answer set solving in practice
play

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 27, 2023 •122 likes •1.27k views

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de Potassco Slide Packages are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in

  1. Theory language send+more=money digit(1,3,s). digit(2,3,m). digit(sum,4,m). digit(1,2,e). digit(2,2,o). digit(sum,3,o). digit(1,1,n). digit(2,1,r). digit(sum,2,n). digit(1,0,d). digit(2,0,e). digit(sum,1,e). digit(sum,0,y). base(10). exp(0). exp(1). exp(2). exp(3). exp(4). power(1,0). power(10,1). power(100,2). power(1000,3). power(10000,4). number(1). number(2). high(s). high(m). &dom{0..9}=s. &dom{0..9}=m. &dom{0..9}=e. &dom{0..9}=o. &dom{0..9}=n. &dom{0..9}=r. &dom{0..9}=d. &dom{0..9}=y. &sum{ 1000*s; 100*e; 10*n; 1*d; 1000*m; 100*o; 10*r; 1*e; -10000*m; -1000*o; -100*n; -10*e; -1*y } = 0. &sum{s} > 0. &sum{m} > 0. &distinct{s; m; e; o; n; r; d; y}. &show{s; m; e; o; n; r; d; y}. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 459 / 614

  2. Low-level semantics Outline 1 Theory language 2 Low-level semantics 3 Intermediate Format 4 Theory propagation 5 Experiments 6 Acyclicity checking 7 Constraint Answer Set Programming Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 460 / 614

  3. Low-level semantics ASP solving process modulo theories Problem Solution ✻ Modeling Interpreting ❄ Logic ✲ ✲ ✲ Stable Grounder Solver Program Models Solving Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 461 / 614

  4. Low-level semantics ASP solving process modulo theories Problem Solution ✻ Modeling Interpreting ❄ Logic ✲ ✲ ✲ Stable Grounder Solver Program Models Solving Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 461 / 614

  5. Low-level semantics ASP modulo theories We distinguish theory atoms depending upon whether they are defined via rules in the logic program, or external otherwise, or strict being equivalent to the associated constraint, or non-strict only implying the associated constraint. Informally, a set X ⊆ A ∪ T of atoms is a T -stable model of a program P if there is some T -solution S such that X is a (regular) stable model of the program P ∪ { a ← | a ∈ ( T e \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← ∼ a | a ∈ ( T e ∩ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {{ a } ← | a ∈ ( T i \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← a | a ∈ ( T ∩ head ( P )) \ S} Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 462 / 614

  6. Low-level semantics ASP modulo theories We distinguish theory atoms depending upon whether they are defined via rules in the logic program, or external otherwise, or strict being equivalent to the associated constraint, or non-strict only implying the associated constraint. Informally, a set X ⊆ A ∪ T of atoms is a T -stable model of a program P if there is some T -solution S such that X is a (regular) stable model of the program P ∪ { a ← | a ∈ ( T e \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← ∼ a | a ∈ ( T e ∩ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {{ a } ← | a ∈ ( T i \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← a | a ∈ ( T ∩ head ( P )) \ S} Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 462 / 614

  7. Low-level semantics ASP modulo theories We distinguish theory atoms depending upon whether they are defined via rules in the logic program, or external otherwise, or strict being equivalent to the associated constraint, or non-strict only implying the associated constraint. Informally, a set X ⊆ A ∪ T of atoms is a T -stable model of a program P if there is some T -solution S such that X is a (regular) stable model of the program P ∪ { a ← | a ∈ ( T e \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← ∼ a | a ∈ ( T e ∩ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {{ a } ← | a ∈ ( T i \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← a | a ∈ ( T ∩ head ( P )) \ S} Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 462 / 614

  8. Low-level semantics ASP modulo theories We distinguish theory atoms depending upon whether they are defined via rules in the logic program, or external otherwise, or strict being equivalent to the associated constraint, T e , or non-strict only implying the associated constraint, T i . Informally, a set X ⊆ A ∪ T of atoms is a T -stable model of a program P if there is some T -solution S such that X is a (regular) stable model of the program P ∪ { a ← | a ∈ ( T e \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← ∼ a | a ∈ ( T e ∩ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {{ a } ← | a ∈ ( T i \ head ( P )) ∩ S} ∪ {← a | a ∈ ( T ∩ head ( P )) \ S} Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 462 / 614

  9. Intermediate Format Outline 1 Theory language 2 Low-level semantics 3 Intermediate Format 4 Theory propagation 5 Experiments 6 Acyclicity checking 7 Constraint Answer Set Programming Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 463 / 614

  10. Intermediate Format ASP solving process modulo theories Problem Solution ✻ Modeling Interpreting ❄ Logic ✲ ✲ ✲ Stable Grounder Solver Program Models Solving Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 464 / 614

  11. Intermediate Format ASP solving process modulo theories Problem Solution ✻ Modeling Interpreting ❄ Logic ✲ ✲ ✲ Stable Grounder Solver Program Models Solving Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 464 / 614

  12. Intermediate Format aspif example {a}. asp 1 0 0 b :- a. 1 1 1 1 0 0 c :- not a. 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 -1 4 1 a 1 1 4 1 b 1 2 4 1 c 1 3 0 Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 465 / 614

  13. Intermediate Format aspif example {a}. asp 1 0 0 b :- a. 1 1 1 1 0 0 c :- not a. 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 -1 4 1 a 1 1 4 1 b 1 2 4 1 c 1 3 0 Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 465 / 614

  14. Intermediate Format aspif overview Rule statements Minimize statements Projection statements Output statements External statements Assumption statements Heuristic statements Edge statements Theory terms and atoms Comments Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 466 / 614

  15. Intermediate Format aspif theory example asp 1 0 0 task(1). 1 0 1 1 0 0 task(2). 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 duration(1,200). 1 0 1 5 0 0 duration(2,400). 1 0 1 6 0 0 4 7 task(1) 0 4 7 task(2) 0 &dom {1..1000} = beg(1). 4 15 duration(1,200) 0 &dom {1..1000} = end(1). 4 15 duration(2,400) 0 &dom {1..1000} = beg(2). 9 0 1 200 &dom {1..1000} = end(2). 9 0 3 400 9 0 6 1 9 0 11 2 &diff{end(1)-beg(1)}<=200. 9 1 0 4 diff &diff{end(2)-beg(2)}<=400. 9 1 2 2 <= 9 1 4 1 - 9 1 5 3 end &show{ beg/1; end/1 }. 9 1 8 3 beg 9 2 7 5 1 6 9 2 9 8 1 6 9 2 10 4 2 7 9 9 2 12 5 1 11 9 2 13 8 1 11 9 2 14 4 2 12 13 9 4 0 1 10 0 9 4 1 1 14 0 9 6 5 0 1 0 2 1 9 6 6 0 1 1 2 3 0 Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 467 / 614

  16. Intermediate Format aspif theory example asp 1 0 0 task(1). 1 0 1 1 0 0 task(2). 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 duration(1,200). 1 0 1 5 0 0 duration(2,400). 1 0 1 6 0 0 4 7 task(1) 0 4 7 task(2) 0 &dom {1..1000} = beg(1). 4 15 duration(1,200) 0 &dom {1..1000} = end(1). 4 15 duration(2,400) 0 &dom {1..1000} = beg(2). 9 0 1 200 &dom {1..1000} = end(2). 9 0 3 400 9 0 6 1 9 0 11 2 &diff{end(1)-beg(1)}<=200. 9 1 0 4 diff &diff{end(2)-beg(2)}<=400. 9 1 2 2 <= 9 1 4 1 - 9 1 5 3 end &show{ beg/1; end/1 }. 9 1 8 3 beg 9 2 7 5 1 6 9 2 9 8 1 6 9 2 10 4 2 7 9 9 2 12 5 1 11 9 2 13 8 1 11 9 2 14 4 2 12 13 9 4 0 1 10 0 9 4 1 1 14 0 9 6 5 0 1 0 2 1 9 6 6 0 1 1 2 3 0 Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 467 / 614

  17. Intermediate Format aspif theory example asp 1 0 0 task(1). 1 0 1 1 0 0 task(2). 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 duration(1,200). 1 0 1 5 0 0 duration(2,400). 1 0 1 6 0 0 4 7 task(1) 0 4 7 task(2) 0 &dom {1..1000} = beg(1). 4 15 duration(1,200) 0 &dom {1..1000} = end(1). 4 15 duration(2,400) 0 &dom {1..1000} = beg(2). 9 0 1 200 &dom {1..1000} = end(2). 9 0 3 400 9 0 6 1 9 0 11 2 &diff{end(1)-beg(1)}<=200. 9 1 0 4 diff &diff{end(2)-beg(2)}<=400. 9 1 2 2 <= 9 1 4 1 - 9 1 5 3 end &show{ beg/1; end/1 }. 9 1 8 3 beg 9 2 7 5 1 6 9 2 9 8 1 6 9 2 10 4 2 7 9 9 2 12 5 1 11 Only 6 (theory) atoms! 9 2 13 8 1 11 9 2 14 4 2 12 13 9 4 0 1 10 0 9 4 1 1 14 0 9 6 5 0 1 0 2 1 9 6 6 0 1 1 2 3 0 Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 467 / 614

  18. Theory propagation Outline 1 Theory language 2 Low-level semantics 3 Intermediate Format 4 Theory propagation 5 Experiments 6 Acyclicity checking 7 Constraint Answer Set Programming Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 468 / 614

  19. Theory propagation ASP solving process modulo theories Problem Solution ✻ Modeling Interpreting ❄ Logic ✲ ✲ ✲ Stable Grounder Solver Program Models Solving Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 469 / 614

  20. Theory propagation ASP solving process modulo theories Problem Solution ✻ Modeling Interpreting ❄ Logic ✲ ✲ ✲ Stable Grounder Solver Program Models Solving Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 469 / 614

  21. Theory propagation ASP solving process modulo theories Problem Solution ✻ Modeling Interpreting ❄ Logic ✲ ✛ ✲ ✲ Stable Grounder Solver Program Models Solving Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 469 / 614

  22. Theory propagation Architecture of clasp Coordination SharedContext ParallelContext Preprocessing Threads S 1 S 2 . . . S n Propositional Enumerator Enumerator Variables Preprocessor Preprocessor Preprocessor Preprocessor T W . . . S Counter Atoms Bodies P 1 P 2 . . .P n Queue Program Program Static Nogoods Shared Nogoods Builder Builder Nogood Nogood Short Nogoods Distributor Distributor Logic Solver 1. . . n Conflict Conflict Program Recorded Nogoods Resolution Resolution Decision Decision Propagation Heuristic Heuristic Post Post Unit Unit Post Post Assignment Propagation Propagation Propagation Propagation Propagation Propagation Atoms/Bodies Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 470 / 614

