Unification

o Unification is a process of making two different logical atomic expressions identical by

finding a substitution. Unification depends on the substitution process.
o It takes two literals as input and makes them identical using substitution.
o Let Ψ1 and Ψ2 be two atomic sentences and 𝜎 be a unifier such that, Ψ1𝜎 = Ψ2𝜎, then it can
be expressed as UNIFY(Ψ1, Ψ2).
o Example: Find the MGU for Unify{King(x), King(John)}

Let Ψ1 = King(x), Ψ2 = King(John),

Substitution θ = {John/x} is a unifier for these atoms and applying this substitution, and both
expressions will be identical.

o The UNIFY algorithm is used for unification, which takes two atomic sentences and returns a
unifier for those sentences (If any exist).
o Unification is a key component of all first-order inference algorithms.
o It returns fail if the expressions do not match with each other.
o The substitution variables are called Most General Unifier or MGU.

E.g. Let's say there are two different expressions, P(x, y), and P(a, f(z)).

In this example, we need to make both above statements identical to each other. For this, we will
perform the substitution.

            P(x, y)......... (i)

            P(a, f(z))......... (ii)

o Substitute x with a, and y with f(z) in the first expression, and it will be represented as a/x and
f(z)/y.
o With both the substitutions, the first expression will be identical to the second expression and
the substitution set will be: [a/x, f(z)/y].

Conditions for Unification:

Following are some basic conditions for unification:

o Predicate symbol must be same, atoms or expression with different predicate symbol can
never be unified.
o Number of Arguments in both expressions must be identical.
o Unification will fail if there are two similar variables present in the same expression.
Unification Algorithm:

Algorithm: Unify(Ψ1, Ψ2)

Step. 1: If Ψ1 or Ψ2 is a variable or constant, then:

a) If Ψ1 or Ψ2 are identical, then return NIL.
b) Else if Ψ1is a variable,
a. then if Ψ1 occurs in Ψ2, then return FAILURE
b. Else return { (Ψ2/ Ψ1)}.
c) Else if Ψ2 is a variable,
a. If Ψ2 occurs in Ψ1 then return FAILURE,
b. Else return {( Ψ1/ Ψ2)}.
d) Else return FAILURE.
Step.2: If the initial Predicate symbol in Ψ1 and Ψ2 are not same, then return FAILURE.
Step. 3: IF Ψ1 and Ψ2 have a different number of arguments, then return FAILURE.
Step. 4: Set Substitution set(SUBST) to NIL.
Step. 5: For i=1 to the number of elements in Ψ1.
a) Call Unify function with the ith element of Ψ1 and ith element of Ψ2, and put the result
into S.
b) If S = failure then returns Failure
c) If S ≠ NIL then do,
a. Apply S to the remainder of both L1 and L2.
b. SUBST= APPEND(S, SUBST).
Step.6: Return SUBST.

Implementation of the Algorithm

Step.1: Initialize the substitution set to be empty.

Step.2: Recursively unify atomic sentences:

a. Check for Identical expression match.

b. If one expression is a variable vi, and the other is a term ti which does not contain variable vi,
then:

a. Substitute ti / vi in the existing substitutions

b. Add ti /vi to the substitution setlist.
c. If both the expressions are functions, then function name must be similar, and the
number of arguments must be the same in both the expression.

For each pair of the following atomic sentences find the most general unifier (If exist).

1. Find the MGU of {p(f(a), g(Y)) and p(X, X)}

            Sol: S0 => Here, Ψ1 = p(f(a), g(Y)), and Ψ2 = p(X, X)
                  SUBST θ= {f(a) / X}
                  S1 => Ψ1 = p(f(a), g(Y)), and Ψ2 = p(f(a), f(a))
                  SUBST θ= {f(a) / g(y)}, Unification failed.

Unification is not possible for these expressions.

2. Find the MGU of {p(b, X, f(g(Z))) and p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}

Here, Ψ1 = p(b, X, f(g(Z))) , and Ψ2 = p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))

S0 => { p(b, X, f(g(Z))); p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}
SUBST θ={b/Z}

S1 => { p(b, X, f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}

SUBST θ={f(Y) /X}

S2 => { p(b, f(Y), f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}

SUBST θ= {g(b) /Y}

S2 => { p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b)); p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b))} Unified Successfully.

And Unifier = { b/Z, f(Y) /X , g(b) /Y}.

3. Find the MGU of {p (X, X), and p (Z, f(Z))}

Here, Ψ1 = {p (X, X), and Ψ2 = p (Z, f(Z))

S0 => {p (X, X), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST θ= {X/Z}
              S1 => {p (Z, Z), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST θ= {f(Z) / Z}, Unification Failed.

Hence, unification is not possible for these expressions.

4. Find the MGU of UNIFY(prime (11), prime(y))

Here, Ψ1 = {prime(11) , and Ψ2 = prime(y)}

S0 => {prime(11) , prime(y)}
SUBST θ= {11/y}

S1 => {prime(11) , prime(11)} , Successfully unified.

              Unifier: {11/y}.

5. Find the MGU of Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)), Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}

Here, Ψ1 = Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)), and Ψ2 = Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)
S0 => {Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}
SUBST θ= {f(b)/x}
S1 => {Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}

SUBST θ= {b/y}
S1 => {Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}, Successfully Unified.

Unifier: [a/a, f(b)/x, b/y].

6. UNIFY(knows(Richard, x), knows(Richard, John))

Here, Ψ1 = knows(Richard, x), and Ψ2 = knows(Richard, John)

S0 => { knows(Richard, x); knows(Richard, John)}
SUBST θ= {John/x}
S1 => { knows(Richard, John); knows(Richard, John)}, Successfully Unified.
Unifier: {John/x}.
 Resolution
Resolution is a theorem proving technique that proceeds by building refutation proofs, i.e., proofs by
contradictions. It was invented by a Mathematician John Alan Robinson in the year 1965.

Resolution is used, if there are various statements are given, and we need to prove a conclusion of
those statements. Unification is a key concept in proofs by resolutions. Resolution is a single
inference rule which can efficiently operate on the conjunctive normal form or clausal form.

Clause: Disjunction of literals (an atomic sentence) is called a clause. It is also known as a unit
clause.

Conjunctive Normal Form: A sentence represented as a conjunction of clauses is said to

be conjunctive normal form or CNF.

The resolution inference rule:

The resolution rule for first-order logic is simply a lifted version of the propositional rule. Resolution
can resolve two clauses if they contain complementary literals, which are assumed to be standardized
apart so that they share no variables.

Where li and mj are complementary literals.

This rule is also called the binary resolution rule because it only resolves exactly two literals.

Example:

We can resolve two clauses which are given below:

[Animal (g(x) V Loves (f(x), x)]       and       [￢ Loves(a, b) V ￢Kills(a, b)]

Where two complimentary literals are: Loves (f(x), x) and ￢ Loves (a, b)

These literals can be unified with unifier θ= [a/f(x), and b/x] , and it will generate a resolvent clause:

[Animal (g(x) V ￢ Kills(f(x), x)].

Steps for Resolution:

1. Conversion of facts into first-order logic.

2. Convert FOL statements into CNF
3. Negate the statement which needs to prove (proof by contradiction)
4. Draw resolution graph (unification).
To better understand all the above steps, we will take an example in which we will apply resolution.

Example:
a. John likes all kind of food.
b. Apple and vegetable are food
c. Anything anyone eats and not killed is food.
d. Anil eats peanuts and still alive
e. Harry eats everything that Anil eats.
Prove by resolution that:
f. John likes peanuts.

Step-1: Conversion of Facts into FOL

In the first step we will convert all the given statements into its first order logic.

Step-2: Conversion of FOL into CNF

In First order logic resolution, it is required to convert the FOL into CNF as CNF form makes easier
for resolution proofs.

o Eliminate all implication (→) and rewrite

1. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
3. ∀x ∀y ¬ [eats(x, y) Λ ¬ killed(x)] V food(y)
4. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
5. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
6. ∀x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x)
7. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
 8. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite

1. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
3. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)
4. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
5. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
6. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
7. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Rename variables or standardize variables

1. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
3. ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
4. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
5. ∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
6. ∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)
7. ∀k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination.
In this step, we will eliminate existential quantifier ∃, and this process is known
as Skolemization. But in this example problem since there is no existential quantifier so all
the statements will remain same in this step.
o Drop Universal quantifiers.
In this step we will drop all universal quantifier since all the statements are not implicitly
quantified so we don't need it.
1. ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple)
3. food(vegetables)
4. ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
5. eats (Anil, Peanuts)
6. alive(Anil)
 7. ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
8. killed(g) V alive(g)
9. ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
10. likes(John, Peanuts).

o Distribute conjunction ∧ over disjunction ¬.

This step will not make any change in this problem.

Step-3: Negate the statement to be proved

In this statement, we will apply negation to the conclusion statements, which will be written as
¬likes(John, Peanuts)

Step-4: Draw Resolution graph:

Now in this step, we will solve the problem by resolution tree using substitution. For the above
problem, it will be given as follows:

Hence the negation of the conclusion has been proved as a complete contradiction with the given set
of statements.

Explanation of Resolution graph:

o In the first step of resolution graph, ¬likes(John, Peanuts) , and likes(John, x) get

resolved(canceled) by substitution of {Peanuts/x}, and we are left with ¬ food(Peanuts)
o In the second step of the resolution graph, ¬ food(Peanuts) , and food(z) get resolved
(cancelled) by substitution of { Peanuts/z}, and we are left with ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) V
killed(y) .
o In the third step of the resolution graph, ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) and eats (Anil, Peanuts) get
resolved by substitution {Anil/y}, and we are left with Killed(Anil) .
o In the fourth step of the resolution graph, Killed(Anil) and ¬ killed(k) get resolve by
substitution {Anil/k}, and we are left with ¬ alive(Anil) .
o In the last step of the resolution graph ¬ alive(Anil) and alive(Anil) get resolved.