Yisong Wang
Skip Abstract Section
Skip Supplemental Material SectionAbstract
In this article, we consider Answer Set Programming (ASP). It is a declarative problem solving paradigm that can be used to encode a problem as a logic program whose answer sets correspond to the solutions of the problem. It has been widely applied in various domains in AI and beyond. Given that answer sets are supposed to yield solutions to the original problem, the question of “why a set of atoms is an answer set” becomes important for both semantics understanding and program debugging. It has been well investigated for normal logic programs. However, for the class of disjunctive logic programs, which is a substantial extension of that of normal logic programs, this question has not been addressed much. In this article, we propose a notion of reduct for disjunctive logic programs and show how it can provide answers to the aforementioned question. First, we show that for each answer set, its reduct provides a resolution proof for each atom in it. We then further consider minimal sets of rules that will be sufficient to provide resolution proofs for sets of atoms. Such sets of rules will be called witnesses and are the focus of this article. We study complexity issues of computing various witnesses and provide algorithms for computing them. In particular, we show that the problem is tractable for normal and headcycle-free disjunctive logic programs, but intractable for general disjunctive logic programs. We also conducted some experiments and found that for many well-known ASP and SAT benchmarks, computing a minimal witness for an atom of an answer set is often feasible.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
pdf
3568955-app.pdf (317.1 KB)
Supplementary Material
- [1] . 2019. Human intervention in automated decision-making: Toward the construction of contestable systems. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’19). Association for Computing Machinery, 2–11.
DOI: Google Scholar
Digital Library
- [2] . 2020. Unsatisfiable core analysis and aggregates for optimum stable model search. Fundam. Inform. 176, 3–4 (2020), 271–297.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref
- [3] . 2019. Inconsistency proofs for ASP: The ASP - DRUPE format. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 19, 5–6 (2019), 891–907.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [4] . 2018. Aggregates in answer set programming. Künst. Intell. 32, 2–3 (2018), 119–124.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [5] . 2016. Semi-equilibrium models for paracoherent answer set programs. Artif. Intell. 234 (2016), 219–271.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [6] . 2018. A generator of hard 2QBF formulas and ASP programs. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press, 52–56. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/Library/KR/kr18contents.php.Google Scholar
- [7] . 2020. Justifications for goal-directed constraint answer set programming, In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Logic Programming.59–72.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [8] . 1994. Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 12, 1-2 (1994), 53–87.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [9] . 2016. Decomposing minimal models. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge-based Techniques for Problem Solving and Reasoning co-located with 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. CEUR-WS.org, 1–7. Retrieved from ceur-ws.org/Vol-1648/paper1.pdf.Google Scholar
- [10] . 2017. Modular construction of minimal models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning(
Lecture Notes in Computer Science , Vol. 10377). Springer, 43–48.DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [11] . 2021. A Logical Theory of Causality. The MIT Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [12] . 2017. lp2normal — a normalization tool for extended logic programs. In Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 222–228.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [13] . 2005. Debugging logic programs under the answer set semantics. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Answer Set Programming, Advances in Theory and Implementation(
CEUR Workshop Proceedings , Vol. 142). CEUR-WS.org, 141–152. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-142/page141.pdf.Google Scholar - [14] . 2011. Answer set programming at a glance. Commun. ACM 54, 12 (2011), 92–103.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [15] . 2021. A survey on the explainability of supervised machine learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 70 (2021), 245–317.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [16] . 1993. On provably total functions in bounded arithmetic theories. In Arithmetic, Proof Theory and Computational Complexity. Oxford University Press, 116–61.Google Scholar
- [17] . 2016. Justifications for programs with disjunctive and causal-choice rules. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 16, 5–6 (2016), 587–603.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [18] . 2014. Causal graph justifications of logic programs. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 14, 4–5 (2014), 603–618.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [19] . 2020. A system for explainable answer set programming, In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Logic Programming.124–136.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [20] . 2020. ASP-Core-2 input language format. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 20, 2 (2020), 294–309.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [21] . 2005. A model for generating random quantified boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’05). Professional Book Center, 66–71. Retrieved from http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/05/Papers/0633.pdf.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [22] . 1995. The complexity of selecting maximal solutions. Inf. Computat. 119, 2 (1995), 231–239.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [23] . 1988. Many hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 35, 4 (
Oct. 1988), 759–768.Google ScholarDigital Library - [24] . 2021. Using ontologies to enhance human understandability of global post-hoc explanations of black-box models. Artif. Intell. 296 (2021), 103471.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [25] . 2019. On Explainable AI: From Theory to Motivation, Applications and Limitations.
