1 / 44

Answer Set Programming vs CSP: Power of Constraint Propagation Compared

Answer Set Programming vs CSP: Power of Constraint Propagation Compared. Jia-Huai You ( 犹嘉槐 ) University of Alberta Canada. Constraint Programming. Studies computational models for solving problems that can be expressed as constraints Applications: -NP-hard problems

cera
Download Presentation

Answer Set Programming vs CSP: Power of Constraint Propagation Compared

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Answer Set Programming vs CSP: Power of Constraint Propagation Compared Jia-Huai You (犹嘉槐) University of Alberta Canada

  2. Constraint Programming • Studies computational models for solving problems that can be expressed as constraints • Applications: -NP-hard problems -Optimization -Planning (PSPACE-complete), logistics, scheduling -Combinatorial problems

  3. Approaches to Constraint Programming • Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) (Maybe embedded in a programming language such as Constraint Logic Programming) • Propositional satisfiability (SAT) • Answer set programming (ASP)

  4. C TABLE A B Blocks World Planning

  5. Planning Example: Logistics World • There are two types of vehicles : trucks and airplanes. Trucks are used to transport packages within a city, and airplanes to transport packages between airports. • The problem in this domain starts with a collection of packages at various locations in various cities, and the goal is to redistribute these packages to their destinations.

  6. Example: 8-Queens Generate-and-test, 88 combinations

  7. NT Q WA SA NT NSW Q V WA SA T NSW V T Example: Map Coloring

  8. Cryptarithmetic puzzles • The problem is to assign distinct (decimal) digits to letters so that adding two words yields the third. E.g. S E N D + M O R E = M O N E Y D O N A L D + G E R A L D = R O B E R T

  9. Approaches to Constraint Programming • Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) Systems: Constraint Logic Programming • Propositional Satisfiability (SAT) Systems: SAT solvers • Answer Set Programming (ASP) Systems: Smodels,…

  10. Graph Coloring in SAT (or ASP) Write clauses (or rules in ASP) that express the constraints: • Any region must be colored with exactly one (but any) color. • No model (or answer set in case of ASP) may have two (distinct) adjacent regions colored with the same color.

  11. Graph Coloring in ASP coloring(N,C)  node(N),color(C), not other_color(N,C). other_color(N,C)  node(N),color(C), color(C’), C\=C’, coloring(N,C’). hasColor(N)  coloring(N,C), color(C).  node(N),node(N’),color(C), edge(N,N’), coloring(N,C), coloring(N’,C).

  12. Contents • Motivation • Maintaining local consistencies in CSP • Lookahead in ASP • Pruning power comparison • Relationships between encodings • Conclusions

  13. Motivation • Constraint Satisfaction Problem(CSP) • Maintaining local consistency • SAT solver or answer set programming • Unit propagation, lookahead • Pruning power comparison

  14. Structure • Motivation • Maintaining local consistencies in CSP • Lookahead in ASP • Pruning power comparison • Relationships between encodings • Conclusions

  15. Constraint Satisfaction Problem(CSP) • CSP • Variable set • Domain set • Constraint set • Instantiation

  16. x y 0 0 0 support 1 1 1 consistent 2 2 2 z A CSP

  17. i-consistency • A CSP is i-consistent iff given any consistent assignment of any i-1 variables, there exists an assignment of any ith variable such that the i values taken together satisfy all of the constraints among the i variables. • i=2 arc-consistency (AC) • i=3 path-consistency (PC)

  18. \ 0 0 0 1 1 1 \ \ 2 2 2 \ Maintaining AC x y \ \ z

  19. Structure • Motivation • Maintaining local consistencies in CSP • Lookahead in Smodels • Pruning power comparison • Relationships between encodings • Conclusions

  20. Lookahead in Smodels • Answer set program • Stable model (answer set) of

  21. Expand ( ) Expand ( ) Lookahead conflict

  22. Propagation rules • 1. Adds the head of a rule to A if the body is true in A. • 2. If there is no rule with h as the head whose body is not false w.r.t A, then add not h to A.

  23. Propagation rules • 3. If h belongs to A, the only rule with h as the head must have its body true. • 4. If the head of a rule is false in A, the body must be false.

  24. Structure • Motivation • Maintaining local consistencies in CSP • Lookahead in Smodels • Pruning power comparison • Relationships between encodings • Conclusions

  25. Direct Encoding • Uniqueness rules • Denial rules

  26. Lookahead vs AC • The solution of a CSP corresponds to the stable model of the ASP. • Does Lookahead = AC?

  27. x y 0 0 1 1 0 1 z Example • Enforcing AC cannot remove any value. • How about lookahead?

  28. 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 Unique value propagation(UP) which is • Generate an superset of

  29. Theorem 1 • lookahead=AC+UP. Propagation Arc-Consistency(PAC)

  30. Theorem 2 • (i-1)-lookahead i-consistency

  31. Support Encoding • Uniqueness rules • The same as direct encoding • Support rules

  32. Under support encoding • Does the pruning power of lookahead equal to that of PAC?

  33. Singleton arc-consistency(SAC)

  34. Theorem 3 and 4 • Lookahead=SAC • SAC > PAC

  35. Theorem 5 • 2-lookahead SRPC • Restricted path consistency(RPC) • Check the “unique support” pair • Singleton RPC(SRPC) • Restrict the domain to be a single value

  36. Structure • Motivation • Maintaining local consistencies in CSP • Lookahead in Smodels • Pruning power comparison • Relationships between encodings • Conclusions

  37. Relationships • Niemela’s encoding • Uniquness rules • The same as direct encoding • Allowed rules • Lookahead has the same pruning power under the direct encoding as under Niemela’s encoding

  38. Relationships • Performance of the direct and support encodings. • Problem set • 10 variables • Domain size of 30 • 20 constraints

  39. Experiments

  40. Structure • Motivation • Maintaining local consistencies in CSP • Lookahead in Smodels • Pruning power comparison • Relationships between encodings • Conclusions

  41. Conclusions • When testing single literal, lookahead has the same prunning power under the direct encoding as well as Niemela’s encoding. • When Testing (i-1)-tuples, lookahead captures i-consistency under direct encoding.

  42. Conclusions • Under the support encoding, lookahead has the same pruning power as SAC. • Under support encoding, when testing pair of literals, lookahead captures SRPC.

  43. Conclusions • Lookahead performs more efficiently under the support encoding than under the direct encoding.

  44. Thank You! Comments and Questions?

More Related