  23. Theory propagation Architecture of clasp Coordination SharedContext ParallelContext Preprocessing Threads S 1 S 2 . . . S n Propositional Enumerator Enumerator Variables Preprocessor Preprocessor Preprocessor Preprocessor T W . . . S Counter Atoms Bodies P 1 P 2 . . .P n Queue Program Program Static Nogoods Shared Nogoods Builder Builder Nogood Nogood Short Nogoods Distributor Distributor Logic Solver 1. . . n Conflict Conflict Program Recorded Nogoods Resolution Resolution Decision Decision Propagation Heuristic Heuristic Post Post Unit Unit Post Post Assignment Propagation Propagation Propagation Propagation Propagation Propagation Atoms/Bodies Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 470 / 614

  24. Theory propagation Conflict-driven constraint learning modulo theories (I) initialize // register theory propagators and initialize watches loop propagate completion, loop, and recorded nogoods // deterministically assign literals if no conflict then if all variables assigned then (C) if some δ ∈ ∆ T is violated for T ∈ T then record δ // theory propagator’s check else return variable assignment // T -stable model found else (P) propagate theories T ∈ T // theory propagators may record theory nogoods if no nogood recorded then decide // non-deterministically assign some literal else if top-level conflict then return unsatisfiable else analyze // resolve conflict and record a conflict constraint (U) backjump // undo assignments until conflict constraint is unit Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 471 / 614

  25. Theory propagation Propagator interface clingo PropagateInit Assignment TheoryAtom + num threads + decision level SymbolicAtom + name + symbolic atoms + has conflict + symbol + elements + theory atoms + value(lit) + literal + guard + add watch(lit) + level(lit) + literal + solver literal(lit) + ... ≪ interface ≫ PropagateControl Propagator + thread id + init(init) + assignment + propagate(control, changes) + add nogood(nogood, tag, lock) + undo(thread id, assignment, changes) + propagate() + check(control) Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 472 / 614

  26. Theory propagation The dot propagator #script (python) import sys import time class Propagator: def init(self, init): self.sleep = .1 for atom in init.symbolic_atoms: init.add_watch(init.solver_literal(atom.literal)) def propagate(self, ctl, changes): for l in changes: sys.stdout.write(".") sys.stdout.flush() time.sleep(self.sleep) return True def undo(self, solver_id, assign, undo): for l in undo: sys.stdout.write("\b \b") sys.stdout.flush() time.sleep(self.sleep) def main(prg): prg.register_propagator(Propagator()) prg.ground([("base", [])]) prg.solve() sys.stdout.write("\n") #end. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 473 / 614

  27. Experiments Outline 1 Theory language 2 Low-level semantics 3 Intermediate Format 4 Theory propagation 5 Experiments 6 Acyclicity checking 7 Constraint Answer Set Programming Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 474 / 614

  28. Experiments Difference logic propagation ASP ASP modulo DL (stateless) ASP modulo DL (stateful) defined external defined external Problem # T TO T TO T TO T TO T TO Flow shop 120 569 110 283 40 382 70 177 30 281 50 Job shop 80 600 80 600 80 600 80 43 37 0 0 Open shop 60 405 40 214 20 213 20 2 0 2 0 Total 260 525 230 366 140 398 170 109 50 72 30 only non-strict interpretation of theory atoms defined versus external amounts to the difference between &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D :- duration(T,D). :- duration(T,D), not &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D. propagation stateless Bellman-Ford algorithm stateful Cotton-Maler algorithm Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 475 / 614

  29. Experiments Difference logic propagation ASP ASP modulo DL (stateless) ASP modulo DL (stateful) defined external defined external Problem # T TO T TO T TO T TO T TO Flow shop 120 569 110 283 40 382 70 177 30 281 50 Job shop 80 600 80 600 80 600 80 43 37 0 0 Open shop 60 405 40 214 20 213 20 2 0 2 0 Total 260 525 230 366 140 398 170 109 50 72 30 only non-strict interpretation of theory atoms defined versus external amounts to the difference between &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D :- duration(T,D). :- duration(T,D), not &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D. propagation stateless Bellman-Ford algorithm stateful Cotton-Maler algorithm Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 475 / 614

  30. Experiments Difference logic propagation ASP ASP modulo DL (stateless) ASP modulo DL (stateful) defined external defined external Problem # T TO T TO T TO T TO T TO Flow shop 120 569 110 283 40 382 70 177 30 281 50 Job shop 80 600 80 600 80 600 80 43 37 0 0 Open shop 60 405 40 214 20 213 20 2 0 2 0 Total 260 525 230 366 140 398 170 109 50 72 30 only non-strict interpretation of theory atoms defined versus external amounts to the difference between &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D :- duration(T,D). :- duration(T,D), not &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D. propagation stateless Bellman-Ford algorithm stateful Cotton-Maler algorithm Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 475 / 614

  31. Experiments Difference logic propagation ASP ASP modulo DL (stateless) ASP modulo DL (stateful) defined external defined external Problem # T TO T TO T TO T TO T TO Flow shop 120 569 110 283 40 382 70 177 30 281 50 Job shop 80 600 80 600 80 600 80 43 37 0 0 Open shop 60 405 40 214 20 213 20 2 0 2 0 Total 260 525 230 366 140 398 170 109 50 72 30 only non-strict interpretation of theory atoms defined versus external amounts to the difference between &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D :- duration(T,D). :- duration(T,D), not &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D. propagation stateless Bellman-Ford algorithm stateful Cotton-Maler algorithm Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 475 / 614

  32. Experiments Difference logic propagation ASP ASP modulo DL (stateless) ASP modulo DL (stateful) defined external defined external Problem # T TO T TO T TO T TO T TO Flow shop 120 569 110 283 40 382 70 177 30 281 50 Job shop 80 600 80 600 80 600 80 43 37 0 0 Open shop 60 405 40 214 20 213 20 2 0 2 0 Total 260 525 230 366 140 398 170 109 50 72 30 only non-strict interpretation of theory atoms defined versus external amounts to the difference between &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D :- duration(T,D). :- duration(T,D), not &diff { end(T)-beg(T) } <= D. propagation stateless Bellman-Ford algorithm stateful Cotton-Maler algorithm Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 475 / 614

  33. Acyclicity checking Outline 1 Theory language 2 Low-level semantics 3 Intermediate Format 4 Theory propagation 5 Experiments 6 Acyclicity checking 7 Constraint Answer Set Programming Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 476 / 614

  34. Acyclicity checking Builtin acyclicity checking Edge statement # edge ( u , v ) : l 1 , . . . , l n . (3) A set X of atoms is an acyclic stable of a logic program P , if 1 X is a stable model of P and 2 the graph ( { u , v | X | = l 1 , . . . , l n , (3) ∈ P } , { ( u , v ) | X | = l 1 , . . . , l n , (3) ∈ P } ) is acyclic Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 477 / 614

  35. Acyclicity checking Builtin acyclicity checking Edge statement # edge ( u , v ) : l 1 , . . . , l n . (3) A set X of atoms is an acyclic stable of a logic program P , if 1 X is a stable model of P and 2 the graph ( { u , v | X | = l 1 , . . . , l n , (3) ∈ P } , { ( u , v ) | X | = l 1 , . . . , l n , (3) ∈ P } ) is acyclic Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 477 / 614

  36. Constraint Answer Set Programming Outline 1 Theory language 2 Low-level semantics 3 Intermediate Format 4 Theory propagation 5 Experiments 6 Acyclicity checking 7 Constraint Answer Set Programming Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 478 / 614

  37. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Satisfaction Problem A constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) consists of a set V of variables, a set D of domains, and a set C of constraints such that each variable v ∈ V has an associated domain dom ( v ) ∈ D ; a constraint c is a pair ( S , R ) consisting of a k -ary relation R on a vector S ⊆ V k of variables, called the scope of R Note For S = ( v 1 , . . . , v k ), we have R ⊆ dom ( v 1 ) × · · · × dom ( v k ) Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 479 / 614

  38. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Satisfaction Problem A constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) consists of a set V of variables, a set D of domains, and a set C of constraints such that each variable v ∈ V has an associated domain dom ( v ) ∈ D ; a constraint c is a pair ( S , R ) consisting of a k -ary relation R on a vector S ⊆ V k of variables, called the scope of R Note For S = ( v 1 , . . . , v k ), we have R ⊆ dom ( v 1 ) × · · · × dom ( v k ) Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 479 / 614

  39. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Satisfaction Problem A constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) consists of a set V of variables, a set D of domains, and a set C of constraints such that each variable v ∈ V has an associated domain dom ( v ) ∈ D ; a constraint c is a pair ( S , R ) consisting of a k -ary relation R on a vector S ⊆ V k of variables, called the scope of R Note For S = ( v 1 , . . . , v k ), we have R ⊆ dom ( v 1 ) × · · · × dom ( v k ) Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 479 / 614

  40. Constraint Answer Set Programming Example s e n d Each letter corresponds + m o r e exactly to one digit and all variables have to be m o n e y pairwisely distinct V = { s , e , n , d , m , o , r , y } D = { dom ( v ) = { 0 , . . . , 9 } | v ∈ V } C = { ( � V , allDistinct ( V ) ), ( � V , s × 1000 + e × 100 + n × 10 + d + m × 1000 + o × 100 + r × 10 + e == m × 10000 + o × 1000 + n × 100 + e × 10 + y ) , ( ( m ) , m == 1) } Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 480 / 614

  41. Constraint Answer Set Programming Example s e n d Each letter corresponds + m o r e exactly to one digit and all variables have to be m o n e y pairwisely distinct V = { s , e , n , d , m , o , r , y } D = { dom ( v ) = { 0 , . . . , 9 } | v ∈ V } C = { ( � V , allDistinct ( V ) ), ( � V , s × 1000 + e × 100 + n × 10 + d + m × 1000 + o × 100 + r × 10 + e == m × 10000 + o × 1000 + n × 100 + e × 10 + y ) , ( ( m ) , m == 1) } Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 480 / 614

  42. Constraint Answer Set Programming Example s e n d Each letter corresponds + m o r e exactly to one digit and all variables have to be m o n e y pairwisely distinct 9 5 6 7 The example has exactly + 1 0 8 5 one solution 1 0 6 5 2 { s �→ 9 , e �→ 5 , n �→ 6 , d �→ 7 , m �→ 1 , o �→ 0 , r �→ 8 , y �→ 2 } Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 480 / 614

  43. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint satisfaction problem Notation We use S ( c ) = S and R ( c ) = R to access the scope and the relation of a constraint c = ( S , R ) For an assignment A : V → � v ∈ V dom ( v ) and a constraint ( S , R ) with scope S = ( v 1 , . . . , v k ), define sat C ( A ) = { c ∈ C | A ( S ( c )) ∈ R ( c ) } where A ( S ) = ( A ( v 1 ) , . . . , A ( v k )) Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 481 / 614

  44. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint satisfaction problem Notation We use S ( c ) = S and R ( c ) = R to access the scope and the relation of a constraint c = ( S , R ) For an assignment A : V → � v ∈ V dom ( v ) and a constraint ( S , R ) with scope S = ( v 1 , . . . , v k ), define sat C ( A ) = { c ∈ C | A ( S ( c )) ∈ R ( c ) } where A ( S ) = ( A ( v 1 ) , . . . , A ( v k )) Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 481 / 614

  45. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming A constraint logic program P is a logic program over an extended alphabet A ∪ C where A is a set of regular atoms and C is a set of constraint atoms, such that head ( r ) ∈ A for each r ∈ P Given a set of literals B and some set B of atoms, we define B | B = ( B + ∩ B ) ∪ {∼ a | a ∈ B − ∩ B} Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 482 / 614

  46. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming A constraint logic program P is a logic program over an extended alphabet A ∪ C where A is a set of regular atoms and C is a set of constraint atoms, such that head ( r ) ∈ A for each r ∈ P Given a set of literals B and some set B of atoms, we define B | B = ( B + ∩ B ) ∪ {∼ a | a ∈ B − ∩ B} Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 482 / 614

  47. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming We identify constraint atoms with constraints via a function γ : C → C Furthermore, γ ( Y ) = { γ ( c ) | c ∈ Y } for any Y ⊆ C Note Unlike regular atoms A , constraint atoms C are not subject to the unique names assumption, eg. γ ( x < y ) = γ ((( − y − 1) ≤ − ( x + 1)) ∧ ( x � = y )) A constraint logic program P is associated with a CSP as follows C [ P ] = γ ( atom ( P ) ∩ C ), V [ P ] is obtained from the constraint scopes in C [ P ], D [ P ] is provided by a declaration Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 483 / 614

  48. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming We identify constraint atoms with constraints via a function γ : C → C Furthermore, γ ( Y ) = { γ ( c ) | c ∈ Y } for any Y ⊆ C Note Unlike regular atoms A , constraint atoms C are not subject to the unique names assumption, eg. γ ( x < y ) = γ ((( − y − 1) ≤ − ( x + 1)) ∧ ( x � = y )) A constraint logic program P is associated with a CSP as follows C [ P ] = γ ( atom ( P ) ∩ C ), V [ P ] is obtained from the constraint scopes in C [ P ], D [ P ] is provided by a declaration Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 483 / 614

  49. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming We identify constraint atoms with constraints via a function γ : C → C Furthermore, γ ( Y ) = { γ ( c ) | c ∈ Y } for any Y ⊆ C Note Unlike regular atoms A , constraint atoms C are not subject to the unique names assumption, eg. γ ( x < y ) = γ ((( − y − 1) ≤ − ( x + 1)) ∧ ( x � = y )) A constraint logic program P is associated with a CSP as follows C [ P ] = γ ( atom ( P ) ∩ C ), V [ P ] is obtained from the constraint scopes in C [ P ], D [ P ] is provided by a declaration Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 483 / 614

  50. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming Let P be a constraint logic program over A ∪ C and let A : V [ P ] → D [ P ] be an assignment, define the constraint reduct of as P wrt A as follows P A = { head ( r ) ← body ( r ) | A | r ∈ P , + ) ⊆ sat C [ P ] ( A ) , γ ( body ( r ) | C − ) ∩ sat C [ P ] ( A ) = ∅ } γ ( body ( r ) | C A set X ⊆ A of (regular) atoms is a constraint answer set of P wrt A , if X is an stable model of P A . Note That is, if X is the ⊆ -smallest model of ( P A ) X Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 484 / 614

  51. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming Let P be a constraint logic program over A ∪ C and let A : V [ P ] → D [ P ] be an assignment, define the constraint reduct of as P wrt A as follows P A = { head ( r ) ← body ( r ) | A | r ∈ P , + ) ⊆ sat C [ P ] ( A ) , γ ( body ( r ) | C − ) ∩ sat C [ P ] ( A ) = ∅ } γ ( body ( r ) | C A set X ⊆ A of (regular) atoms is a constraint answer set of P wrt A , if X is an stable model of P A . Note That is, if X is the ⊆ -smallest model of ( P A ) X Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 484 / 614

  52. Constraint Answer Set Programming Constraint Answer Set Programming Let P be a constraint logic program over A ∪ C and let A : V [ P ] → D [ P ] be an assignment, define the constraint reduct of as P wrt A as follows P A = { head ( r ) ← body ( r ) | A | r ∈ P , + ) ⊆ sat C [ P ] ( A ) , γ ( body ( r ) | C − ) ∩ sat C [ P ] ( A ) = ∅ } γ ( body ( r ) | C A set X ⊆ A of (regular) atoms is a constraint answer set of P wrt A , if X is an stable model of P A . Note That is, if X is the ⊆ -smallest model of ( P A ) X Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 484 / 614

  53. Constraint Answer Set Programming Some Constraint Answer Set Programming (CASP) systems adsolver extension of ASP solver smodels clingcon extension of ASP system clingo (viz. gringo and clasp ) lazy approach aspartame translational approach (independent of ASP system) eager approach aspmt , dlvhex , ezcsp , gasp , inca , . . . Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 485 / 614

  54. Constraint Answer Set Programming Some Constraint Answer Set Programming (CASP) systems adsolver extension of ASP solver smodels clingcon extension of ASP system clingo (viz. gringo and clasp ) lazy approach aspartame translational approach (independent of ASP system) eager approach aspmt , dlvhex , ezcsp , gasp , inca , . . . Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 485 / 614

  55. Constraint Answer Set Programming Some Constraint Answer Set Programming (CASP) systems adsolver extension of ASP solver smodels clingcon extension of ASP system clingo (viz. gringo and clasp ) lazy approach aspartame translational approach (independent of ASP system) eager approach aspmt , dlvhex , ezcsp , gasp , inca , . . . Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 485 / 614

  56. Constraint Answer Set Programming Some Constraint Answer Set Programming (CASP) systems adsolver extension of ASP solver smodels clingcon extension of ASP system clingo (viz. gringo and clasp ) lazy approach aspartame translational approach (independent of ASP system) eager approach aspmt , dlvhex , ezcsp , gasp , inca , . . . Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 485 / 614

  57. Constraint Answer Set Programming aspartame ’s eager approach CASP Program A CSP ASP CSP sugar gringo clasp S ✲ ✲ ✲ ✲ ✲ Instance Facts Solution P ASP Encoding ∗ based on order-encoding for CSPs Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 486 / 614

  58. Constraint Answer Set Programming aspartame ’s eager approach CASP Program ASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Facts Solution ASP Encoding ∗ based on order-encoding for CSPs Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 486 / 614

  59. Constraint Answer Set Programming aspartame ’s eager approach CASP Program ASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Facts Solution ASP Encoding ∗ ∗ based on order-encoding for CSPs Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 486 / 614

  60. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  61. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  62. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  63. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  64. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1+2 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  65. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1+2 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  66. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CSP Grammar CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1+2 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  67. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s lazy approach CSP Grammar CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP clingcon 1+2 clingcon 3 language extension language specification propagation via gecode lazy propagation ∗ conflict minimization Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 487 / 614

  68. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon ’s approach CSP Grammar CASP CASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution CSP CSP Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 488 / 614

  69. Constraint Answer Set Programming clingcon instantiates clingo Theory T Grammar T-ASP T-ASP gringo clasp ✲ ✲ ✲ Program Solution T T Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 488 / 614

  70. Constraint Answer Set Programming [1] Y. Babovich and V. Lifschitz. Computing answer sets using program completion. Unpublished draft, 2003. [2] C. Baral. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving . Cambridge University Press, 2003. [3] C. Baral, G. Brewka, and J. Schlipf, editors. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’07) , volume 4483 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence . Springer-Verlag, 2007. [4] C. Baral and M. Gelfond. Logic programming and knowledge representation. Journal of Logic Programming , 12:1–80, 1994. [5] S. Baselice, P. Bonatti, and M. Gelfond. Towards an integration of answer set and constraint solving. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 614 / 614

  71. Constraint Answer Set Programming In M. Gabbrielli and G. Gupta, editors, Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’05) , volume 3668 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 52–66. Springer-Verlag, 2005. [6] A. Biere. Adaptive restart strategies for conflict driven SAT solvers. In H. Kleine B¨ uning and X. Zhao, editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’08) , volume 4996 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 28–33. Springer-Verlag, 2008. [7] A. Biere. PicoSAT essentials. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation , 4:75–97, 2008. [8] A. Biere, M. Heule, H. van Maaren, and T. Walsh, editors. Handbook of Satisfiability , volume 185 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications . Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 614 / 614

  72. Constraint Answer Set Programming IOS Press, 2009. [9] G. Brewka, T. Eiter, and M. Truszczy´ nski. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM , 54(12):92–103, 2011. [10] G. Brewka, I. Niemel¨ a, and M. Truszczy´ nski. Answer set optimization. In G. Gottlob and T. Walsh, editors, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’03) , pages 867–872. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003. [11] K. Clark. Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Data Bases , pages 293–322. Plenum Press, 1978. [12] M. D’Agostino, D. Gabbay, R. H¨ ahnle, and J. Posegga, editors. Handbook of Tableau Methods . Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 614 / 614

  73. Constraint Answer Set Programming [13] E. Dantsin, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and A. Voronkov. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’97) , pages 82–101. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997. [14] M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM , 5:394–397, 1962. [15] M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM , 7:201–215, 1960. [16] E. Di Rosa, E. Giunchiglia, and M. Maratea. Solving satisfiability problems with preferences. Constraints , 15(4):485–515, 2010. [17] C. Drescher, M. Gebser, T. Grote, B. Kaufmann, A. K¨ onig, M. Ostrowski, and T. Schaub. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 614 / 614

  74. Constraint Answer Set Programming Conflict-driven disjunctive answer set solving. In G. Brewka and J. Lang, editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’08) , pages 422–432. AAAI Press, 2008. [18] C. Drescher, M. Gebser, B. Kaufmann, and T. Schaub. Heuristics in conflict resolution. In M. Pagnucco and M. Thielscher, editors, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR’08) , number UNSW-CSE-TR-0819 in School of Computer Science and Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Technical Report Series, pages 141–149, 2008. [19] N. E´ en and N. S¨ orensson. An extensible SAT-solver. In E. Giunchiglia and A. Tacchella, editors, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’03) , volume 2919 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 502–518. Springer-Verlag, 2004. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 614 / 614

  75. Constraint Answer Set Programming [20] T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , 15(3-4):289–323, 1995. [21] T. Eiter, G. Ianni, and T. Krennwallner. Answer Set Programming: A Primer. In S. Tessaris, E. Franconi, T. Eiter, C. Gutierrez, S. Handschuh, M. Rousset, and R. Schmidt, editors, Fifth International Reasoning Web Summer School (RW’09) , volume 5689 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 40–110. Springer-Verlag, 2009. [22] F. Fages. Consistency of Clark’s completion and the existence of stable models. Journal of Methods of Logic in Computer Science , 1:51–60, 1994. [23] P. Ferraris. Answer sets for propositional theories. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 614 / 614

  76. Constraint Answer Set Programming In C. Baral, G. Greco, N. Leone, and G. Terracina, editors, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’05) , volume 3662 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence , pages 119–131. Springer-Verlag, 2005. [24] P. Ferraris and V. Lifschitz. Mathematical foundations of answer set programming. In S. Art¨ emov, H. Barringer, A. d’Avila Garcez, L. Lamb, and J. Woods, editors, We Will Show Them! Essays in Honour of Dov Gabbay , volume 1, pages 615–664. College Publications, 2005. [25] M. Fitting. A Kripke-Kleene semantics for logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming , 2(4):295–312, 1985. [26] M. Gebser, A. Harrison, R. Kaminski, V. Lifschitz, and T. Schaub. Abstract Gringo. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , 15(4-5):449–463, 2015. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06576 . Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in Practice October 13, 2016 614 / 614

Recommend

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de Potassco Slide Packages are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in

1.67k views • 134 slides
Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de Potassco Slide Packages are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in

1.75k views • 132 slides
Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de Potassco Slide Packages are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in

1.98k views • 195 slides
Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de Potassco Slide Packages are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in

1.83k views • 168 slides
Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de Potassco Slide Packages are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) Answer Set Solving in

1.66k views • 161 slides
Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) ASP

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) ASP

Answer Set Solving in Practice Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam Torsten Schaub (KRR@UP) ASP in Practice 1 / 69 Outline 1 Motivation 2 Introduction 3 Modeling by Example Graph Coloring Queens Traveling Salesperson 4 Meta Programming 5

1.92k views • 179 slides
Answer Set Solving in Practice Martin Gebser and Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam

Answer Set Solving in Practice Martin Gebser and Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam

Answer Set Solving in Practice Martin Gebser and Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam torsten@cs.uni-potsdam.de Potassco Slide Packages are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. M. Gebser and T. Schaub (KRR@UP)

1.47k views • 113 slides
Outline Motivation Answer Set Programming is a well-known declarative problem solving approach.

Outline Motivation Answer Set Programming is a well-known declarative problem solving approach.

Motivation Motivation Outline Motivation Answer Set Programming is a well-known declarative problem solving approach. Answer Set Programs with Queries over Subprograms 1 Motivation Christoph Redl The Saturation Technique and its

259 views • 10 slides
Answer Set Programming, the Solving Paradigm for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Martin

Answer Set Programming, the Solving Paradigm for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Martin

Answer Set Programming, the Solving Paradigm for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Martin Gebser Torsten Schaub University of Potsdam Martin Gebser (University of Potsdam) Answer Set Programming 1 / 33 Outline 1 Motivation 2

1.36k views • 105 slides
Physics 201 Test 2 practice Short Answer (4 points each) 1 What is the other half of the

Physics 201 Test 2 practice Short Answer (4 points each) 1 What is the other half of the

Physics 201 Test 2 practice Short Answer (4 points each) 1 What is the other half of the action/reaction pair associated with the normal force of a table supporting a book? 2 Give an algebraic expression for the net force acting on a skydiver

375 views • 3 slides
Table of Contents I Answer Set Programming ASP Solvers Example: Hamiltonian Cycles Choice Rules

Table of Contents I Answer Set Programming ASP Solvers Example: Hamiltonian Cycles Choice Rules

Table of Contents I Answer Set Programming ASP Solvers Example: Hamiltonian Cycles Choice Rules Solving Puzzles Yulia Kahl College of Charleston Artificial Intelligence 1 Reading Read Chapter 6, Answer-Set Programming Paradigm , in the

199 views • 15 slides
Winn Sales 15 May 2016 Peerceptiv Practice Issue Spotter Exam Assignment 2 Answer Key Plus

Winn Sales 15 May 2016 Peerceptiv Practice Issue Spotter Exam Assignment 2 Answer Key Plus

Winn Sales 15 May 2016 Peerceptiv Practice Issue Spotter Exam Assignment 2 Answer Key Plus Scoring Guidelines Farmer Sadie Smith normally planted 200 acres of soybeans every May and harvested them every September. In recent years, she has been

392 views • 3 slides
Practice to Pass- Compulsory Direct Questions Answer ALL questions 1. State three (3) elements of

Practice to Pass- Compulsory Direct Questions Answer ALL questions 1. State three (3) elements of

Practice to Pass- Compulsory Direct Questions Answer ALL questions 1. State three (3) elements of the external business environment and describe its impact on an organization of your choice briefly. ( 10 marks) 2. Describe the concept of motivation

148 views • 3 slides
Lesson 10 - I can multiply 3 digits by 1 digit - reasoning and problem solving Starter- recap

Lesson 10 - I can multiply 3 digits by 1 digit - reasoning and problem solving Starter- recap

Lesson 10 - I can multiply 3 digits by 1 digit - reasoning and problem solving Starter- recap 657 X 3 = 6 5 7 x 3 Starter- answers 657 X 3 = 1971 6 5 7 x 3 1 9 7 1 1 1 2 P roblem Solving: Which calculation has an answer

507 views • 11 slides
Best Practice for Transformative Mitigation Projects Webinar 20 November 3:00 - 4:30 EST 2019

Best Practice for Transformative Mitigation Projects Webinar 20 November 3:00 - 4:30 EST 2019

Best Practice for Transformative Mitigation Projects Webinar 20 November 3:00 - 4:30 EST 2019 CDBG-DR Problem Solving Clinic 1 2019 CDBG-DR Problem Solving Clinic 1 Presenters HUD Jen Carpenter, Assistant Director of Policy, HUD DRSI

1.21k views • 47 slides
Solving Systems Solving Systems by Graphing by Solving Systems by Substitution Graphing

Solving Systems Solving Systems by Graphing by Solving Systems by Substitution Graphing

Slide 1 / 176 Slide 2 / 176 Algebra I System of Linear Equations 2015-11-02 www.njctl.org Slide 3 / 176 Slide 4 / 176 Table of Contents Click on the topic to go to that section Solving Systems Solving Systems by Graphing by Solving

596 views • 30 slides
Tutorial on Proof Systems Connected to SAT Solving Sam Buss Univ. of California, San Diego

Tutorial on Proof Systems Connected to SAT Solving Sam Buss Univ. of California, San Diego

Tutorial on Proof Systems Connected to SAT Solving Sam Buss Univ. of California, San Diego Theory and Practice of SAT Solving Dagstuhl, Germany April 21, 2015 Sam Buss Tutorial on Proof Systems Connected to SAT Solving Satisfiability (SAT);

561 views • 29 slides
Problem-Solving with Only 28% of employers classify college graduates Think-Alouds problem

Problem-Solving with Only 28% of employers classify college graduates Think-Alouds problem

12/5/14 Analysis of the situation Problem-solving is viewed as necessary for success in STEM fields, with the American Chemical Society (ACS) going so far as to refer to problem-solving as the ultimate goal. Problem-Solving with

316 views • 4 slides
The SARA Model A best practice problem-solving method Key Learning Objectives 2 PSOs will

The SARA Model A best practice problem-solving method Key Learning Objectives 2 PSOs will

The SARA Model A best practice problem-solving method Key Learning Objectives 2 PSOs will understand their PSOs will have an roles and responsibilities understanding of the SARA when it comes to using the model SARA database SARA/

632 views • 28 slides
2018 Calhoun Community College Mathematics Tournament CIPHERING PRACTICE Question 1 Write the

2018 Calhoun Community College Mathematics Tournament CIPHERING PRACTICE Question 1 Write the

2018 Calhoun Community College Mathematics Tournament CIPHERING PRACTICE Question 1 Write the name of the Greek letter shown here on the The Significant Figure. Answer to PRACTICE Question 1 LAMBDA PRACTICE Question 2 Buddy the elf

617 views • 25 slides
2017 Calhoun Community College Mathematics Tournament CIPHERING PRACTICE Question 1 Write the

2017 Calhoun Community College Mathematics Tournament CIPHERING PRACTICE Question 1 Write the

2017 Calhoun Community College Mathematics Tournament CIPHERING PRACTICE Question 1 Write the name of the Greek letter emblazoned on the chest of The Significant Figure here: Answer to PRACTICE Question 1 SIGMA PRACTICE Question 2

770 views • 25 slides
Solving Triangles and the Law of Cosines In this section we work out the law of cosines from our

Solving Triangles and the Law of Cosines In this section we work out the law of cosines from our

Solving Triangles and the Law of Cosines In this section we work out the law of cosines from our earlier identities and then practice applying this new identity. c 2 = a 2 + b 2 2 ab cos C. (1) Elementary Functions Draw the triangle ABC

87 views • 6 slides
V OCABULARY : Solving of problems involving quadratic equations Problems involving quadratic

V OCABULARY : Solving of problems involving quadratic equations Problems involving quadratic

D AY 157 Q UADRATIC APPLICATION PRACTICE I NTRODUCTION Quadratic equations are one of the most common polynomials that we come across in day to day life. In this lessons, we are going to see how these equations are used in problem solving. V

228 views • 11 slides
Quiz I Give the SVD-based algorithm for solving least squares, and I justify the algorithm by that

Quiz I Give the SVD-based algorithm for solving least squares, and I justify the algorithm by that

Quiz I Give the SVD-based algorithm for solving least squares, and I justify the algorithm by that showing it outputs the correct answer. I Under what circumstances would this algorithm be preferred over the QR-based algorithm? The Eigenvector

905 views • 18 slides

More recommend