Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Evaluating Tree-Decomposition Based Algorithms for Answer Set Programming

  • Conference paper
Learning and Intelligent Optimization (LION 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 7219))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A promising approach to tackle intractable problems is given by a combination of decomposition methods with dynamic algorithms. One such decomposition concept is tree decomposition. However, several heuristics for obtaining a tree decomposition exist and, moreover, also the subsequent dynamic algorithm can be laid out differently. In this paper, we provide an experimental evaluation of this combined approach when applied to reasoning problems in propositional answer set programming. More specifically, we analyze the performance of three different heuristics and two different dynamic algorithms, an existing standard version and a recently proposed algorithm based on a more involved data structure, but which provides better theoretical runtime. The results suggest that a suitable combination of the tree decomposition heuristics and the dynamic algorithm has to be chosen carefully. In particular, we observed that the performance of the dynamic algorithm highly depends on certain features (besides treewidth) of the provided tree decomposition. Based on this observation we apply supervised machine learning techniques to automatically select the dynamic algorithm depending on the features of the input tree decomposition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aha, D.W., Kibler, D.F., Albert, M.K.: Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning 6, 37–66 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnborg, S., Corneil, D.G., Proskurowski, A.: Complexity of finding embeddings in a k-tree. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth. 8, 277–284 (1987)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bachoore, E.H., Bodlaender, H.L.: A Branch and Bound Algorithm for Exact, Upper, and Lower Bounds on Treewidth. In: Cheng, S.-W., Poon, C.K. (eds.) AAIM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4041, pp. 255–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Balduccini, M.: Learning and using domain-specific heuristics in ASP solvers. AI Commun. 24(2), 147–164 (2011)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Ben-Eliyahu, R., Dechter, R.: Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 12, 53–87 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bodlaender, H.L.: A tourist guide through treewidth. Acta Cybern. 11(1-2), 1–22 (1993)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bodlaender, H.L., Koster, A.M.C.A.: Treewidth computations I. Upper Bounds. Inf. Comput. 208(3), 259–275 (2010)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dermaku, A., Ganzow, T., Gottlob, G., McMahan, B., Musliu, N., Samer, M.: Heuristic Methods for Hypertree Decomposition. In: Gelbukh, A., Morales, E.F. (eds.) MICAI 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5317, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.T., Ziller, S.: A Portfolio Solver for Answer Set Programming: Preliminary Report. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 352–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Comput. 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gogate, V., Dechter, R.: A complete anytime algorithm for treewidth. In: Proc. UAI 2004, pp. 201–208. AUAI Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gottlob, G., Pichler, R., Wei, F.: Bounded treewidth as a key to tractability of knowledge representation and reasoning. In: Proc. AAAI 2006, pp. 250–256. AAAI Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explorations 11(1), 10–18 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hall, M.A., Smith, L.A.: Practical feature subset selection for machine learning. In: Proc. ACSC 1998, pp. 181–191. Springer (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jakl, M., Pichler, R., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming with bounded treewidth. In: Proc. IJCAI 2009, pp. 816–822. AAAI Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kloks, T.: Treewidth, computations and approximations. LNCS, vol. 842. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Koster, A., van Hoesel, S., Kolen, A.: Solving partial constraint satisfaction problems with tree-decomposition. Networks 40(3), 170–180 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Lauritzen, S., Spiegelhalter, D.: Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 50, 157–224 (1988)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(3), 499–562 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable Models and an Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm – A 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morak, M., Musliu, N., Pichler, R., Rümmele, S., Woltran, S.: A new tree-decomposition based algorithm for answer set programming. In: Proc. ICTAI, pp. 916–918 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Morak, M., Pichler, R., Rümmele, S., Woltran, S.: A Dynamic-Programming Based ASP-Solver. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 369–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Niemelä, I.: Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25(3-4), 241–273 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Quinlan, R.J.: Learning with continuous classes. In: 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Singapore, pp. 343–348 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Robertson, N., Seymour, P.D.: Graph minors II: Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. Journal Algorithms 7, 309–322 (1986)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Samer, M., Szeider, S.: Algorithms for propositional model counting. J. Discrete Algorithms 8(1), 50–64 (2010)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Shoikhet, K., Geiger, D.: A practical algorithm for finding optimal triangulations. In: Proc. AAAI 1997, pp. 185–190. AAAI Press/The MIT Press (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith-Miles, K.: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on meta-learning for algorithm selection. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(1) (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tarjan, R., Yannakakis, M.: Simple linear-time algorithm to test chordality of graphs, test acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs. SIAM J. Comput. 13, 566–579 (1984)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang, Y., Witten, I.H.: Induction of model trees for predicting continuous classes. In: Poster Papers of the 9th European Conference on Machine Learning (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zhao, Y., Lin, F.: Answer Set Programming Phase Transition: A Study on Randomly Generated Programs. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) ICLP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2916, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information Systems, Vienna University of Technology, Austria

    Michael Morak, Nysret Musliu, Reinhard Pichler, Stefan Rümmele & Stefan Woltran

Authors
  1. Michael Morak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nysret Musliu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reinhard Pichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Rümmele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefan Woltran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Microsoft Research Center, CB3 0FB, Cambridge, UK

    Youssef Hamadi

  2. INRIA Saclay, Université Paris Sud, 91405, Orsay Cedex, France

    Marc Schoenauer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Morak, M., Musliu, N., Pichler, R., Rümmele, S., Woltran, S. (2012). Evaluating Tree-Decomposition Based Algorithms for Answer Set Programming. In: Hamadi, Y., Schoenauer, M. (eds) Learning and Intelligent Optimization. LION 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7219. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34413-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34413-8_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34412-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34413-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics