Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Background
Methodology
Program Analysis and Debugging Level Methodology
Top-Level Methodology
Use Cases
Related Work
Conclusion
References

Stepwise debugging of answer-set programs

Profile image of Johannes OetschJohannes Oetsch

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068417000217
visibility

…

description

58 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

We introduce a stepping methodology for answer-set programming (ASP) that allows for debugging answer-set programs and is based on the stepwise application of rules. Similar to debugging in imperative languages, where the behaviour of a program is observed during a step-by-step execution, stepping for ASP allows for observing the effects that rule applications have in the computation of an answer set. While the approach is inspired from debugging in imperative programming, it is conceptually different to stepping in other paradigms due to non-determinism and declarativity that are inherent to ASP. In particular, unlike statements in an imperative program that are executed following a strict control flow, there is no predetermined order in which to consider rules in ASP during a computation. In our approach, the user is free to decide which rule to consider active in the next step following his or her intuition. This way, one can focus on interesting parts of the debugging search spa...

Related papers

Testing and Debugging Techniques for Answer Set Solver Development
Robert Daniel Brummayer

This paper develops automated testing and debugging techniques for answer set solver development. We describe a flexible grammar-based black-box ASP fuzz testing tool which is able to reveal various defects such as unsound and incomplete behavior, i.e. invalid answer sets and inability to find existing solutions, in state-of-the-art answer set solver implementations. Moreover, we develop delta debugging techniques for shrinking failure-inducing inputs on which solvers exhibit defective behavior. In particular, we develop a delta debugging algorithm in the context of answer set solving, and evaluate two different elimination strategies for the algorithm.

View PDFchevron_right
“That is Illogical Captain!”–The Debugging Support Tool spock for Answer-Set Programs: System Description
Martin Gebser

Proc. SEA, 2007

Answer-set programming (ASP) is a logic programming paradigm for declarative problem solving which gained increasing importance during the last decade. However, so far hardly any tools exist supporting software engineers in developing answer-set programs, and there are no standard methodologies for handling unexpected outcomes of a program. Thus, writing answer-set programs is sometimes quite intricate, especially when large programs for real-world applications are required. In order to increase the usability of ASP, the development of appropriate debugging strategies is therefore vital. In this paper, we describe the system spock, a debugging support tool for answer-set programs making use of ASP itself. The implemented techniques maintain the declarative nature of ASP within the debugging process and are independent from the actual computation of answer sets.

View PDFchevron_right
An interactive approach to answer set programming
Marina De Vos

2005

Abstract. This paper outlines a novel approach to the computation of answer sets in an evolving and interactive environment. Instead of recomputing the semantics of the entire program, our approach updates the answer sets after incremental changes to the rule base. This is intended for application domains in which the answer set program is developed or updated during the run time of the system but answer sets are required throughout.

View PDFchevron_right
LANA: A Language for Annotating Answer-Set Programs
Marina De Vos

Abstract While past research in answer-set programming (ASP) mainly focused on theory, ASP solver technology, and applications, the present work situates itself in the context of a recent research trend: development support for ASP. In particular, we propose to augment answer-set programs with additional metainformation formulated in a dedicated annotation language, called LANA.

View PDFchevron_right
A pragmatic programmer’s guide to answer set programming
Marina De Vos

2009

With the increasing speed and capacity of answer set solvers and showcase applications in a variety of fields, Answer Set Programming (ASP) is maturing as a programming paradigm for declarative problem solving. Com-prehensive programming methodologies have been developed for procedural and object-oriented paradigms to assist programmers in developing their programs from the problem specification. In many cases, however it is not clear how, or even if, such methodologies can be applied to answer set programming. In ...

View PDFchevron_right
Generating explanations for answer set programming applications
Son Tran

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Operations Applications III, 2021

We present an explanation system for applications that leverage Answer Set Programming (ASP). Given a program P , an answer set A of P , and an atom a in the program P , our system generates all explanation graphs of a which help explain why a is true (or false) given the program P and the answer set A. We illustrate the functionality of the system using some examples from the literature.

