PreprintCited by 230Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation

Clingo = ASP + Control: Preliminary Report

Open access
Gebser, Martin, Kaminski, Roland, Kaufmann, Benjamin, Schaub, Torsten·2014·arXiv

Abstract

We present the new ASP system clingo 4. Unlike its predecessors, being mere monolithic combinations of the grounder gringo with the solver clasp, the new clingo 4 series offers high-level constructs for realizing complex reasoning processes. Among others, such processes feature advanced forms of search, as in optimization or theory solving, or even interact 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. In fact, clingo 4 carries out such complex reasoning within a single integrated ASP grounding and solving process. This avoids redundancies in relaunching grounder and solver programs and benefits from the solver's learning capacities. clingo 4 accomplishes this by complementing ASP's declarative input language by control capacities expressed via the embedded scripting languages lua and python. On the declarative side, clingo 4 offers a new directive that 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, viz. the scripting languages. By strictly separating logic and control programs, clingo 4 also abolishes the need for dedicated systems for incremental and reactive reasoning, like iclingo and oclingo, respectively, and its flexibility goes well beyond the advanced yet still rigid solving processes of the latter.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1405.3694

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most ASP solvers only work on ground programs.

    “Moreover, since most ASP solvers only work on ground programs (Gebser et al., 2014), pure ASPbased approaches are inherently restricted to tasks that have a small and finite grounding.”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Gebser et al., 2014

  • ASP systems such as Clingo first take a first-order program as input, ground it using an ASP grounder, and then use an ASP solver to determine whether the ground problem is satisfiable.

    “ASP systems (which combine a grounder and a solver), such as Clingo (Gebser et al., 2014), first take a first-order program as input, ground it using an ASP grounder, and then use an ASP solver to determine whether the ground problem is satisfiable.”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Gebser et al., 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. ANDRES, B., KAUFMANN, B., MATHEIS, O., AND SCHAUB, T. 2012. Unsatisfiability-based optimization in clasp. In Technical Communications of the Twenty-eighth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'12) , A. Dovier and V. Santos Costa, Eds. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, vol. 17. Dagstuhl Publishing, 212-221.
  2. BARAL, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving . Cambridge University Press.
  3. DE CAT, B., BOGAERTS, B., BRUYNOOGHE, M., AND DENECKER, M. 2014. Predicate logic as a modelling language: The IDP system. CoRR abs/1401.6312 . Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6312v1 . · arXiv
  4. DE MOURA, L. AND BJØRNER, N. 2008. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS'08) , C. Ramakrishnan and J. Rehof, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4963. Springer-Verlag, 337-340.
  5. DE POOTER, S., WITTOCX, J., AND DENECKER, M. 2013. A prototype of a knowledge-based programming environment. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP'11) and the Twenty-fifth Workshop on Logic Programming (WLP'11) , H. Tompits, S. Abreu, J. Oetsch, J. P¨ uhrer, D. Seipel, M. Um eda, and A. Wolf, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7773. Springer-Verlag, 279-286.
  6. DELGRANDE, J. AND FABER, W., Eds. 2011. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'11) . Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6645. Springer-Verlag.
  7. E´ EN, N. AND S ¨ ORENSSON, N. 2004. An extensible SAT-solver. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT'03) , E. Giunchiglia and A. Tacchella, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2919. Springer-Verlag, 502-518.
  8. FEBBRARO, O., LEONE, N., GRASSO, G., AND RICCA, F. 2012. JASP: A framework for integrating answer set programming with Java. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'12) , G. Brewka, T. Eiter, and S. McIlraith, Eds. AAAI Press, 541-551.
  9. FINK, M., GERMANO, S., IANNI, G., REDL, C., AND SCH ¨ ULLER, P. 2013. ActHEX: Implementing HEX programs with action atoms. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Logic
  10. GEBSER, M., KAMINSKI, R., KAUFMANN, B., OSTROWSKI, M., SCHAUB, T., AND THIELE, S. 2008. Engineering an incremental ASP solver. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'08) , M. Garcia de la Banda and E. Pontelli, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366. Springer-Verlag, 190-205.
  11. GEBSER, M., KAUFMANN, B., OTERO, R., ROMERO, J., SCHAUB, T., AND WANKO, P. 2013a. Domainspecific heuristics in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'13) , M. desJardins and M. Littman, Eds. AAAI Press, 350-356.
  12. GEBSER, M., KAUFMANN, B., AND SCHAUB, T. 2013b. Advanced conflict-driven disjunctive answer set solving. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'13) , F. Rossi, Ed. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 912-918.
  13. LEONE, N., PFEIFER, G., FABER, W., EITER, T., GOTTLOB, G., PERRI, S., AND SCARCELLO, F. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 3, 499-562.
  14. NIEUWENHUIS, R., OLIVERAS, A., AND TINELLI, C. 2006. Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: From an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM 53, 6, 937-977.
  15. OIKARINEN, E. AND JANHUNEN, T. 2006. Modular equivalence for normal logic programs. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'06) , G. Brewka, S. Coradeschi, A. Perini, and P. Traverso, Eds. IOS Press, 412-416.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., & Schaub, T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2014
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1493657719
Cited by
230
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica "Francesco Severi"
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HO 1294/11-1)
  • Austrian Science Fund (P26696)
  • Universität Potsdam
  • Università degli Studi di Udine
  • Gruppo Nazionale per il Calcolo Scientifico
  • Erasmus+ (KA107)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Keywords
answer set programming, clingo, grounding, ASP solvers, language extension, intermediate representation, generic interface

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review