us to handle cyclic instances better.

In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics, including credulous reasoning. When asking for projected counts, we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework, while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by the treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions, we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming. Our algorithms run in double or triple exponential time in the treewidth, depending on the semantics under consideration. Finally, we establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for counting extensions and projected extension under the exponential time hypothesis (ETH).

Abstract Answer set programming (ASP) is a popular declarative programming paradigm with various applications. Programs can easily have many answer sets that cannot be enumerated in practice, but counting still allows quantifying solution spaces. If one counts under assumptions on literals, one obtains a tool to comprehend parts of the solution space, so-called answer set navigation. However, navigating through parts of the solution space requires counting many times, which is expensive in theory. Knowledge compilation compiles instances into representations on which counting works in polynomial time. However, these techniques exist only for conjunctive normal form (CNF) formulas, and compiling ASP programs into CNF formulas can introduce an exponential overhead. This paper introduces a technique to iteratively count answer sets under assumptions on knowledge compilations of CNFs that encode supported models. Our anytime technique uses the inclusion–exclusion principle to improve bounds by over- and undercounting systematically. In a preliminary empirical analysis, we demonstrate promising results. After compiling the input (offline phase), our approach quickly (re)counts.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a prominent modeling and solving framework. An inconsistent core (IC) of an ASP program is an inconsistent subset of rules. In the case of inconsistent programs, a smallest or subset-minimal IC contains crucial rules for the inconsistency. In this work, we study fnding minimal ICs of ASP programs and key fragments from a complexity-theoretic perspective. Interestingly, due to ASP’s non-monotonic behavior, also consistent programs admit ICs. It turns out that there is an entire landscape of problems involving ICs with a diverse range of complexities up to the fourth level of the Polynomial Hierarchy. Deciding the existence of an IC is, already for tight programs, on the second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy. Furthermore, we give encodings for IC-related problems on the fragment of tight programs and illustrate feasibility on small instance sets.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a problem modeling and solving framework for several problems in KR with growing industrial applications. Also for studies of computational complexity and deeper insights into the hardness and its sources, ASP has been attracting researchers for many years. These studies resulted in fruitful characterizations in terms of complexity classes, fine-grained insights in form of dichotomy-style results, as well as detailed parameterized complexity landscapes. Recently, this lead to a novel result establishing that for the measure treewidth, which captures structural density of a program, the evaluation of the well-known class of normal programs is expected to be slightly harder than deciding satisfiability (SAT). However, it is unclear how to utilize this structural power of ASP. This paper deals with a novel reduction from SAT to normal ASP that goes beyond well-known encodings: We explicitly utilize the structural power of ASP, whereby we sublinearly decrease the treewidth, which probably cannot be significantly improved. Then, compared to existing results, this characterizes hardness in a fine-grained way by establishing the required functional dependency of the dependency graph’s cycle length (SCC size) on the treewidth.

Answer Set Programming is widely applied research area for knowledge representation and for solving industrial domains. One of the challenges of this formalism focuses on the so-called grounding bottleneck, which addresses the efficient replacement of first-order variables by means of domain values. Recently, there have been several works in this direction, ranging from lazy grounding, hybrid solving, over translational approaches. Inspired by a translation from non-ground normal programs to ground disjunctive programs, we attack the grounding bottleneck from a more general angle. We provide a polynomial reduction for grounding disjunctive programs of bounded domain size by reducing to propositional epistemic logic programs (ELPs). By slightly adapting our reduction, we show new complexity results for non-ground programs that adhere to the measure treewidth. We complement these results by matching lower bounds under the exponential time hypothesis, ruling out significantly better algorithms.

Logic programs are a popular formalism for encoding many problems relevant to knowledge representation and reasoning as well as artificial intelligence. However, for modeling rational behavior it is oftentimes required to represent the concepts of knowledge and possibility. Epistemic logic programs (ELPs) is such an extension that enables both concepts, which correspond to being true in all or some possible worlds or stable models. For these programs, the parameter treewidth has recently regained popularity. We present complexity results for the evaluation of key ELP fragments for treewidth, which are exponentially better than known results for full ELPs. Unfortunately, we prove that obtained runtimes can not be significantly improved, assuming the exponential time hypothesis. Our approach defines treewidth-aware reductions between quantified Boolean formulas and ELPs. We also establish that the completion of a program, as used in modern solvers, can be turned treewidth-aware, thereby linearly preserving treewidth.

Argumentation is a well-established formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning and a vibrant area of research in AI. Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) have been introduced to deploy a conclusion-oriented perspective. CAFs expand argumentation frameworks by an additional step which involves retaining claims for an accepted set of arguments. We introduce a novel concept of a justification status for claims, a quantitative measure of extensions supporting a particular claim. The well-studied problems of credulous and skeptical reasoning can then be seen as simply the two endpoints of the spectrum when considered as a justification level of a claim. Furthermore, we explore the parameterized complexity of various reasoning problems for CAFs, including the quantitative reasoning for claim assertions. We begin by presenting a suitable graph representation that includes arguments and their associated claims. Our analysis includes the parameter treewidth, and we present decomposition-guided reductions between reasoning problems in CAF and the validity problem for QBF.

Answer Set Programming is a widely used paradigm in knowledge representation and reasoning, which strongly relates to the satisfiability (SAT) of propositional formulas. While in the area of SAT the last couple of years brought significant advances and different techniques for solving hard counting-based problems (e.g., #SAT, weighted counting, projected counting) that require more effort than deciding satisfiability, ASP still falls short. Intuitively, one explanation for this lies in the structure of a program, that – compared to SAT – was shown to yield strong evidence for being slightly less useful during solving. Indeed, for the well-known structural measure treewidth that plays an important role in counting-based variants of SAT, ASP is expected to be at least slightly harder than SAT. The underlying source of this hardness increase lies in cyclic dependencies in the positive dependency graph. In this work, we consider which strategies are appropriate to tackle counting-based problems for ASP depending on cycle lengths. To this end, we present different encodings to counting-based variants of SAT that thereby directly utilize recent advances. For small cycle lengths, we demonstrate a novel strategy based on feedback vertex sets. While medium cycle lengths still leave room for future improvements, surprisingly, in case of cycles that are significantly larger than the structural dependencies (treewidth), we can even obtain a polynomial algorithm.

The QSAT problem, which asks to evaluate a quantified Boolean formula (QBF), is of fundamental interest in approximation, counting, decision, and probabilistic complexity and is also considered the prototypical PSPACE-complete problem. As such, it has previously been studied under various structural restrictions (parameters), most notably parameterizations of the primal graph representation of instances. Indeed, it is known that QSAT remains PSPACE-complete even when restricted to instances with constant treewidth of the primal graph, but the problem admits a double-exponential fixed-parameter algorithm parameterized by the vertex cover number (primal graph).However, prior works have left a gap in our understanding of the complexity of QSAT when viewed from the perspective of other natural representations of instances, most notably via incidence graphs. In this paper, we develop structure-aware reductions which allow us to obtain essentially tight lower bounds for highly restricted instances of QSAT, including instances whose incidence graphs have bounded treedepth or feedback vertex number. We complement these lower bounds with novel algorithms for QSAT which establish a nearly-complete picture of the problem's complexity under standard graph-theoretic parameterizations. We also show implications for other natural graph representations, and obtain novel upper as well as lower bounds for QSAT under more fine-grained parameterizations of the primal graph.

Argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a core formalism in the field of formal argumentation. As most standard computational tasks regarding AFs are hard for the first or second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy, a variety of algorithmic approaches to achieve manageable runtimes have been considered in the past. Among them, the backdoor-approach and the treewidth-approach turned out to yield fixed-parameter tractable fragments. However, many applications yield high parameter values for these methods, often rendering them infeasible in practice. We introduce the backdoor-treewidth approach for abstract argumentation, combining the best of both worlds with a guaranteed parameter value that does not exceed the minimum of the backdoor- and treewidth-parameter. In particular, we formally define backdoor-treewidth and establish fixed-parameter tractability for standard reasoning tasks of abstract argumentation. Moreover, we provide systems to find and exploit backdoors of small width, and conduct systematic experiments evaluating the new parameter.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a framework in artificial intelligence and knowledge representation for declarative modeling and problem solving. Modern ASP solvers focus on the computation or enumeration of answer sets. However, a variety of probabilistic applications in reasoning or logic programming require counting answer sets. While counting can be done by enumeration, simple enumeration becomes immediately infeasible if the number of solutions is high. On the other hand, approaches to exact counting are of high worst-case complexity. In fact, in propositional model counting, exact counting becomes impractical. In this work, we present a scalable approach to approximate counting for answer set programming. Our approach is based on systematically adding XOR constraints to ASP programs, which divide the search space. We prove that adding random XOR constraints partitions the answer sets of an ASP program. In practice, we use a Gaussian elimination-based approach by lifting ideas from SAT to ASP and integrating it into a state of the art ASP solver, which we call ApproxASP. Finally, our experimental evaluation shows the scalability of our approach over the existing ASP systems.

Answer-Set Programming (ASP) has seen tremendous progress over the last two decades and is nowadays successfully applied in many real-world domains. However, for certain types of problems, the well-known ASP grounding bottleneck still causes severe problems. This becomes virulent when grounding of rules, where the variables have to be replaced by constants, leads to a ground pro- gram that is too huge to be processed by the ASP solver. In this work, we tackle this problem by a novel method that decouples non-ground atoms in rules in order to delegate the evaluation of rule bodies to the solving process. Our procedure translates a non-ground normal program into a ground disjunctive program that is exponential only in the maximum predicate arity, and thus polynomial if this arity is assumed to be bounded by a constant. We demonstrate the feasibility of this new method experimentally by comparing it to standard ASP technology in terms of grounding size, grounding time and total runtime.

Extending the popular Answer Set Programming (ASP) paradigm by introspective reasoning capacities has received increasing interest within the last years. Particular attention is given to the formalism of epistemic logic programs (ELPs) where standard rules are equipped with modal operators which allow to express conditions on literals for being known or possible, i.e., contained in all or some answer sets, respectively. ELPs thus deliver multiple collections of answer sets, known as world views. Employing ELPs for reasoning problems so far has mainly been restricted to standard deci- sion problems (complexity analysis) and enumeration (development of systems) of world views. In this paper, we first establish quantitative reasoning for ELPs, where the acceptance of a certain set of literals depends on the number (proportion) of world views that are compatible with the set. Second, we present a novel system capable of efficiently solving the underlying counting problems required for quantitative reasoning. Our system exploits the graph-based measure treewidth by iteratively finding (graph) abstractions of ELPs.

Answer set programming is a form of declarative programming widely used to solve difficult search problems. Probabilistic applications however require to go beyond simple search for one solution and need counting. One such application is plausibility reasoning, which provides more fine-grained reasoning mode between simple brave and cautious reasoning. When modeling with ASP, we oftentimes introduce auxiliary atoms in the program. If these atoms are functionally independent of the atoms of interest, we need to hide the auxiliary atoms and project the count to the atoms of interest resulting in the problem projected answer set counting. In practice, counting becomes quickly infeasible with standard systems such as clasp. In this paper, we present a novel hybrid approach for plausibility reasoning under projections, thereby relying on projected answer set counting as basis. Our approach combines existing systems with fast dynamic programming, which in our experiments shows advantages over existing ASP systems.

Although propositional model counting (#SAT) was long considered too hard to be practical, today’s highly efficient solvers facilitate applications in probabilistic reasoning, reliability estimation, quantitative design space exploration, and more. The current trend of solvers growing more capable every year is likely to continue as a diverse range of algorithms are explored in the field. However, to establish model counters as reliable tools like SAT-solvers, correctness is as critical as speed. As in the nature of complex systems, bugs emerge as soon as the tools are widely used. To identify and avoid bugs, explain decisions, and provide trustworthy results, we need verifiable results. We propose a novel system for certifying model counts. We show how proof traces can be generated for exact model counters based on dynamic programming, counting CDCL with component caching, and knowledge compilation to Decision-DNNF, which are the predominant techniques in today’s exact implementations. We provide proof-of-concepts for emitting proofs and a parallel trace checker. Based on this, we show the feasibility of using certified model counting in an empirical experiment.

