Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multiparametric view on answer set programming

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Disjunctive answer set programming (ASP) is an important framework for declarative modeling and problem solving, where the computational complexity of basic decision problems like consistency (deciding whether a program has an answer set) is located on the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. During the last decades different approaches have been applied to find tractable fragments of programs, in particular, also using parameterized complexity. However, the full potential of parameterized complexity has not been unlocked since only one or very few parameters have been considered at once. In this paper, we consider several natural parameters for the consistency problem of disjunctive ASP. In addition, we also take the sizes of the answer sets into account; a restriction that is particularly interesting for applications requiring small solutions as encoding subset minimization problems in ASP can be done directly due to inherent minimization in its semantics. Previous work on parameterizing the consistency problem by the size of answer sets yielded mostly negative results. In contrast, we start from recent findings for the problem WMMSAT and show several novel fixed-parameter tractability (fpt) results based on combinations of parameters. Moreover, we establish a variety of hardness results (paraNP, W[2], and W[1]-hardness) to assess tightness of our parameter combinations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arora, S., Barak, B.: Computational Complexity: a Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bliem, B., Moldovan, M., Morak, M., Woltran, S.: The impact of treewidth on ASP grounding and solving. In: Sierra, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17). pp. 852–858. The AAAI Press (2017)

  3. Bliem, B., Ordyniak, S., Woltran, S.: Clique-width and directed width measures for answer-set programming. In: Fox, M., Kaminka, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 22st Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’16). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 285, pp 1105–1113. IOS Press, The Hague (2016). extended version arXiv:1606.09449

  4. Bodlaender, H.L., Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R., Hallett, M.T., Wareham, H.T.: Parameterized complexity analysis in computational biology. Bioinformatics 11 (1), 49–57 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bodlaender, H.L., Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R., Wareham, H.T.: The parameterized complexity of sequence alignment and consensus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 147(1&2), 31–54 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Bomanson, J., Gebser, M., Janhunen, T.: Improving the normalization of weight rules in answer set programs. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’14), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8761, pp 166–180. Springer, Funchal (2014)

  7. Bomanson, J., Janhunen, T.: Normalizing cardinality rules using merging and sorting constructions. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’13). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8148, pp 187–199. Springer, Corunna (2013)

  8. Courcelle, B.: Graph rewriting: an algebraic and logic approach. In: van Leeuwen, J (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol.B, Vol. Formal Models and Semantics, pp 193–242. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland (1990)

  9. Creignou, N., Meier, A., Müller, J.S., Schmidt, J., Vollmer, H.: Paradigms for parameterized enumeration. Theor. Comput. Sci. 60(4), 737–758 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Cygan, M., Fomin, F.V., Kowalik, L., Lokshtanov, D., Dániel Marx, M.P., Pilipczuk, M., Saurabh, S.: Parameterized Algorithms. Springer, Berlin (2015)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Dowling, W.F., Gallier, J.H.: Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae. J. Log. Program. 1(3), 267–284 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Parameterized Complexity. Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, New York (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Fundamentals of Parameterized Complexity. Texts in Computer Science. Springer, London (2013)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. J. on Satisfiability Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(1-4), 1–26 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 15(3–4), 289–323 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Eiter, T., Polleres, A.: Towards automated integration of guess and check programs in answer set programming: a meta-interpreter and applications. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 6(1-2), 23–60 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Fichte, J.K.: The good, the bad, and the odd: Cycles in answer-set programs. In: Lassiter, D., Slavkovik, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI’11) and in New Directions in Logic, Language and Computation (ESSLLI’10 and ESSLLI’11 Student Sessions, Selected Papers Series), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7415, pp 78–90. Springer, Berlin (2012)

  18. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M.: Exploiting treewidth for counting projected answer sets. In: Lierler, Y., Woltran, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’19). Philadelphia, . to appear (2019)

  19. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Meier, A.: Counting complexity for reasoning in abstract argumentation. In: Hentenryck, P.V., Zhou, Z. (eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’19). The AAAI Press, Honolulu (2019)

  20. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Morak, M., Woltran, S.: Answer set solving with bounded treewidth revisited. In: Balduccini, M., Janhunen, T (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’17). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10377, pp 132–145. Springer, Espoo (2017)

  21. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Morak, M., Woltran, S.: dynASP2.5: Dynamic programming on tree decompositions in action. In: Lokshtanov, D., Nishimura, N (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IPEC’17). pp. 17:1–17:12. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Dagstuhl Publishing (2017)

  22. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Morak, M., Woltran, S.: Exploiting treewidth for projected model counting and its limits. In: Beyersdorff, O., Wintersteiger, C. (eds.) Proceedings on the 21th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’18). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10929, pp 165–184. Springer, Oxford (2018)

  23. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Schindler, I.: Default logic and bounded Treewidth. In: Klein, S.T., Martín-Vide, C., Shapira, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA’18). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10792, pp 130–142. Springer, Ramat Gan (2018)

  24. Fichte, J.K., Meier, A., Schindler, I.: Strong backdoors for default logic. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th International Conference Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’16), pp 45–59. Springer, Bordeaux (Jul 2016)

  25. Fichte, J.K., Szeider, S.: Backdoors to normality for disjunctive logic programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 17(1), 7 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Fichte, J.K., Szeider, S.: Backdoors to tractable answer-set programming. Artif. Intell. 220(0), 64–103 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Fichte, J.K., Szeider, S.: Backdoor trees for answer set programming. In: Bogaerts, B., Harrison, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms co-located with the 14th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (ASPOCP@LPNMR’17), vol. 1868, pp 9:1–14. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org), Espoo (Jul 2017)

  28. Fichte, J.K., Truszczyński, M., Woltran, S.: Dual-normal programs – the forgotten class. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. In: proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’15), pp. 495–510 (2015)

  29. Flum, J., Grohe, M.: Describing parameterized complexity classes. Inf. Comput. 187(2), 291–319 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Flum, J., Grohe, M.: Parameterized Complexity Theory Theoretical Computer Science, vol. XIV. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer set solving in practice. Morgan & Claypool (2012)

  32. Gebser, M., Schaub, T.: Tableau calculi for logic programs under answer set semantics. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 14(2), 15 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Gebser, M., Schaub, T., Thiele, S., Veber, P.: Detecting inconsistencies in large biological networks with answer set programming. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 11(2-3), 323—360 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski, R.A., Bowen, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICLP/SLP’88), vol. 2, pp 1070–1080. MIT Press, Seattle (1988)

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Gottlob, G., Pichler, R., Wei, F.: Bounded treewidth as a key to tractability of knowledge representation and reasoning. Artif. Intell. 174(1), 105–132 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Gottlob, G., Scarcello, F., Sideri, M.: Fixed-parameter complexity in AI and nonmonotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 138(1-2), 55–86 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Gottlob, G., Szeider, S.: Fixed-parameter algorithms for artificial intelligence, constraint satisfaction and database problems. Comput. J. 51(3), 303–325 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jakl, M., Pichler, R., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming with bounded treewidth. In: Boutilier, C (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’09), vol. 2, pp 816–822. The AAAI Press, Pasadena (2009)

  40. Janhunen, T.: On the effect of default negation on the expressiveness of disjunctive rules. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’01). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2173, pp 93–106. Springer, Vienna (2001)

  41. Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I.: Compact translations of non-disjunctive answer set programs to propositional clauses. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning – Essays Dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the Occasion of His 65Th Birthday, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6565, pp 111–130. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  42. Janota, M., Marques-Silva, J.: On deciding mus membership with QBF. In: Lee, J (ed.) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’11). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6876, pp 414–428. Springer, Perugia (2011)

  43. Kronegger, M., Ordyniak, S., Pfandler, A.: Backdoors to planning. In: Brodley, C.E., Stone, P (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’14), pp 2300–2307. The AAAI Press, Québec City (2014)

  44. Kronegger, M., Ordyniak, S., Pfandler, A.: Variable-deletion backdoors to planning. In: Bonet, B., Koenig, S (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15), pp 3305–3312. The AAAI Press, Austin (2015)

  45. Kronegger, M., Pfandler, A., Pichler, R.: Parameterized complexity of optimal planning: A detailed map. In: Rossi, F., Thrun, S (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’13), pp 954–961. The AAAI Press, Beijing (2013)

  46. Lackner, M., Pfandler, A.: Fixed-parameter algorithms for finding minimal models. In: Eiter, T., McIlraith, S (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’12), pp 85–95. The AAAI Press, Rome (2012)

  47. Lanctot, J.K., Li, M., Ma, B., Wang, S., Zhang, L.: Distinguishing string selection problems. Inf. Comput. 185(1), 41–55 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Lifschitz, V.: Thirteen definitions of a stable model. In: Blass, A., Dershowitz, N., Reisig, W. (eds.) Fields of Logic and Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6300, pp 488–503. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  49. Lonc, Z., Truszczyński, M.: Fixed-parameter complexity of semantics for logic programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 4(1), 91–119 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable Models and an Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm. In: Apt, K.R., Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M., Warren, D. (eds.) The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp 375–398. Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin (1999)

  51. Marx, D., Pilipczuk, M.: Everything you always wanted to know about the parameterized complexity of Subgraph Isomorphism (but were afraid to ask). In: Mayr, E. W., Portier, N (eds.) Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’14). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 25, pp 542–553. Dagstuhl Publishing, Lyon (2014)

  52. Meier, A., Schindler, I., Schmidt, J., Thomas, M., Vollmer, H.: On the parameterized complexity of non-monotonic logics. Arch. Math. Log. 54(5-6), 685–710 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)

  54. Pearce, D.: A new logical characterisation of stable models and answer sets. In: Dix, J., Pereira, L.M., Przymusinski, T.C. (eds.) Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming, pp 57–70. Springer, Berlin (1997)

  55. Peschiera, C., Pulina, L., Tacchella, A., Bubeck, U., Kullmann, O., Lynce, I.: The seventh QBF solvers evaluation (QBFEVAL’10). In: Strichman, O., Szeider, S (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’10). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6175, pp 237–250. Springer, Edinburgh (2010)

  56. Pichler, R., Rümmele, S., Szeider, S., Woltran, S.: Tractable answer-set programming with weight constraints: bounded treewidth is not enough. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 14(2), 141–164 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Schaefer, T.J.: The complexity of satisfiability problems. In: Lipton, R.J., Burkhard, W.A., Savitch, W.J., Friedman, E.P., Aho, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’78), pp 216–226. New York, Assoc. Comput. Mach. (1978)

  58. Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artif. Intell. 138(1-2), 181–234 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Syrjänen, T.: Lparse 1.0 user’s manual. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/smodels/lparse.ps/ (2002)

  60. Truszczyński, M.: Trichotomy and dichotomy results on the complexity of reasoning with disjunctive logic programs. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 11, 881–904 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Tu, P.H., Son, T.C., Gelfond, M., Morales, A.R.: Approximation of action theories and its application to conformant planning. Artif. Intell. 175(1), 79–119 (2011). John McCarthy’s Legacy

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Johannes K. Fichte

  2. Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria

    Martin Kronegger

  3. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Martin Kronegger & Stefan Woltran

Authors
  1. Johannes K. Fichte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Kronegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Woltran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes K. Fichte.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The work has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Grant Y698 and S11408-N23. Main work was carried out while the first two authors were PostDocs at TU Wien and the first author was also affiliated with the Institute of Computer Science and Computational Science at University of Potsdam, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fichte, J.K., Kronegger, M. & Woltran, S. A multiparametric view on answer set programming. Ann Math Artif Intell 86, 121–147 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09633-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09633-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation