Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic

Artificial Intelligence
Inference in First-Order Logic

Readings:
Chapter 9 of Russell &

Norvig.
A brief history of reasoning

450B. C. Stoics
322B. C. Aristotle
1565
Cardano
1847
1879
1922
1930
1930
1931
1960
1965
propositional logic, inference (maybe

syllogisms (inference rules), quanti
probability theory (propositional logic
+ uncertainty)
Boole
propositional logic (again)
Frege
first-order logic
Wittgenstein
proof by truth tables
complete algorithm for FOL
Gdel
Herbrand
complete algorithm for FOL
complete algorithm for arithmetic
Gdel
Davis/Putnam practical algorithm for propositional
logic
Robinson
practical algorithm for FOL
resolution
Universal instantiation (UI)

Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is
entailed by it:
v
S UBST ({v/g}, )
for any variable v and ground term g
E.g., x King(x) Greedy(x) = Evil(x) yields
King(John) Greedy(John) = Evil(John)

King(Richard) Greedy(Richard) = Evil(Richard)
King(F ather(John)) Greedy(F ather(John)) = Evil(F ather
..
.
Existential instantiation (EI)

For any sentence , variable v , and constant symbol k
that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base:
v
S UBST ({v/k}, )
E.g., x Crown(x) OnHead(x, John) yields

Crown(C1) OnHead(C1 , John)
provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called a Skolem

constant.
UI versus EI
From xy (y + x = y) we obtain
y+a=y
From x y (y + x = y) we obtain
y+e=y
provided e is a new constant symbol.

UI can be applied several times to add new sentences;
the new KB is logically equivalent to the old.
EI can be applied once to replace the existential
sentence; the new KB is not equivalent to the old, but is
satisfiable iff the old KB was satisfiable.
Reduction to Propositional Inference

Suppose the KB contains just the following:
x King(x) Greedy(x) = Evil(x)
King(John)
Greedy(John)
Brother(Richard, John)
Instantiating the universal sentence in all possible ways, we have
King(John) Greedy(John) = Evil(John)
King(Richard) Greedy(Richard) = Evil(Richard)
King(John)
Greedy(John)
The new KB is propositionalized: proposition symbols are
Reduction to Propositional Inference

Claim: a ground sentence is entailed by new KB iff
entailed by original KB.
Claim: every FOL KB can be propositionalized so as to
preserve entailment.
Idea: propositionalize KB and query, apply resolution,
return result.
Problem: with function symbols, ground terms are
infinitely many, e.g., F ather(F ather(F ather(John))).
Theorem: Herbrand (1930). If a sentence is entailed
by an FOL KB, it is entailed by a finite subset of the
propositional KB.
Idea: For n = 0 to , create a propositional KB by
instantiating with depth-n terms see if is entailed by
this KB.
Problem: works if is entailed, loops if is not entailed
Problems with Propositionalization

Propositionalization seems to generate lots of irrelevant
sentences.
E.g., from
x King(x) Greedy(x) = Evil(x)
King(John)
y Greedy(y)
it seems obvious that Evil(John), but

propositionalization produces lots of facts such as
Greedy(Richard) that are irrelevant.
In general, for one k -ary predicate and n constants,
there are nk instantiations!
Unification
We can get the inference immediately if we can find a
substitution such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match
King(John) and Greedy(y). That is,
= {x/John, y/John} works
U NIFY (, ) =
p
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
if =
Knows(John, Jane)
Knows(y, OJ)
Knows(y, M other(y))
Knows(x, OJ)
Unification
U NIFY (, ) =
p
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
if =
Knows(John, Jane)
{x/Jane}
Knows(y, OJ)
Knows(x, OJ)
Unification
U NIFY (, ) =
p
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
if =
Knows(John, Jane)
{x/Jane}
Knows(y, OJ)
{x/OJ, y/John}
Knows(x, OJ)
Unification
U NIFY (, ) =
p
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
if =
q
Knows(John, Jane)
Knows(y, OJ)
Knows(x, OJ)
{x/Jane}
{x/OJ, y/John}
{y/John, x/M other(Jo
Unification
= {x/John, y/John} works.
U NIFY (, ) =
p
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
Knows(John, x)
if =
q
Knows(John, Jane)
Knows(y, OJ)
Knows(x, OJ)
{x/Jane}
{x/OJ, y/John}
{y/John, x/M other(Jo
f ail
Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g.,

Knows(z17 , OJ)
Conversion to CNF
Everyone who loves all animals is loved by someone:
x [ y Animal(y) = Loves(x, y)] = [ y Loves(y, x)]
1. Eliminate biconditionals and implications

x [ y Animal(y) Loves(x, y)] [ y Loves(y, x)]
2. Move inwards: x, p x p, x, p x p:
x [ y (Animal(y) Loves(x, y))] [ y Loves(y, x)]
Conversion to CNF contd.