AAAI 2019 Tutorial. Retrieved from https://xaitutorial2019.github.io/.Google Scholar - [26] . 2015. Unifying justifications and debugging for answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming(
CEUR Workshop Proceedings , Vol. 1433). CEUR-WS.org, 1–14. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1433/tc_84.pdf.Google Scholar - [27] . 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. Comput. Surv. 33, 3 (2001), 374–425.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [28] . 2021. Levels of explainable artificial intelligence for human-aligned conversational explanations. Artif. Intell. 299 (2021), 103525.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [29] . 2015. A formal theory of justifications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 250–264.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [30] . 2000. Approximations, stable operators, well-founded fixpoints and applications in nonmonotonic reasoning. In Logic-based Artificial Intelligence, (Ed.). Springer US, 127–144.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [31] . 2019. Debugging non-ground ASP programs: Technique and graphical tools. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 19, 2 (2019), 290–316.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [32] . 2020. The external interface for extending WASP. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 20, 2 (2020), 225–248.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [33] . 2016. External propagators in WASP: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 23rd RCRA International Workshop on Experimental Evaluation of Algorithms for Solving Problems with Combinatorial Explosion(
CEUR Workshop Proceedings , Vol. 1745). CEUR-WS.org, 1–9. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1745/paper1.pdf.Google Scholar - [34] . 1984. Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional horn formulae. J. Logic. Program. 1, 3 (1984), 267–284.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [35] . 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 15, 3-4 (1995), 289–323.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [36] . 2005. A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’05). Professional Book Center, 90–96.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [37] . 2011. Finding answers and generating explanations for complex biomedical queries. In Proceedings of the 25th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 785–790.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [38] , , and (Eds.). 2010. In Proceedings of the 40th IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-valued Logic. IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/5489040/proceeding.Google Scholar
- [39] . 2019. Answering the “why” in answer set programming—A survey of explanation approaches. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 19, 2 (2019), 114–203.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [40] . 2006. On finding short resolution refutations and small unsatisfiable subsets. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 351, 3 (2006), 351–359.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [41] . 2005. On modular translations and strong equivalence. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning(
Lecture Notes in Computer Science , Vol. 3662). Springer, 79–91.DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [42] . 2016. Theory solving made easy with Clingo 5. In Proceedings of the Technical Communications of the 32nd International Conference on Logic Programming(
OASICS , Vol. 52). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2:1–2:15.DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [43] . 2014. Clingo = ASP + Control: Preliminary report. CoRR abs/1405.3694 (2014).Google Scholar
- [44] . 2013. Advanced conflict-driven disjunctive answer set solving. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI/AAAI, 912–918. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI13/paper/view/6835.Google Scholar
- [45] . 2008. A meta-programming technique for debugging answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 448–453. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/2008/aaai08-071.php.Google Scholar
- [46] . 2008. Verifying RUP proofs of propositional unsatisfiability. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics.Google Scholar
- [47] . 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
- [48] . 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gen. Comput. 9 (1991), 365–385.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [49] . 2003. Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exposition (DATE’03). IEEE Computer Society, 10886–10891.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [50] . 1985. The intractability of resolution. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 39 (1985), 297–308.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [51] . 2020. An application of ASP in nuclear engineering: Explaining the Three Mile Island nuclear accident scenario. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 20, 6 (2020), 926–941.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [52] . 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos. Sci. 15, 2 (1948), 135–175.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [53] . 2018. PySAT: A Python toolkit for prototyping with SAT oracles. In Proceedings of the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing Conference. Springer, Cham, 428–437.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [54] . 2016. On the query complexity of selecting minimal sets for monotone predicates. Artif. Intell. 233 (2016), 73–83.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [55] . 1997. Disjunctive stable models: Unfounded sets, fixpoint semantics, and computation. Inf. Computat. 135, 2 (1997), 69–112.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [56] . 2021. Computing propositional minimal models: MiniSAT-based approaches. J. Comput. Res. Devel. (Chinese) 58 (2021), 2515–2523. Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1777.tp.20210302.1327.008.html.Google Scholar
- [57] . 2016. Fast, flexible MUS enumeration. Constraints 21, 2 (
1 Apr. 2016), 223–250.DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [58] . 1996. Foundations of logic programming. In Principles of Knowledge Representation. CSLI Publications, 69–127.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [59] . 1999. Nested expressions in logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25, 3-4 (1999), 369–389.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [60] . 1992. A logic of knowledge and justified assumptions. Artif. Intell. 57, 2–3 (1992), 271–289.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [61] . 2010. Logic programs with abstract constraint atoms: The role of computations. Artif. Intell. 174 (2010), 295–315.Google ScholarDigital Library
- [62] . 2010. Minimal unsatisfiability: Models, algorithms and applications (invited paper). InProceedings of the 40th IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-valued Logic.9–14.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [63] . 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artif. Intell. 267 (2019), 1–38.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [64] . 2019. Explaining explanations in AI. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 279–288.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [65] . 2010. Catching the ouroboros: On debugging non-ground answer-set programs. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 10, 4–6 (2010), 513–529.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [66] . 2018. Stepwise debugging of answer-set programs. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 18, 1 (2018), 30–80.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [67] . 1988. The complexity of facets resolved. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 37, 1 (1988), 2–13.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [68] . 2013. Debugging non-ground ASP programs with choice rules, cardinality and weight constraints. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’13)(
Lecture Notes in Computer Science , Vol. 8148). Springer, 452–464.DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [69] . 1974. Knowledge and Justification. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- [70] . 2009. Justifications for logic programs under answer set semantics. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 9, 1 (2009), 1–56.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [71] , , , , , , , , , , , and (Eds.). 2020. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Logic Programming
(EPTCS , Vol. 325).DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [72] . 1995. Paraconsistent stable semantics for extended disjunctive programs. J. Logic Computat. 5, 3 (1995), 265–285.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [73] . 2016. Justifying answer sets using argumentation. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 16, 1 (2016), 59–110.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [74] . 2015. Interactive query-based debugging of ASP programs. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1597–1603. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/aaai15contents.php.Google ScholarCross Ref
- [75] . 2019. Determining inference semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Artif. Intell. 277 (
Dec. 2019), 115–135.DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [76] . 2010. Minimal unsatisfiability: Models, algorithms and applications (invited paper). In Proceedings of the 40th IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-valued Logic.9–14.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [77] . 2019. Knowledge and justification. Contemporary Epistemology: An Anthology. Jeremy Fantl, Matthew McGrath, and Ernest Sosa (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chapter 15, 220–228.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [78] . 2020. Explanation perspectives from the cognitive sciences—A survey. In Proceedings of the 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 4812–4818.
DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref - [79] . 2006. Debugging inconsistent answer set programs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR’06). Clausthal University of Technology, Institute for Informatics, 77–83.Google Scholar
- [80] . 1976. The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. J. ACM 23, 4 (1976), 733–742.
DOI: Google ScholarDigital Library - [81] . 2017. Epistemic specifications and conformant planning. In WS-17-01 (AAAI Workshop - Technical Report). AI Access Foundation, 781–787.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Witnesses for Answer Sets of Logic Programs
Recommendations
From answer set logic programming to circumscription via logic of GK
We first embed Pearce's equilibrium logic and Ferraris's propositional general logic programs in Lin and Shoham's logic of GK, a nonmonotonic modal logic that has been shown to include as special cases both Reiter's default logic in the propositional ...
Translating Preferred Answer Set Programs to Propositional Logic
LPNMR '09: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic ReasoningWe consider the problem of whether a given preferred answer set program can be reduced to a propositional formula. Research on this topic is of both theoretical and practical interests: on one hand, it will shed new insights to understand the expressive ...
Disjunctive logic programs, answer sets, and the cut rule
AbstractIn Minker and Rajasekar (J Log Program 9(1):45–74, 1990), Minker proposed a semantics for negation-free disjunctive logic programs that offers a natural generalisation of the fixed point semantics for definite logic programs. We show that this ...
Comments