View PDFchevron_right
Annotating answer-set programs in Lana
Marina De Vos

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 2012

While past research in answer-set programming (ASP) mainly focused on theory, ASP solver technology, and applications, the present work situates itself in the context of a quite recent research trend: development support for ASP. In particular, we propose to augment answer-set programs with additional meta-information formulated in a dedicated annotation language, called Lana. This language allows the grouping of rules into coherent blocks and to specify language signatures, types, pre- and postconditions, as well as unit tests for such blocks. While these annotations are invisible to an ASP solver, as they take the form of program comments, they can be interpreted by tools for documentation, testing, and verification purposes, as well as to eliminate sources of common programming errors by realising syntax checking or code completion features. To demonstrate its versatility, we introduce two such tools, viz. (i) ASPDoc, for generating an HTML documentation for a program based on th...

View PDFchevron_right
Communicating answer set programs
Dirk Vermeir

2010

Answer set programming is a form of declarative programming that has proven very successful in succinctly formulating and solving complex problems. Although mechanisms for representing and reasoning with the combined answer set programs of multiple agents have already been proposed, the actual gain in expressivity when adding communication has not been thoroughly studied. We show that allowing simple programs to talk to each other results in the same expressivity as adding negation-as-failure. Furthermore, we show that the ability to focus on one program in a network of simple programs results in the same expressivity as adding disjunction in the head of the rules.

View PDFchevron_right
spock-Detecting Errors in Logic Programs under the Answer-Set Semantics: System Description
Martin Gebser

Answer-set programming (ASP) is an emerging logic-programming paradigm, which strictly separates the description of a problem from its solutions. Despite its semantic elegance, ASP suffers from a lack of comfort for software developers. In particular, tools are needed which support engineers in detecting errornous parts of their programs . Unlike in other areas of logic programming, applying tracing techniques for debugging logic programs under the answer-set semantics seems rather unnatural, since sticking to imperative solving algorithms would undermine the declarative flavor of ASP.

View PDFchevron_right
A versatile intermediate language for answer set programming
Martin Gebser

2008

The attractiveness of Answer Set Programming (ASP) and related paradigms for declarative problem solving is considerably due to the availability of highly efficient yet easy-to-use implementations. A major driving force for the development and improvement of tools are standardized problem representations, for several reasons. First, they relieve developers from the burden of inventing their own input formats. Second, they establish interoperability between separate tools, allowing users to easily compare and exchange them without extensively converting their problem representations. Third, they facilitate the acquisition of problem descriptions from distinct sources, which is useful for benchmarking and assessment purposes. Historically, however, standards for representing logic programs, serving as inputs to ASP systems, were mainly dictated by the few available tools. In fact, there currently are two quasi standards, namely, the formats used by lparse and dlv, incompatible with each other. As a first step towards overcoming this deficiency, this work proposes an intermediate format for ground logic programs, intended for the representation of inputs to ASP solvers. The format is not designed to be a primary input language, given that ASP systems usually deploy a second component, called a grounder, to deal with the inputs provided by users. In view of this, our format is situated intermediate a grounder and a solver, guided by the example of grounder lparse and solver smodels, the latter marking the first among nowadays a variety of solvers processing the output of lparse. However, the output format of lparse has some decisive drawbacks, namely, its restrictive range and limited extensibility. We thus propose a new intermediate language, where our major design goals are flexibility in problem representation and easy extensibility to new language constructs.

View PDFchevron_right

References (58)

  1. Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Leone, N., and Ricca, F. 2015. Advances in WASP. In Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning -13th International Conference, LPNMR 2015, Lexington, KY, USA, Sept. 27-30, 2015. Proceedings, F. Calimeri, G. Ianni, and M. Truszczyński, Eds. LNCS, vol. 9345. Springer, 40-54.
  2. Ben-Eliyahu, R. and Dechter, R. 1994. Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 12, 1-2, 53-87.
  3. Brain, M., Cliffe, O., and De Vos, M. 2009. A pragmatic programmer's guide to answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Software Engineering for Answer-Set Programming (SEA'09), Potsdam, Germany, M. De Vos and T. Schaub, Eds. 49-63.
  4. Brain, M. and De Vos, M. 2005. Debugging logic programs under the answer set semantics. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Answer Set Program- ming (ASP'05), Advances in Theory and Implementation, Bath, UK, Sept. 27-29, 2005, M. De Vos and A. Provetti, Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 142. CEUR-WS.org.
  5. Brain, M., Gebser, M., Puehrer, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., and Woltran, S. 2007. That is illogical Captain! The debugging support tool spock for answer-set pro- grams -System description. In Proceeding of the 1st International Workshop on Soft- ware Engineering for Answer Set Programming (SEA'07), Tempe, AZ, USA, May 14, 2007, M. De Vos and T. Schaub, Eds. 71-85.
  6. Brain, M., Gebser, M., Pührer, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., and Woltran, S. 2007. Debugging ASP programs by means of ASP. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'07), Tempe, AZ, USA, May 15-17, 2007, C. Baral, G. Brewka, and J. S. Schlipf, Eds. LNCS, vol. 4483. Springer, 31-43.
  7. Brochenin, R., Lierler, Y., and Maratea, M. 2014. Abstract disjunctive answer set solvers. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'14), Prague, Czech Republic, Aug. 18-22, 2014, T. Schaub, G. Friedrich, and B. O'Sullivan, Eds. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263. IOS Press, 165-170.
  8. Busoniu, P.-A., Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., Skočovský, P., and Tompits, H. 2013. Sealion: An eclipse-based IDE for answer-set programming with advanced debugging support. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4-5, 657-673.
  9. Caballero, R., García-Ruiz, Y., and Sáenz-Pérez, F. 2008. A theoretical framework for the declarative debugging of datalog programs. In Revised Selected Papers of the 3rd International Workshop on Semantics in Data and Knowledge Bases (SDKB'08), Nantes, France, Mar. 29, 2008, K.-D. Schewe and B. Thalheim, Eds. LNCS, vol. 4925. Springer, 143-159.
  10. Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Brain, M., and Padget, J. A. 2008. ASPVIZ: Declarative visualisation and animation using answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'08), Udine, Italy, Dec. 9-13, 2008, M. G. de la Banda and E. Pontelli, Eds. LNCS, vol. 5366. Springer, 724-728.
  11. Denecker, M. 2000. Extending classical logic with inductive definitions. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Logic (CL'10), London, UK, July 24-28, 2000, J. W. Lloyd, V. Dahl, U. Furbach, M. Kerber, K. Lau, C. Palamidessi, L. M. Pereira, Y. Sagiv, and P. J. Stuckey, Eds. LNCS, vol. 1861. Springer, 703-717.
  12. Denecker, M. and Ternovska, E. 2008. A logic of nonmonotone inductive definitions. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9, 2.
  13. Denecker, M., Vennekens, J., Bond, S., Gebser, M., and Truszczyński, M. 2009. The second answer set programming competition. In Proceedings of the 10th Interna- tional Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'09), Potsdam, Germany, Sept. 14-18, 2009, E. Erdem, F. Lin, and T. Schaub, Eds. LNCS, vol. 5753. Springer, 637-654.
  14. Dodaro, C., Gasteiger, P., Musitsch, B., Ricca, F., and Shchekotykhin, K. M. 2015. Interactive debugging of non-ground ASP programs. In Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning -13th International Conference, LPNMR 2015, Lexington, KY, USA, Sept. 27-30, 2015. Proceedings, F. Calimeri, G. Ianni, and M. Truszczyński, Eds. LNCS, vol. 9345. Springer, 279-293.
  15. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., and Tompits, H. 2005. A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In Pro- ceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 30-Aug. 5, 2005, L. P. Kaelbling and A. Saffiotti, Eds. Professional Book Center, 90-96.
  16. Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2004. Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: Semantics and complexity. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'04). LNCS, vol. 3229. Springer, 200-212.
  17. Faber, W., Pfeifer, G., and Leone, N. 2011. Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artificial Intelligence 175, 1, 278-298.