3. Standardize variables: each quantifier should use a
different one
x [ y Animal(y) Loves(x, y)] [ z Loves(z, x)]
4. Skolemize: a more general form of existential

instantiation. Each existential variable is replaced by a
Skolem function of the enclosing universally quantified
variables:
x [Animal(F (x)) Loves(x, F (x))] Loves(G(x), x)
Conversion to CNF contd.

5. Drop universal quantifiers:
[Animal(F (x)) Loves(x, F (x))] Loves(G(x), x)
6. Distribute over :
[Animal(F (x))Loves(G(x), x)][Loves(x, F (x))Loves(G(x), x)
Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)

p1 0 , p2 0 , . . . , pn 0 , (p1 p2 . . . pn q)
q
where pi 0 = pi
p1 is King(x)
p1 0 is King(John)
p2 is Greedy(x)
p2 0 is Greedy(y)
is {x/John, y/John} q is Evil(x)
q is Evil(John)
GMP used with KB of definite clauses (those clauses

having exactly one positive literal).
All variables assumed universally quantified
Soundness of GMP
Need to show that
p1 0 , . . . , pn 0 , (p1 . . . pn q) |= q
provided that pi 0 = pi for all i

Lemma: For any definite clause p, we have p |= p by UI
1. (p1 . . . pn q) |= (p1 . . . pn q)) and
(p1 . . . pn q) = (p1 . . . pn q)
2. p1 0 , . . . , pn 0 |= p1 0 . . . pn 0 |= p1 0 . . . pn 0
3. From 1 and 2, q follows by ordinary Modus Ponens
Resolution
Full first-order version:
`1 ` k ,
m1 m n
(`1 ì1 ì+1 `k m1 mj1 mj+1 m
where U NIFY (ì , mj ) = .

For example,
Rich(x) U nhappy(x)
Rich(Ken)
U nhappy(Ken)
with = {x/Ken}.
Soundness of Resolution
Need to show `1 `k ,
m1 mn |= c where c is
(`1 ì1 ì+1 `k m1 mj1 mj+1 mn )
and U NIFY (ì , mj ) = .
This is true because
1. `1 `k |= (`1 `k ) by UI,
2. m1 mn |= (m1 mn ) by UI, and
3. (`1 `k ) and (m1 mn ) imply c by
propositional resolution.
Using Resolution
1. Obtain CN F (KB )
2. Apply resolution steps to the CNF
3. If the empty clause is generated, then KB |= .
Theorem: Resolution is a refutationally complete inference

system for KB |= .
Example Knowledge Base

The law says that it is a crime for an American to sell
weapons to hostile nations. The country Nono, an enemy of
America, has some missiles, and all of its missiles were
sold to it by Colonel West, who is American.
Prove that Col. West is a criminal
Example Knowledge Base contd.

. . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile
nations:

nations:
American(x) W eapon(y) Sells(x, y, z) Hostile(z) =
Criminal(x)
Nono . . . has some missiles

nations:
Criminal(x)
Nono . . . has some missiles, i.e.,
x Owns(N ono, x) M issile(x):
Owns(N ono, M1 ) and M issile(M1 )
. . . all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West

nations:
Criminal(x)
x M issile(x) Owns(N ono, x) = Sells(W est, x, N ono)
Missiles are weapons:

nations:
Criminal(x)
M issile(x) W eapon(x)
An enemy of America counts as hostile:

nations:
Criminal(x)
M issile(x) W eapon(x)
An enemy of America counts as hostile:
Hostile(z)
Hostile(Nono)
Hostile(Nono)
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
>
Enemy(Nono,America)
>
Hostile(Nono)
Hostile(z)
Hostile(z)
>
Enemy(Nono,America)
Owns(Nono,M1)
>
Hostile(x)
>
Enemy(x,America)
Owns(Nono,M1)
>
Owns(Nono,M1)
Missile(M1)
Sells(West,y,z)
Sells(West,M1,z)
>
Missile(M1)
Criminal(West)
Sells(West,y,z)
Sells(West,y,z)
>
Sells(West,x,Nono)
>
Owns(Nono,x)
>
>
Missile(x)
Missile(y)
>
Missile(M1)
Weapon(y)
Weapon(y)
>
Weapon(x)
>
Missile(x)
American(West)
>
American(West)
Criminal(x)
Hostile(z)
>
Sells(x,y,z)
>
Weapon(y)
>
American(x)
>
Resolution Proof: Definite Clauses