Abstract Bounded treewidth is one of the most cited combinatorial invariants in the literature. It was also applied for solving several counting problems efficiently. A canonical counting problem is #Sat, which asks to count the satisfying assignments of a Boolean formula. Recent work shows that benchmarking instances for #Sat often have reasonably small treewidth. This paper deals with counting problems for instances of small treewidth. We introduce a general framework to solve counting questions based on state-of-the-art database management systems (DBMSs). Our framework takes explicitly advantage of small treewidth by solving instances using dynamic programming (DP) on tree decompositions (TD). Therefore, we implement the concept of DP into a DBMS (PostgreSQL), since DP algorithms are already often given in terms of table manipulations in theory. This allows for elegant specifications of DP algorithms and the use of SQL to manipulate records and tables, which gives us a natural approach to bring DP algorithms into practice. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first approach to employ a DBMS for algorithms on TDs. A key advantage of our approach is that DBMSs naturally allow for dealing with huge tables with a limited amount of main memory (RAM).

It is well-known that deciding consistency for normal answer set programs (ASP) is NP-complete, thus, as hard as the satisfaction problem for propositional logic (SAT). The exponential time hypothesis (ETH) implies that the best algorithms to solve these problems take exponential time in the worst case. However, accounting for the treewidth, the consistency problem for ASP is slightly harder than SAT: while SAT can be solved by an algorithm that runs in exponential time in the treewidth k, ASP requires exponential time in k · log(k). This extra cost is due to checking that there are no self-supported true atoms due to positive cycles in the program. In this paper, we refine this recent result and show that consistency for ASP can be decided in exponential time in k · log(ι) where ι is a novel measure, bounded by both treewidth k and the size of the largest strongly-connected component of the positive dependency graph of the program. We provide a treewidth-aware reduction from ASP to SAT that adheres to the above limit.

Description logics (DLs) are knowledge representation languages that are used in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). A common technique is to query DL knowledge bases, e.g., by Boolean Datalog queries, and ask for entailment. But real world knowledge-bases are often obtained by combining data from various sources. This, inherently, might result in certain inconsistencies (with respect to a given query) and requires to estimate a degree of inconsistency before using a knowledge-base. In this paper, we provide a complexity analysis of fixed-domain non-entailment (NE) on Datalog programs for well-established families of knowledge bases (KBs). We exhibit a detailed complexity map for the decision cases, counting and projected counting, which may serve as a quantitative measure for inconsistency of a KB with respect to a query. Our results show that NE is natural for the second, third, and fourth level of the polynomial (counting) hierarchy depending on the type of the studied query (stratified, normal, disjunctive) and one level higher for the projected versions. Further, we show fixed-parameter tractability by bounding the treewidth, provide a constructive algorithm, and show its theoretical limitation in terms of conditional lower bounds.

In this paper, we revisit the approach to empirical experiments for combinatorial solvers. We provide a brief survey on tools that can help to make empirical work easier. We illustrate origins of uncertainty in modern hardware and show how strong the influence of certain aspects of modern hardware and its experimental setup can be in an actual experimental evaluation. More specifically, there can be situations where (i) two different researchers run a reasonable-looking experiment comparing the same solvers and come to different conclusions and (ii) one researcher runs the same experiment twice on the same hardware and reaches different conclusions based upon how the hardware is configured and used. We investigate these situations from a hardware perspective. Furthermore, we provide an overview on standard measures, detailed explanations on effects, potential errors, and biased suggestions for useful tools. Alongside the tools, we discuss their feasibility as experiments often run on clusters to which the experimentalist has only limited access. Our work sheds light on a number of benchmarking-related issues which could be considered to be folklore or even myths.