  18. Ferraris, P. 2011. Logic programs with propositional connectives and aggregates. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 12, 4, 25.
  19. Frühstück, M., Pührer, J., and Friedrich, G. 2013. Debugging answer-set programs with Ouroboros -Extending the SeaLion plugin. In Proceedings of the 12th Interna- tional Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'13), Corunna, Spain, Sept. 15-19, 2013, P. Cabalar and T. C. Son, Eds. LNCS, vol. 8148. Springer, 323-328.
  20. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., König, A., and Schaub, T. 2011. Advances in gringo series 3. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'11), Vancouver, Canada, May 16-19, 2011, J. P. Delgrande and W. Faber, Eds. LNCS, vol. 6645. Springer, 345-351.
  21. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., and Schaub, T. 2012. Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artificial Intelligence 187-188, 52-89.
  22. Gebser, M., Lee, J., and Lierler, Y. 2011. On elementary loops of logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 11, 6, 953-988.
  23. Gebser, M., Pührer, J., Schaub, T., and Tompits, H. 2008. A meta-programming technique for debugging answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'08), Chicago, IL, USA, July 13-17, 2008, D. Fox and C. P. Gomes, Eds. AAAI Press, 448-453.
  24. Gebser, M., Pührer, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., and Woltran, S. 2009. spock: A debugging support tool for logic programs under the answer-set semantics. In Revised Selected Papers of the 17th International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP'07) and 21st Workshop on (Con- straint) Logic Programming (WLP'07), D. Seipel, M. Hanus, and A. Wolf, Eds. LNCS, vol. 5437. Springer, 247-252.
  25. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunc- tive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 3/4, 365-386.
  26. Kloimüllner, C., Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., and Tompits, H. 2013. Kara: A system for visualising and visual editing of interpretations for answer-set programs. In Revised Selected Papers of the 19th International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP'11) and the 25th Workshop on Logic Programming (WLP'11), Vienna, Austria, Sept. 28-30, 2011. LNCS, vol. 7773. Springer, 325-344.
  27. Lee, J. 2005. A model-theoretic counterpart of loop formulas. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 30-Aug 5, 2005, L. P. Kaelbling and A. Saffiotti, Eds. Professional Book Center, 503-508.
  28. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., and Scar- cello, F. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 3, 499-562.
  29. Li, T., Vos, M. D., Padget, J., Satoh, K., and Balke, T. 2015. Debugging ASP using ILP. In Technical Communications of the 31st International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2015), Cork, Ireland, Aug. 31 -Sept. 4, 2015., M. D. Vos, T. Eiter, Y. Lierler, and F. Toni, Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1433. CEUR-WS.org.
  30. Lierler, Y. 2011. Abstract answer set solvers with backjumping and learning. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 11, 2-3, 135-169.
  31. Lierler, Y. and Truszczyński, M. 2016. On abstract modular inference systems and solvers. Artificial Intelligence 236, 65-89.
  32. Liu, L., Pontelli, E., Son, T. C., and Truszczyński, M. 2010. Logic programs with abstract constraint atoms: The role of computations. Artificial Intelligence 174, 3-4, 295-315.
  33. Marek, V. W. and Remmel, J. B. 2004. Set constraints in logic programming. In Pro- ceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'04), Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, Jan 6-8, 2004, V. Lifschitz and I. Niemelä, Eds. LNCS, vol. 2923. Springer, 167-179.
  34. Marek, V. W. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic pro- gramming paradigm. In In The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, K. R. Apt, V. W. Marek, M. Truszczyński, and D. S. Warren, Eds. Springer, 375-398.
  35. Marek, V. W. and Truszczyński, M. 2004. Logic programs with abstract constraint atoms. In In Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'04), San Jose, CA, USA, July 25-29, 2004, G. Ferguson and D. McGuinness, Eds. AAAI Press, 86-91.
  36. Mikitiuk, A., Moseley, E., and Truszczyński, M. 2007. Towards debugging of answer- set programs in the language PSpb. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAI'07), Volume II, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 25-28, 2007, H. R. Arabnia, M. Q. Yang, and J. Y. Yang, Eds. CSREA Press, 635-640.
  37. Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint program- ming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3-4, 241-273.
  38. Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., and Tinelli, C. 2006. Solving SAT and SAT mod- ulo theories: From an abstract davis-putnam-logemann-loveland procedure to dpll(T). Journal of the ACM 53, 6, 937-977.
  39. Oetsch, J., Prischink, M., Pührer, J., Schwengerer, M., and Tompits, H. 2012. On the small-scope hypothesis for testing answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'12), Rome, Italy, June 10-14, 2012, G. Brewka, T. Eiter, and S. A. McIlraith, Eds. AAAI Press.
  40. Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., and Tompits, H. 2010. Catching the Ouroboros: On debugging non-ground answer-set programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 10, 4-6 (July), 513-529.
  41. Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., and Tompits, H. 2010. Let's break the rules: Interactive procedural-style debugging of answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 24th Work- shop on (Constraint) Logic Programming (WLP'10), Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 14-16, 2010, S. Abdennadher, Ed. Technical Report, Faculty of Media Engineering and Technology, German University in Cairo. 77-87.
  42. Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., and Tompits, H. 2011. Stepping through an answer-set pro- gram. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'11), Vancouver, Canada, May 16-19, 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645. Springer, 134-147.
  43. Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., and Tompits, H. 2012a. An FLP-style answer-set semantics for abstract-constraint programs with disjunctions. In Technical Communications of the 28th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'12), Budapest, Hungary, A. Dovier and V. S. Costa, Eds. LIPIcs, vol. 17. Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 222-234.
  44. Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., and Tompits, H. 2012b. Stepwise debugging of description- logic programs. In Correct Reasoning -Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz, E. Erdem, J. Lee, Y. Lierler, and D. Pearce, Eds. LNCS, vol. 7265. Springer, 492-508.
  45. Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., and Tompits, H. 2013. The SeaLion has landed: An IDE for answer-set programming-Preliminary report. In Revised Selected Papers of the 19th International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP'11) and the 25th Workshop on Logic Programming (WLP'11), Vienna, Austria, Sept. 28-30, 2011. LNCS, vol. 7773. Springer, 305-324.
  46. Polleres, A., Frühstück, M., Schenner, G., and Friedrich, G. 2013. Debugging non-ground ASP programs with choice rules, cardinality constraints and weight con- straints. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'13), Corunna, Spain, Sept. 15-19, 2013, P. Ca- balar and T. C. Son, Eds. LNCS, vol. 8148. Springer, 452-464.
  47. Pontelli, E., Son, T. C., and El-Khatib, O. 2009. Justifications for logic programs under answer set semantics. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 9, 1, 1-56.
  48. Pührer, J. 2007. Master's thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
  49. Pührer, J. 2014. Stepwise debugging in answer-set programming: Theoretical foun- dations and practical realisation. Ph.D. thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Vi- enna, Austria. http://repositum.tuwien.ac.at/urn:nbn:at:at-ubtuw:1-75281 [On- line; accessed Dec. 14, 2016].
  50. Redl, C. 2016. The dlvhex system for knowledge representation: recent advances (system description). Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 16, 5-6, 866-883.
  51. Shapiro, E. Y. 1982. Algorithmic program debugging. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
  52. Shchekotykhin, K. M. 2015. Interactive query-based debugging of ASP programs. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'15), Austin, TX, USA, Jan. 25-30, 2015, B. Bonet and S. Koenig, Eds. AAAI Press, 1597-1603.
  53. Simons, P., Niemelä, I., and Soininen, T. 2002. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138, 181-234.
  54. Smith, A. 2011. Lonsdaleite. https://github.com/rndmcnlly/Lonsdaleite. [Online; accessed Dec. 14, 2016].
  55. Syrjänen, T. 2006. Debugging inconsistent answer set programs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'06), Lake District, UK, May 30-June 1, 2006, J. Dix and A. Hunter, Eds. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität Clausthal, Technical Report, 77-83.
  56. Truszczyński, M. 2010. Reducts of propositional theories, satisfiability relations, and generalizations of semantics of logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 174, 16-17, 1285- 1306.
  57. Wittocx, J. 2009. IDPDraw, a tool used for visualizing answer sets. https://dtai.cs. kuleuven.be/software/idpdraw. [Online; accessed Dec. 14, 2016].
  58. Wittocx, J., Vlaeminck, H., and Denecker, M. 2009. Debugging for model expansion. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'09), Pasadena, CA, USA, July 14-17, 2009, P. M. Hill and D. S. Warren, Eds. LNCS, vol. 5649. Springer, 296-311.

