BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Roland Kaminski

Roland Kaminski appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Artificial IntelligenceLogic in Computer ScienceProgramming LanguagesDatabases

Catalog footprint

What is connected

9works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

9 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On the Foundations of Grounding in Answer Set Programming

We provide a comprehensive elaboration of the theoretical foundations of variable instantiation, or grounding, in Answer Set Programming (ASP). Building on the semantics of ASP's modeling language, we introduce a formal characterization of grounding algorithms in terms of (fixed point) operators. A major role is played by dedicated well-founded operators whose associated models provide semantic guidance for delineating the result of grounding along with on-the-fly simplifications. We address an expressive class of logic programs that incorporates recursive aggregates and thus amounts to the scope of existing ASP modeling languages. This is accompanied with a plain algorithmic framework detailing the grounding of recursive aggregates. The given algorithms correspond essentially to the ones used in the ASP grounder gringo.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Abstract Gringo

This paper defines the syntax and semantics of the input language of the ASP grounder GRINGO. The definition covers several constructs that were not discussed in earlier work on the semantics of that language, including intervals, pools, division of integers, aggregates with non-numeric values, and lparse-style aggregate expressions. The definition is abstract in the sense that it disregards some details related to representing programs by strings of ASCII characters. It serves as a specification for GRINGO from Version 4.5 on.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Grounding Recursive Aggregates: Preliminary Report

Problem solving in Answer Set Programming consists of two steps, a first grounding phase, systematically replacing all variables by terms, and a second solving phase computing the stable models of the obtained ground program. An intricate part of both phases is the treatment of aggregates, which are popular language constructs that allow for expressing properties over sets. In this paper, we elaborate upon the treatment of aggregates during grounding in Gringo series 4. Consequently, our approach is applicable to grounding based on semi-naive database evaluation techniques. In particular, we provide a series of algorithms detailing the treatment of recursive aggregates and illustrate this by a running example.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Clingo = ASP + Control: Preliminary Report

We present the new ASP system clingo 4. Unlike its predecessors, being mere monolithic combinations of the grounder gringo with the solver clasp, the new clingo 4 series offers high-level constructs for realizing complex reasoning processes. Among others, such processes feature advanced forms of search, as in optimization or theory solving, or even interact with an environment, as in robotics or query-answering. Common to them is that the problem specification evolves during the reasoning process, either because data or constraints are added, deleted, or replaced. In fact, clingo 4 carries out such complex reasoning within a single integrated ASP grounding and solving process. This avoids redundancies in relaunching grounder and solver programs and benefits from the solver's learning capacities. clingo 4 accomplishes this by complementing ASP's declarative input language by control capacities expressed via the embedded scripting languages lua and python. On the declarative side, clingo 4 offers a new directive that allows for structuring logic programs into named and parameterizable subprograms. The grounding and integration of these subprograms into the solving process is completely modular and fully controllable from the procedural side, viz. the scripting languages. By strictly separating logic and control programs, clingo 4 also abolishes the need for dedicated systems for incremental and reactive reasoning, like iclingo and oclingo, respectively, and its flexibility goes well beyond the advanced yet still rigid solving processes of the latter.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Solver Scheduling via Answer Set Programming

Although Boolean Constraint Technology has made tremendous progress over the last decade, the efficacy of state-of-the-art solvers is known to vary considerably across different types of problem instances and is known to depend strongly on algorithm parameters. This problem was addressed by means of a simple, yet effective approach using handmade, uniform and unordered schedules of multiple solvers in ppfolio, which showed very impressive performance in the 2011 SAT Competition. Inspired by this, we take advantage of the modeling and solving capacities of Answer Set Programming (ASP) to automatically determine more refined, that is, non-uniform and ordered solver schedules from existing benchmarking data. We begin by formulating the determination of such schedules as multi-criteria optimization problems and provide corresponding ASP encodings. The resulting encodings are easily customizable for different settings and the computation of optimum schedules can mostly be done in the blink of an eye, even when dealing with large runtime data sets stemming from many solvers on hundreds to thousands of instances. Also, the fact that our approach can be customized easily enabled us to swiftly adapt it to generate parallel schedules for multi-processor machines.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Answer Set Programming for Stream Reasoning

The advance of Internet and Sensor technology has brought about new challenges evoked by the emergence of continuous data streams. Beyond rapid data processing, application areas like ambient assisted living, robotics, or dynamic scheduling involve complex reasoning tasks. We address such scenarios and elaborate upon approaches to knowledge-intense stream reasoning, based on Answer Set Programming (ASP). While traditional ASP methods are devised for singular problem solving, we develop new techniques to formulate and process problems dealing with emerging as well as expiring data in a seamless way.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Complex Optimization in Answer Set Programming

Preference handling and optimization are indispensable means for addressing non-trivial applications in Answer Set Programming (ASP). However, their implementation becomes difficult whenever they bring about a significant increase in computational complexity. As a consequence, existing ASP systems do not offer complex optimization capacities, supporting, for instance, inclusion-based minimization or Pareto efficiency. Rather, such complex criteria are typically addressed by resorting to dedicated modeling techniques, like saturation. Unlike the ease of common ASP modeling, however, these techniques are rather involved and hardly usable by ASP laymen. We address this problem by developing a general implementation technique by means of meta-programming, thus reusing existing ASP systems to capture various forms of qualitative preferences among answer sets. In this way, complex preferences and optimization capacities become readily available for ASP applications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access