A promising new algebraic approach to weighted model counting makes use of tensor networks, following a reduction from weighted model counting to tensor-network contraction. Prior work has focused on analyzing the single-core performance of this approach, and demonstrated that it is an effective addition to the current portfolio of weighted-model-counting algorithms. In this work, we explore the impact of multi-core and GPU use on tensor-network contraction for weighted model counting. To leverage multiple cores, we implement a parallel portfolio of tree-decomposition solvers to find an order to contract tensors. To leverage a GPU, we use TensorFlow to perform the contractions. We compare the resulting weighted model counter on 1914 standard weighted model counting benchmarks and show that it significantly improves the virtual best solver.

Argumentation is a widely applied framework for modeling and evaluating arguments and its reasoning with various applications. Popular frameworks are abstract argumentation (Dung’s framework) or logic-based argumentation (Besnard-Hunter’s framework). Their computational complexity has been studied quite in-depth. Incorporating treewidth into the complexity analysis is particularly interesting, as solvers oftentimes employ SAT-based solvers, which can solve instances of low treewidth fast. In this paper, we address whether one can design reductions from argumentation problems to SAT-problems while linearly preserving the treewidth, which results in decomposition-guided (DG) reductions. It turns out that the linear treewidth overhead caused by our DG reductions, cannot be significantly improved under reasonable assumptions. Finally, we consider logic-based argumentation and establish new upper bounds using DG reductions and lower bounds.

Probabilistic reasoning, parameter learning, and most probable explanation inference for answer set programming have recently received growing attention. They are only some of the problems that can be formulated as Algebraic Answer Set Counting (AASC) problems. The latter are however hard to solve, and efficient evaluation techniques are needed. Inspired by Vlasser et al.'s Tp-compilation (JAR, 2016), we introduce Tp-unfolding, which employs forward reasoning to break the cycles in the positive dependency graph of a program by unfolding them. Tp-unfolding is defined for any normal answer set program and unfolds programs with respect to unfolding sequences, which are akin to elimination orders in SAT-solving. Using "good" unfolding sequences, we can ensure that the increase of the treewidth of the unfolded program is small. Treewidth is a measure adhering to a program's tree-likeness, which gives performance guarantees for AASC. We give sufficient conditions for the existence of good unfolding sequences based on the novel notion of component-boosted backdoor size, which measures the cyclicity of the positive dependencies in a program. The experimental evaluation of a prototype implementation, the AASC solver aspmc, shows promising results.

Abstract Extending the popular answer set programming paradigm by introspective reasoning capacities has received increasing interest within the last years. Particular attention is given to the formalism of epistemic logic programs (ELPs) where standard rules are equipped with modal operators which allow to express conditions on literals for being known or possible, that is, contained in all or some answer sets, respectively. ELPs thus deliver multiple collections of answer sets, known as world views. Employing ELPs for reasoning problems so far has mainly been restricted to standard decision problems (complexity analysis) and enumeration (development of systems) of world views. In this paper, we take a next step and contribute to epistemic logic programming in two ways: First, we establish quantitative reasoning for ELPs, where the acceptance of a certain set of literals depends on the number (proportion) of world views that are compatible with the set. Second, we present a novel system that is capable of efficiently solving the underlying counting problems required to answer such quantitative reasoning problems. Our system exploits the graph-based measure treewidth and works by iteratively finding and refining (graph) abstractions of an ELP program. On top of these abstractions, we apply dynamic programming that is combined with utilizing existing search-based solvers like (e)clingo for hard combinatorial subproblems that appear during solving. It turns out that our approach is competitive with existing systems that were introduced recently.

Epistemic logic programs (ELPs) are a popular generalization of standard Answer Set Programming (ASP) providing means for reasoning over answer sets within the language. This richer formalism comes at the price of higher computational complexity reaching up to the fourth level of the polynomial hierarchy. However, in contrast to standard ASP, dedicated investigations towards tractability have not been undertaken yet. In this paper, we give first results in this direction and show that central ELP problems can be solved in linear time for ELPs exhibiting structural properties in terms of bounded treewidth. We also provide a full dynamic programming algorithm that adheres to these bounds. Finally, we show that applying treewidth to a novel dependency structure—given in terms of epistemic literals—allows to bound the number of ASP solver calls in typical ELP solving procedures.