Related papers

A meta-programming technique for debugging answer-set programs
Martin Gebser

2008

Answer-set programming (ASP) is widely recognised as a viable tool for declarative problem solving. However, there is currently a lack of tools for developing answer-set programs. In particular, providing tools for debugging answer-set programs has recently been identified as a crucial prerequisite for a wider acceptance of ASP. In this paper, we introduce a meta-programming technique for debugging in ASP. The basic question we address is why interpretations expected to be answer sets are not answer sets of the program to debug. We thus deal with finding semantical errors of programs. The explanations provided by our method are based on an intuitive scheme of errors that relies on a recent characterisation of the answer-set semantics. Furthermore, as we are using a metaprogramming technique, debugging queries are expressed in terms of answer-set programs themselves, which has several benefits: For one, we can directly use ASP solvers for processing debugging queries. Indeed, our technique can easily be implemented, and we devised a corresponding prototype debugging system. Also, our approach respects the declarative nature of ASP, and the capabilities of the system can easily be extended to incorporate differing debugging features.

View PDFchevron_right
spock: A Debugging Support Tool for Logic Programs under the Answer-Set Semantics
Martin Gebser

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2009

Answer-set programming (ASP) is an emerging logic-programming paradigm that strictly separates the description of a problem from its solving methods. Despite its semantic elegance, ASP suffers from a lack of support for program developers. In particular, tools are needed that help engineers in detecting erroneous parts of their programs. Unlike in other areas of logic programming, applying tracing techniques for debugging logic programs under the answer-set semantics seems rather unnatural, since employing imperative solving algorithms would undermine the declarative flavour of ASP. In this paper, we present the system spock, a debugging support tool for answer-set programs making use of ASP itself. The implemented techniques maintain the declarative nature of ASP within the debugging process and are independent of the actual computation of answer sets.

View PDFchevron_right
An integrated Graphical User Interface for Debugging Answer Set Programs
Kristian Reale

ArXiv, 2016

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is an expressive knowledge representation and reasoning framework. Due to its rather simple syntax paired with high-performance solvers, ASP is interesting for industrial applications. However, to err is human and thus debugging is an important activity during the development process. Therefore, tools for debugging non-ground answer set programs are needed. In this paper, we present a new graphical debugging interface for non-ground answer set programs. The tool is based on the recently-introduced DWASP approach for debugging and it simplifies the interaction with the debugger. Furthermore, the debugging interface is integrated in ASPIDE, a rich IDE for answer set programs. With our extension ASPIDE turns into a full-fledged IDE by offering debugging support.

View PDFchevron_right
Answer set programming–a domain in need of explanation
Marina De Vos

2008

Abstract. This paper describes the problems with debugging tools for answer set programming, a declarative programming paradigm. Current approaches are difficult to use on most applications due to the considerable bottlenecks in communicating the reasons to the user. In this paper we examine the reasons for this and suggest some possible future directions.

View PDFchevron_right
Debugging logic programs under the answer set semantics
Marina De Vos

2005

Abstract. This paper discusses the background, algorithms and implementation techniques to support programmers in 'debugging'logic programs under the answer set semantics. We first investigate what constitutes an error in such programs and which classes of errors exist. This is used to motivate techniques and algorithms that respectively eliminate certain classes of errors and explain how an error occurred and why it occurred.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Compliance checking on first-order knowledge with conflicting and compensatory norms: a comparison among currently available technologies
Francesco Calimeri

Artificial Intelligence and Law

This paper analyses and compares some of the automated reasoners that have been used in recent research for compliance checking. Although the list of the considered reasoners is not exhaustive, we believe that our analysis is representative enough to take stock of the current state of the art in the topic. We are interested here in formalizations at the first-order level. Past literature on normative reasoning mostly focuses on the propositional level. However, the propositional level is of little usefulness for concrete LegalTech applications, in which compliance checking must be enforced on (large) sets of individuals. Furthermore, we are interested in technologies that are freely available and that can be further investigated and compared by the scientific community. In other words, this paper does not consider technologies only employed in industry and/or whose source code is non-accessible. This paper formalizes a selected use case in the considered reasoners and compares the i...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved