• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

Answer sets

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "Answer sets"

Copied!
19
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

Answer Set Optimization

G. Brewka, I. Niemel¨a, M. Truszczy´nski

brewka@informatik.uni-leipzig.de

Universit¨at Leipzig

(2)

Outline

1. Answer sets and answer set programming 2. Describing the quality of solutions

3. Optimization programs

4. Example: solution coherence in meeting scheduling

5. Conclusions

(3)

Why are AS interesting?

provide meaning to logic programs with default negation

support problem solving paradigm where models (not theorems) represent solutions

many interesting applications in planning,

reasoning about action, configuration, diagnosis, space shuttle control, ...

several useful extensions: disjunctive LPs, cardinality constraints, weight constraints ...

interesting implementations: dlv, Smodels

(4)

Extended logic programs

Syntax of rules:

where , the and the are ground literals.

2 types of negation:

classical negation default negation

(5)

Answer sets

answer set of program iff is closed under :

whenever

,

and ,

logically closed:

consistent or equal to set of all literals.

grounded in :

implies there is a derivation for from based on rules whose not-Literals are not in .

(6)

Good and bad solutions

many problems have solutions of different quality basic ASP paradigm provides no distinction

how to compare answer sets?

quantitative measures, e.g.

weights and maximize statements in , weak constraints in

here: qualitative measures based on preferences

(7)

Preference relations on AS

different ways of adding preferences to LPs

preferences between rules vs preferences between literals/formulas

fixed vs. context dependent (the latter requires preference expressions within programs)

here: context dependent preferences between literals/formulas

(8)

LPs with ordered disjunction

finite set of rules of the form:

, , ground literals.

if

then some must be true, preferably , if impossible then , if impossible , etc.

Answer sets satisfy rules to different degrees.

Use degrees to define global preference relation on answer sets.

Different options how to do this (inclusion based, cardinality based etc.).

(9)

Optimization programs

LPODs amalgamate generation of answer sets with quality assessment

different types of programs available

(disjunctive, cardinality constraints etc.)

want more general preferences, possibly among unavailable options

how to obtain more modularity and generality?

use program to generate answer sets, preference program to compare them

all we require is that generates sets of literals

(10)

Preference programs

Finite set of rules of the form

,

literals, boolean combination:

built using , , , .

in front of atoms, in front of literals only.

additional expressiveness:

combinations of properties preferred over others:

equally preferred options:

(11)

Preference rule satisfaction

Consider

For the degree of satisfaction

of given set of literals, there are three cases:

1. body not satisfied in :

inapplicable thus irrelevant:

2. body satisfied and no satisfied in : rule specifies irrelevant preferences:

3. body satisfied and at least one satisfied in :

.

(12)

Satisfaction preorder

Views on irrelevance:

incomparable to other values, or

better than 2, 3, ... because no preference is violated

adopt latter view here:

(13)

Preference satisfaction ordering

, AS induces satisfaction vector

Extend po on satisfaction degrees

to po on satisfaction vectors and answer sets:

, answer sets.

if

, for all

.

if and not .

( ) iff ( )

(14)

Meta preferences

Preference rules themselves may be of different importance

Put rules in subsets , , ... of decreasing importance

Select answer sets most preferred according to , among those answer sets most preferred according to etc.

Allows for distinction among different criteria

(15)

Example: solution coherence

assume solution for problem was computed problem changes slightly to

not interested in arbitrary solution of , but solution as close as possible to .

distance measure based on symmetric difference:

(

)

corresponding preference program:

(16)

Meeting scheduling

Meetings need 1 slot (using cardinality constraints):

Constraints:

(17)

Meeting scheduling, ctd.

A solution:

becomes unavailable at :

Preference rules:

,

Former solution invalid. Some new solutions:

inclusion based strategy: better than .

(18)

More stuff in the paper

complexity:

one extra layer of complexity, e.g.

optimal AS with

?

-complete (extended LPs, possibly with cardinality or weight constraints)

implementation:

iterated improvement of current solution generated by tester program

relationship to CP-networks:

different interpretation of preferences: ceteris paribus vs. multi-criteria, theorems show

CP-ordering can be approximated

(19)

Conclusion

answer set programming: interesting declarative problem solving paradigm

inclusion of optimization facilities increases applicability

context dependent preferences among formulas flexible and powerful

possible applications: configuration with weak constraints, diagnosis, planning, inconsistency handling ...

future work: general optimization language for specifying qualitative preferences and

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

The basic dierences of our approach to other existing embeddings are that there are no equivalence classes (as in [13], [15]) and secondly, that dierences of directed convex sets in R

Chasing Sets: How to Use Existential Rules for Expressing Reasoning David Carral, Irina Dragoste, Markus Krötzsch, Christian Lewe.. Datalog for

The deliberative mind-set participants showed rather accurate control judgments in both the infrequent and the frequent target light onset condition, whereas the implemental

controlled function mode: Benutzer → Aktion controlled function finished: Benutzer → Bool controlled function currentUser: → Benutzer controlled function loggedin: Benutzer →

The author studies High order necessary conditions for optimality for an optimal control problem via properties of contingent cones to reachable sets along the

hierarchy editing and the evaluation of phylochip data generated from hierarchical

In detail, we compare our original Loop Encoding (which is not presented in this paper), the Loop Encoding with Restriction to Border Vertices (Encoding 1) and the Alternative

The input of the abduction program is the modified visualisation interpretation (the observation) and the visualisation program (the logic theory), and the output (with projection