Navigating and Querying Answer Sets: How Hard Is It Really and Why?

Answer set programming is a popular declarative paradigm with countless applications for modeling and solving combinatorial problems. We can view a program as a knowledge database compactly representing conditions for solutions. Often we are interested in reasoning about solutions of filtering answer sets. At the heart of these questions is brave and cautious reasoning. For browsing answer sets, we combine both as restricting atoms of answer sets is only meaningful for atoms called facets that belong to some (brave) but not to all answer sets (cautious). Surprisingly, the precise computational complexity of facet problems remained widely open so far. In this paper, we study the complexity of answer set facets. We establish tight results for reasoning with facets, deciding upper and lower bounds as well as the exact number of facets, and comparing facets. Facet reasoning seems to be a natural problem formalism, residing in complexity families Σᴾ, Πᴾ, Dᴾ, and Θᴾ, up to the third level. Moreover, our study considers quantitative importance questions on facets and generalizing from facets to conjunctions, disjunctions, and arbitrary queries. We complete our results by an experimental evaluation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2024/60
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.69

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Navigating and Querying Answer Sets: How Hard Is It Really and Why?

Dominik Rusovac, Martin Gebser, Markus Hecher, Sarah Alice Gaggl et al.
2 citations
Topic Modeling
0.69
article

Navigating and Querying Answer Sets: How Hard Is It Really and Why?

Dominik Rusovac, Martin Gebser, Markus Hecher, Sarah Alice Gaggl, Johannes K. Fichte
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Answer set programming is a popular declarative paradigm with countless applications for modeling and solving combinatorial problems. We can view a program as a knowledge database compactly representing conditions for solutions. Often we are interested in reasoning about solutions of filtering answer sets. At the heart of these questions is brave and cautious reasoning. For browsing answer sets, we combine both as restricting atoms of answer sets is only meaningful for atoms called facets that belong to some (brave) but not to all answer sets (cautious). Surprisingly, the precise computational complexity of facet problems remained widely open so far. In this paper, we study the complexity of answer set facets. We establish tight results for reasoning with facets, deciding upper and lower bounds as well as the exact number of facets, and comparing facets. Facet reasoning seems to be a natural problem formalism, residing in complexity families Σᴾ, Πᴾ, Dᴾ, and Θᴾ, up to the third level. Moreover, our study considers quantitative importance questions on facets and generalizing from facets to conjunctions, disjunctions, and arbitrary queries. We complete our results by an experimental evaluation.

Linköping University (SE), University of Klagenfurt (AT), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US), Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, Vienna Science and Technology Fund, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Austrian Science Fund, Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing, University of California Berkeley
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Topic Modeling
0.69
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.