mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Treewidth-aware Reductions of Normal ASP to SAT -- Is Normal ASP Harder than SAT after All?

arXiv 2210.03553 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2022cs.AI cs.CC cs.LOcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a paradigm for modeling and solving problems for knowledge representation and reasoning. There are plenty of results dedicated to studying the hardness of (fragments of) ASP. So far, these studies resulted in characterizations in terms of computational complexity as well as in fine-grained insights presented in form of dichotomy-style results, lower bounds when translating to other formalisms like propositional satisfiability (SAT), and even detailed parameterized complexity landscapes. A generic parameter in parameterized complexity originating from graph theory is the so-called treewidth, which in a sense captures structural density of a program. Recently, there was an increase in the number of treewidth-based solvers related to SAT. While there are translations from (normal) ASP to SAT, no reduction that preserves treewidth or at least keeps track of the treewidth increase is known. In this paper we propose a novel reduction from normal ASP to SAT that is aware of the treewidth, and guarantees that a slight increase of treewidth is indeed sufficient. Further, we show a new result establishing that, when considering treewidth, already the fragment of normal ASP is slightly harder than SAT (under reasonable assumptions in computational complexity). This also confirms that our reduction probably cannot be significantly improved and that the slight increase of treewidth is unavoidable. Finally, we present an empirical study of our novel reduction from normal ASP to SAT, where we compare treewidth upper bounds that are obtained via known decomposition heuristics. Overall, our reduction works better with these heuristics than existing translations.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 95 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2022.

Builds on

21 of 95 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017Multi-shot ASP solving with clingocited by 115
  2. 2019ASP-Core-2 Input Language Formatcited by 77
  3. 2014Clingo = ASP + Control: Preliminary Reportcited by 56
  4. 2020The Model Counting Competition 2020cited by 24
  5. 2017Answer Set Solving with Bounded Treewidth Revisitedcited by 9
  6. 2020A Uniform Treatment of Aggregates and Constraints in Hybrid ASPcited by 8
  7. 2014Clause-Learning Algorithms with Many Restarts and Bounded-Width Resolutioncited by 7
  8. 2020selp: A Single-Shot Epistemic Logic Program Solvercited by 7
  9. 2020Exploiting Database Management Systems and Treewidth for Countingcited by 7
  10. 2020eclingo: A solver for Epistemic Logic Programscited by 7
  11. 2019Lower Bounds for QBFs of Bounded Treewidthcited by 6
  12. 2020An ASP semantics for Constraints involving Conditional Aggregatescited by 6
9 more
  1. 2020Treewidth-Aware Complexity in ASP: Not all Positive Cycles are Equally Hardcited by 6
  2. 2020A Time Leap Challenge for SAT Solvingcited by 6
  3. 2020DPMC: Weighted Model Counting by Dynamic Programming on Project-Join Treescited by 6
  4. 2018Practical Access to Dynamic Programming on Tree Decompositionscited by 5
  5. 2020Structural Decompositions of Epistemic Logic Programscited by 5
  6. 2019Slightly Superexponential Parameterized Problemscited by 4
  7. 2016Clique-Width and Directed Width Measures for Answer-Set Programmingcited by 3
  8. 2021Utilizing Treewidth for Quantitative Reasoning on Epistemic Logic Programscited by 3
  9. 2018Exploiting Treewidth for Projected Model Counting and its Limitscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 3; 2025: 2.

8 papers.