Quantitative extensions of logic programming often require the solution of so called second level inference tasks, that is, problems that involve a third operation, such as maximization or normalization, on top of addition and multiplication, and thus go beyond the well-known weighted or algebraic model counting setting of probabilistic logic programming under the distribution semantics. We introduce Second Level Algebraic Model Counting (2AMC) as a generic framework for these kinds of problems. As 2AMC is to (algebraic) model counting what forall-exists-SAT is to propositional satisfiability, it is notoriously hard to solve. First level techniques based on Knowledge Compilation (KC) have been adapted for specific 2AMC instances by imposing variable order constraints on the resulting circuit. However, those constraints can severely increase the circuit size and thus decrease the efficiency of such approaches. We show that we can exploit the logical structure of a 2AMC problem to omit parts of these constraints, thus limiting the negative effect. Furthermore, we introduce and implement a strategy to generate a sufficient set of constraints statically, with a priori guarantees for the performance of KC. Our empirical evaluation on several benchmarks and tasks confirms that our theoretical results can translate into more efficient solving in practice.

Aggregates provide a concise way to express complex knowledge. The problem of selecting an appropriate formalization of aggregates for answer set programming (ASP) remains unsettled. This paper revisits it from the viewpoint of Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT). We introduce an AFT formalization equivalent with the Gelfond–Lifschitz reduct for basic ASP programs and we extend it to handle aggregates. We analyze how existing approaches relate to our framework. We hope this work sheds some new light on the issue of a proper formalization of aggregates.

Logic programming is a flexible programming paradigm due to the use of predicates without a fixed data flow. To extend logic languages with the compact notation of functional programming, there are various proposals to map evaluable functions into predicates in order to stay in the logic programming framework. Since amalgamated functional logic languages offer flexible as well as efficient evaluation strategies, we propose an opposite approach in this paper. By mapping logic programs into functional logic programs with a transformation based on inferring functional dependencies, we develop a fully automatic transformation which keeps the flexibility of logic programming but can improve computations by reducing infinite search spaces to finite ones.

We address the problem of verifying that the functions of a program meet their contracts, specified by pre/postconditions. We follow an approach based on constrained Horn clauses (CHCs) by which the verification problem is reduced to the problem of checking satisfiability of a set of clauses derived from the given program and contracts. We consider programs that manipulate algebraic data types (ADTs) and a class of contracts specified by catamorphisms, that is, functions defined by simple recursion schemata on the given ADTs. We show by several examples that state-of-the-art CHC satisfiability tools are not effective at solving the satisfiability problems obtained by direct translation of the contracts into CHCs. To overcome this difficulty, we propose a transformation technique that removes the ADT terms from CHCs and derives new sets of clauses that work on basic sorts only, such as integers and booleans. Thus, when using the derived CHCs there is no need for induction rules on ADTs. We prove that the transformation is sound, that is, if the derived set of CHCs is satisfiable, then so is the original set. We also prove that the transformation always terminates for the class of contracts specified by catamorphisms. Finally, we present the experimental results obtained by an implementation of our technique when verifying many non-trivial contracts for ADT manipulating programs.

In answer set programming, two groups of rules are considered strongly equivalent if they have the same meaning in any context. In some cases, strong equivalence of programs in the input language of the grounder gringo can be established by deriving rules of each program from rules of the other. The possibility of such proofs has been demonstrated for a subset of that language that includes comparisons, arithmetic operations, and simple choice rules, but not aggregates. This method is extended here to a class of programs in which some uses of the #count aggregate are allowed.

Weighted knowledge bases for description logics with typicality have been recently considered under a “concept-wise” multipreference semantics (in both the two-valued and fuzzy case), as the basis of a logical semantics of multilayer perceptrons (MLPs). In this paper we consider weighted conditional $\mathcal{ALC}$ knowledge bases with typicality in the finitely many-valued case, through three different semantic constructions. For the boolean fragment $\mathcal{LC}$ of $\mathcal{ALC}$ we exploit answer set programming and asprin for reasoning with the concept-wise multipreference entailment under a $\varphi$ -coherent semantics, suitable to characterize the stationary states of MLPs. As a proof of concept, we experiment the proposed approach for checking properties of trained MLPs.

Many industrial applications require finding solutions to challenging combinatorial problems. Efficient elimination of symmetric solution candidates is one of the key enablers for high-performance solving. However, existing model-based approaches for symmetry breaking are limited to problems for which a set of representative and easily solvable instances is available, which is often not the case in practical applications. This work extends the learning framework and implementation of a model-based approach for Answer Set Programming to overcome these limitations and address challenging problems, such as the Partner Units Problem. In particular, we incorporate a new conflict analysis algorithm in the Inductive Logic Programming system ILASP, redefine the learning task, and suggest a new example generation method to scale up the approach. The experiments conducted for different kinds of Partner Units Problem instances demonstrate the applicability of our approach and the computational benefits due to the first-order constraints learned.

Scheduling methods are important for effective production and logistics management, where tasks need to be allocated and performed with limited resources. In particular, the Job-shop Scheduling Problem (JSP) is a well known and challenging combinatorial optimization problem in which tasks sharing a machine are to be arranged in a sequence such that encompassing jobs can be completed as early as possible. Given that already moderately sized JSP instances can be highly combinatorial, and neither optimal schedules nor the runtime to termination of complete optimization methods is known, efficient approaches to approximate good-quality schedules are of interest. In this paper, we propose problem decomposition into time windows whose operations can be successively scheduled and optimized by means of multi-shot Answer Set Programming (ASP) solving. From a computational perspective, decomposition aims to split highly complex scheduling tasks into better manageable subproblems with a balanced number of operations so that good-quality or even optimal partial solutions can be reliably found in a small fraction of runtime. Regarding the feasibility and quality of solutions, problem decomposition must respect the precedence of operations within their jobs and partial schedules optimized by time windows should yield better global solutions than obtainable in similar runtime on the entire instance. We devise and investigate a variety of decomposition strategies in terms of the number and size of time windows as well as heuristics for choosing their operations. Moreover, we incorporate time window overlapping and compression techniques into the iterative scheduling process to counteract window-wise optimization limitations restricted to partial schedules. Our experiments on JSP benchmark sets of several sizes show that successive optimization by multi-shot ASP solving leads to substantially better schedules within the runtime limit than global optimization on the full problem, where the gap increases with the number of operations to schedule. While the obtained solution quality still remains behind a state-of-the-art Constraint Programming system, our multi-shot solving approach comes closer the larger the instance size, demonstrating good scalability by problem decomposition.