Domain-specific heuristics are an essential technique for solving combinatorial problems efficiently. Current approaches to integrate domain-specific heuristics with Answer Set Programming (ASP) are unsatisfactory when dealing with heuristics that are specified non-monotonically on the basis of partial assignments. Such heuristics frequently occur in practice, for example, when picking an item that has not yet been placed in bin packing. Therefore, we present novel syntax and semantics for declarative specifications of domain-specific heuristics in ASP. Our approach supports heuristic statements that depend on the partial assignment maintained during solving, which has not been possible before. We provide an implementation in Alpha that makes Alpha the first lazy-grounding ASP system to support declaratively specified domain-specific heuristics. Two practical example domains are used to demonstrate the benefits of our proposal. Additionally, we use our approach to implement informed search with A*, which is tackled within ASP for the first time. A* is applied to two further search problems. The experiments confirm that combining lazy-grounding ASP solving and our novel heuristics can be vital for solving industrial-size problems.

Abstract Generalising and re-using knowledge learned while solving one problem instance has been neglected by state-of-the-art answer set solvers. We suggest a new approach that generalises learned nogoods for re-use to speed-up the solving of future problem instances. Our solution combines well-known ASP solving techniques with deductive logic-based machine learning. Solving performance can be improved by adding learned non-ground constraints to the original program. We demonstrate the effects of our method by means of realistic examples, showing that our approach requires low computational cost to learn constraints that yield significant performance benefits in our test cases. These benefits can be seen with ground-and-solve systems as well as lazy-grounding systems. However, ground-and-solve systems suffer from additional grounding overheads, induced by the additional constraints in some cases. By means of conflict minimization, non-minimal learned constraints can be reduced. This can result in significant reductions of grounding and solving efforts, as our experiments show.

Abstract Answer-Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful and expressive knowledge representation paradigm with a significant number of applications in logic-based AI. The traditional ground-and-solve approach, however, requires ASP programs to be grounded upfront and thus suffers from the so-called grounding bottleneck (i.e., ASP programs easily exhaust all available memory and thus become unsolvable). As a remedy, lazy-grounding ASP solvers have been developed, but many state-of-the-art techniques for grounded ASP solving have not been available to them yet. In this work we present, for the first time, adaptions to the lazy-grounding setting for many important techniques, like restarts, phase saving, domain-independent heuristics, and learned-clause deletion. Furthermore, we investigate their effects and in general observe a large improvement in solving capabilities and also uncover negative effects in certain cases, indicating the need for portfolio solving as known from other solvers.

Answer-Set Programming (ASP) is an expressive rule-based knowledge-representation formalism. Lazy grounding is a solving technique that avoids the well-known grounding bottleneck of traditional ASP evaluation but is restricted to normal rules, severely limiting its expressive power. In this work, we introduce a framework to handle aggregates by normalizing them on demand during lazy grounding, hence relieving the restrictions of lazy grounding significantly. We term our approach as lazy normalization and demonstrate its feasibility for different types of aggregates. Asymptotic behavior is analyzed and correctness of the presented lazy normalizations is shown. Benchmark results indicate that lazy normalization can bring up-to exponential gains in space and time as well as enable ASP to be used in new application areas.

Answer set programming (ASP) is an established knowledge representation formalism. Lazy grounding avoids the so-called grounding bottleneck of ASP by interleaving grounding and solving; this technique was recently extended to work with conflict-driven clause learning. Unfortunately, it often happens that such a lazy grounding ASP system, at the fixpoint of the evaluation, arrives at an assignment that contains literals that are true but unjustified. The system then is unable to determine the actual causes of the situation and falls back to chronological backtracking, potentially wasting an exponential amount of time. In this paper, we show how top-down query mechanisms can be used to analyze the situation, learn a new clause or nogood, and backjump further in the search tree. Contributions include a rephrasing of lazy grounding in terms of justifications and algorithms to construct relevant justifications without grounding. Initial experiments indicate that the newly developed techniques indeed allow for an exponential speed-up.

Establishing information exchange between existing knowledge-based systems can lead to devastating inconsistency. Automatic resolution of inconsistency often is unsatisfactory, because any modification of the information flow may lead to bad or even dangerous conclusions. Methods to identify and select preferred repairs of inconsistency are thus needed. In this work, we leverage the expressive power and generality of Multi-Context Systems (MCS), a formalism for information exchange, to select most preferred repairs, by use of a meta-reasoning transformation. As for computational complexity, finding preferred repairs is not higher than the base case; finding most-preferred repairs is higher, yet worst-case optimal.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a well-known declarative problem solving approach based on nonmonotonic logic programs, which has been successfully applied to a wide range of applications in artificial intelligence and beyond. To address the needs of modern applications, HEX-programs were introduced as an extension of ASP with external atoms for accessing information outside programs via an API style bi-directional interface mechanism. To evaluate such programs, conflict-driving learning algorithms for SAT and ASP solving have been extended in order to capture the semantics of external atoms. However, a drawback of the state-of-the-art approach is that external atoms are only evaluated under complete assignments (i.e., input to the external source) while in practice, their values often can be determined already based on partial assignments alone (i.e., from incomplete input to the external source). This prevents early backtracking in case of conflicts, and hinders more efficient evaluation of HEX-programs. We thus extend the notion of external atoms to allow for three-valued evaluation under partial assignments, while the two-valued semantics of the overall HEX-formalism remains unchanged. This paves the way for three enhancements: first, to evaluate external sources at any point during model search, which can trigger learning knowledge about the source behavior and/or early backtracking in the spirit of theory propagation in SAT modulo theories (SMT). Second, to optimize the knowledge learned in terms of so-called nogoods, which roughly speaking are impossible input-output configurations. Shrinking nogoods to their relevant input part leads to more effective search space pruning. And third, to make a necessary minimality check of candidate answer sets more efficient by exploiting early external evaluation calls. As this check usually accounts for a large share of the total runtime, optimization is here particularly important. We further present an experimental evaluation of an implementation of a novel HEX-algorithm that incorporates these enhancements using a benchmark suite. Our results demonstrate a clear efficiency gain over the state-of-the-art HEX-solver for the benchmarks, and provide insights regarding the most effective combinations of solver configurations.

HEX-programs enrich the well-known Answer Set Programming (ASP) paradigm. In HEX, problems are solved using nonmonotonic logic programs with bidirectional access to external sources. ASP evaluation is traditionally based on grounding the input program first, but recent advances in lazy-grounding make the latter also interesting for HEX, as the grounding bottleneck of ASP may be avoided. We explore this issue and present a new evaluation algorithm for HEX-programs based on lazy-grounding solving for ASP. Nonmonotonic dependencies and value invention (i.e., import of new constants) from external sources make an efficient solution nontrivial. However, illustrative benchmarks show a clear advantage of the new algorithm for grounding-intense programs, which is a new perspective to make HEX more suitable for real-world application needs.

Multi-Context Systems (MCS) are a powerful framework for interlinking possibly heterogeneous, autonomous knowledge bases, where information can be exchanged among knowledge bases by designated bridge rules with negation as failure. An acknowledged issue with MCS is inconsistency that arises due to the information exchange. To remedy this problem, inconsistency removal has been proposed in terms of repairs, which modify bridge rules based on suitable notions for diagnosis of inconsistency. In general, multiple diagnoses and repairs do exist; this leaves the user, who arguably may oversee the inconsistency removal, with the task of selecting some repair among all possible ones. To aid in this regard, we extend the MCS framework with preference information for diagnoses, such that undesired diagnoses are filtered out and diagnoses that are most preferred according to a preference ordering are selected. We consider preference information at a generic level and develop meta-reasoning techniques on diagnoses in MCS that can be exploited to reduce preference-based selection of diagnoses to computing ordinary subset-minimal diagnoses in an extended MCS. We describe two meta-reasoning encodings for preference orders: the first is conceptually simple but may incur an exponential blowup. The second is increasing only linearly in size and based on duplicating the original MCS. The latter requires nondeterministic guessing if a subset-minimal among all most preferred diagnoses should be computed. However, a complexity analysis of diagnoses shows that this is worst-case optimal, and that in general, preferred diagnoses have the same complexity as subset-minimal ordinary diagnoses. Furthermore, (subset-minimal) filtered diagnoses and (subset-minimal) ordinary diagnoses also have the same complexity.