Hostile(z)
Logic programming
Sound bite: computation as inference on logical KBs
Logic programming
Ordinary programming
1.
Identify problem
Identify problem
2.
Assemble information
Assemble information
3.
Tea break
Figure out solution
4.
Encode information in KB
Program solution
5.
Encode problem instance as facts
Encode problem instance as data
6.
Ask queries
Apply program to data
7.
Find false facts
Debug procedural errors
Should be easier to debug Capital(N ewY ork, U S) than

x := x + 2 !
Prolog Systems
A resolution inference system on Horn clauses + bells & whistles
Widely used in Europe, Japan (basis of 5th Generation project)
Compilation techniques 60 million LIPS
Program = set of definite clauses, which are of form:
head :- literal1 , . . . literaln .
weapon(X) :- missile(X).
Efficient unification by open coding

Efficient retrieval of matching clauses by direct linking
Depth-first, left-to-right backward chaining
Built-in predicates for arithmetic etc., e.g., X is Y*Z+3
Closed-world assumption (negation as failure) e.g., given
alive(X) :- not dead(X). alive(joe) succeeds if
dead(joe) fails.
Resolution Proof in Prolog
% it is a crime to sell weapons to hostile nations:

criminal(X):-american(X),weapon(Y),sells(X,Y,Z),hostile(Z).
% Nono ... has some missiles,
owns(nono,m1).
missile(m1).
% all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West
sells(west,X,nono) :- missile(X), owns(nono,X).
% Missiles are weapons
weapon(X) :- missile(X).
% An enemy of America counts as hostile:
hostile(X) :- enemy(X,america).
% The country Nono, an enemy of America ...\al
enemy(nono,america).
% West, who is American ...\al
american(west).
?- criminal(Who).
Who = west.
Prolog Examples
Depth-first search from a start state X:
dfs(X) :- goal(X).
dfs(X) :- successor(X,S),dfs(S).
No need to loop over S: successor succeeds for each

Appending two lists to produce a third:
append([],Y,Y).
append([X|L],Y,[X|Z]) :- append(L,Y,Z).
query:
append(A,B,[1,2]) ?
answers: A=[]
B=[1,2]
A=[1]
B=[2]
A=[1,2] B=[]

Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artificial Intelligence

Inference in First-Order Logic

Chapter 9 of Russell &

A brief history of reasoning

propositional logic, inference (maybe

Universal instantiation (UI)

King(John) Greedy(John) = Evil(John)

Existential instantiation (EI)

E.g., x Crown(x) OnHead(x, John) yields

provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called a Skolem

provided e is a new constant symbol.

Reduction to Propositional Inference

Reduction to Propositional Inference

Problems with Propositionalization

it seems obvious that Evil(John), but

Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g.,

1. Eliminate biconditionals and implications

Conversion to CNF contd.

4. Skolemize: a more general form of existential

Conversion to CNF contd.

[Animal(F (x))Loves(G(x), x)][Loves(x, F (x))Loves(G(x), x)

Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)

GMP used with KB of definite clauses (those clauses

provided that pi 0 = pi for all i

where U NIFY (`i , mj ) = .

Theorem: Resolution is a refutationally complete inference

Example Knowledge Base

Example Knowledge Base contd.

Example Knowledge Base contd.

Example Knowledge Base contd.

Example Knowledge Base contd.

Example Knowledge Base contd.

Example Knowledge Base contd.

Resolution Proof: Definite Clauses

Figure out solution

Encode problem instance as facts

Encode problem instance as data

Apply program to data

Find false facts

Debug procedural errors

Should be easier to debug Capital(N ewY ork, U S) than

Efficient unification by open coding

Resolution Proof in Prolog

% it is a crime to sell weapons to hostile nations:

No need to loop over S: successor succeeds for each

You might also like