The Steiner tree problem is a well-known problem in network design, routing, and VLSI design. Given a graph, edge costs, and a set of dedicated vertices (terminals), the Steiner tree problem asks to output a sub-graph that connects all terminals at minimum cost. A state-of-the-art algorithm to solve the Steiner tree problem by means of dynamic programming is the Dijkstra-Steiner algorithm. The algorithm builds a Steiner tree of the entire instance by systematically searching for smaller instances, based on subsets of the terminals, and combining Steiner trees for these smaller instances. The search heavily relies on a guiding heuristic function in order to prune the search space. However, to ensure correctness, this algorithm allows only for limited heuristic functions, namely, those that satisfy a so-called consistency condition. In this paper, we enhance the Dijkstra-Steiner algorithm and establish a revisited algorithm, called DS*. The DS* algorithm allows for arbitrary lower bounds as heuristics relaxing the previous condition on the heuristic function. Notably, we can now use linear programming based lower bounds. Further, we capture new requirements for a heuristic function in a condition, which we call admissibility. We show that admissibility is indeed weaker than consistency and establish correctness of the DS* algorithm when using an admissible heuristic function. We implement DS* and combine it with modern preprocessing, resulting in an open-source solver (DS*Solve). Finally, we compare its performance on standard benchmarks and observe a competitive behavior.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a paradigm and problem modeling/solving toolkit for KR that is often invoked. There are plenty of results dedicated to studying the hardness of (fragments of) ASP. So far, these studies resulted in characterizations in terms of computational complexity as well as in fine-grained insights presented in form of dichotomy-style results, lower bounds when translating to other formalisms like propositional satisfiability (SAT), and even detailed parameterized complexity landscapes. A quite generic and prominent parameter in parameterized complexity originating from graph theory is the so-called treewidth, which in a sense captures structural density of a program. Recently, there was an increase in the number of treewidth-based solvers related to SAT. While there exist several translations from (normal) ASP to SAT, yet there is no reduction preserving treewidth or at least being aware of the treewidth increase. This paper deals with a novel reduction from normal ASP to SAT that is aware of the treewidth, and guarantees that a slight increase of treewidth is indeed sufficient. Then, we also present a new result establishing that when considering treewidth, already the fragment of normal ASP is slightly harder than SAT (under reasonable assumptions in computational complexity). This also confirms that our reduction probably cannot be significantly improved and that the slight increase of treewidth is unavoidable.

The problem of deciding the validity (QSat) of quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) is a vivid research area in both theory and practice. In the field of parameterized algorithmics, the well-studied graph measure treewidth turned out to be a successful parameter. A well-known result by Chen [9] is that QSat when parameterized by the treewidth of the primal graph and the quantifier rank of the input formula is fixed-parameter tractable. More precisely, the runtime of such an algorithm is polynomial in the formula size and exponential in the treewidth, where the exponential function in the treewidth is a tower, whose height is the quantifier rank. A natural question is whether one can significantly improve these results and decrease the tower while assuming the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH). In the last years, there has been a growing interest in the quest of establishing lower bounds under ETH, showing mostly problem-specific lower bounds up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. Still, an important question is to settle this as general as possible and to cover the whole polynomial hierarchy. In this work, we show lower bounds based on the ETH for arbitrary QBFs parameterized by treewidth and quantifier rank. More formally, we establish lower bounds for QSat and treewidth, namely, that under ETH there cannot be an algorithm that solves QSat of quantifier rank i in runtime significantly better than i-fold exponential in the treewidth and polynomial in the input size. In doing so, we provide a reduction technique to compress treewidth that encodes dynamic programming on arbitrary tree decompositions. Further, we describe a general methodology for a more finegrained analysis of problems parameterized by treewidth that are at higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy. Finally, we illustrate the usefulness of our results by discussing various applications of our results to problems that are located higher on the polynomial hierarchy, in particular, various problems from the literature such as projected model counting problems.

In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics. When asking for projected counts we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions, we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming (DP). Our algorithms run in time double or triple exponential in the treewidth depending on the considered semantics. Finally, we take the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) into account and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for counting extensions and projected extension.

The organizers of the 4th Parameterized Algorithms and Computational Experiments challenge (PACE 2019) report on the 4th iteration of the PACE challenge. This year, the first track featured the MinVertexCover problem, which asks given an undirected graph G=(V,E) to output a set S subseteq V of vertices such that for every edge vw in E at least one endpoint belongs to S. The exact decision version of this problem is one of the most discussed problem if not even the prototypical problem in parameterized complexity theory. Another two tracks were dedicated to computing the hypertree width of a given hypergraph, which is a certain generalization of tree decompositions to hypergraphs that has widely been applied to problems in databases, constraint programming, and artificial intelligence. On one track we asked for submissions that compute hypertree decompositions of minimum width (MinHypertreeWidth) and on the other track we asked to heuristically compute hypertree decompositions of small width quickly (HeurHypertreeWidth). We received 28 implementations from 26 teams. This year we asked participants to submit solver descriptions in order to count as a submission for the challenge. We received those from 16 teams with overall 33 participants from 10 countries. One team submitted successful solutions to all three tracks.

Abstract Answer Set Programming (ASP) solvers are highly-tuned and complex procedures that implicitly solve the consistency problem, i.e., deciding whether a logic program admits an answer set. Verifying whether a claimed answer set is formally a correct answer set of the program can be decided in polynomial time for (normal) programs. However, it is far from immediate to verify whether a program that is claimed to be inconsistent, indeed does not admit any answer sets. In this paper, we address this problem and develop the new proof format ASP-DRUPE for propositional, disjunctive logic programs, including weight and choice rules. ASP-DRUPE is based on the Reverse Unit Propagation (RUP) format designed for Boolean satisfiability. We establish correctness of ASP-DRUPE and discuss how to integrate it into modern ASP solvers. Later, we provide an implementation of ASP-DRUPE into the wasp solver for normal logic programs.

We propose a novel solver that efficiently finds almost the exact number of solutions of a Boolean formula (#Sat) and the weighted model count of a weighted Boolean formula (WMC) if the treewidth of the given formula is sufficiently small. The basis of our approach are dynamic programming algorithms on tree decompositions, which we engineered towards efficient parallel execution on the GPU. We provide thorough experiments and compare the runtime of our system with state-of-the-art #Sat and WMC solvers. Our results are encouraging in the sense that also complex reasoning problems can be tackled by parameterized algorithms executed on the GPU if instances have treewidth at most 30, which is the case for more than half of counting and weighted counting benchmark instances.

Many computational problems in the area of abstract argumentation are intractable. For some semantics like preferred and semi-stable, important decision problems can even be hard for classes of the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. One approach to deal with this inherent difficulty is to exploit structure of argumentation frameworks. In particular, algorithms that run in linear time for argumentation frameworks of bounded treewidth have been proposed for several semantics. In this paper, we contribute to this line of research and propose a novel algorithm for the semi-stable semantics. We also present an implementation of the algorithm and report on some experimental results.

Many problems from the area of AI have been shown tractable for bounded treewidth. In order to put such results into practice, quite involved dynamic programming (DP) algorithms on tree decompositions have to be designed and implemented. These algorithms typically show recurring patterns that call for tasks like subset minimization. In this paper we present a novel approach to obtain such DP algorithms from simpler principles, where the DP formalization of subset minimization is performed automatically. We first give a theoretical account of our novel method, and then present D-FLAT^2, a system that allows one to specify the core DP algorithm via answer set programming (ASP). We illustrate the approach at work by providing several DP algorithms that are more space-efficient than existing solutions, while featuring improved readability, reuse and therefore maintainability of ASP code. Experiments show that our approach also yields a significant improvement in runtime performance.