Inference in Fol

Inference in First-Order Logic
Philipp Koehn
5 March 2024
Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

A Brief History of Reasoning 1
450B . C. Stoics propositional logic, inference (maybe)

322B . C. Aristotle “syllogisms” (inference rules), quantifiers
1565 Cardano probability theory (propositional logic + uncertainty)
1847 Boole propositional logic (again)
1879 Frege first-order logic
1922 Wittgenstein proof by truth tables
1930 Gödel ∃ complete algorithm for FOL
1930 Herbrand complete algorithm for FOL (reduce to propositional)
1931 Gödel ¬∃ complete algorithm for arithmetic systems
1960 Davis/Putnam “practical” algorithm for propositional logic
1965 Robinson “practical” algorithm for FOL—resolution

The Story So Far 2
● Propositional logic
● Subset of propositional logic: horn clauses
● Inference algorithms
– forward chaining
– backward chaining
– resolution (for full propositional logic)
● First order logic (FOL)

– variables
– functions
– quantifiers
– etc.
● Today: inference for first order logic

Outline 3
● Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference
● Unification
● Generalized Modus Ponens
● Forward and backward chaining
● Logic programming
● Resolution

4
reduction to
propositional inference

Universal Instantiation 5
● Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is entailed by it:
∀v α
S UBST({v/g}, α)
for any variable v and ground term g
● E.g., ∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ Evil(x) yields
King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) Ô⇒ Evil(John)

King(Richard) ∧ Greedy(Richard) Ô⇒ Evil(Richard)
King(F ather(John)) ∧ Greedy(F ather(John)) Ô⇒ Evil(F ather(John))
⋮

Existential Instantiation 6
● For any sentence α, variable v, and constant symbol k

that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base:
∃v α
S UBST({v/k}, α)
● 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

Instantiation 7
● Universal Instantiation
– can be applied several times to add new sentences
– the new KB is logically equivalent to the old
● Existential Instantiation
– 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 8
● Suppose the KB contains just the following:

∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ Evil(x)
King(John)
Greedy(John)
Brother(Richard, John)
● Instantiating the universal sentence in all possible ways, we have

King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) Ô⇒ Evil(John)
King(Richard) ∧ Greedy(Richard) Ô⇒ Evil(Richard)
King(John)
Greedy(John)
● The new KB is propositionalized: proposition symbols are

King(John), Greedy(John), Evil(John), Brother(Richard, John), etc.

Reduction to Propositional Inference 9
● 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, there are infinitely many ground terms,
e.g., F ather(F ather(F ather(John)))
● Theorem: Herbrand (1930). If a sentence α is entailed by an FOL KB,
it is entailed by a finite subset of the propositional KB
● Idea: For n = 0 to ∞ do
create a propositional KB by instantiating with depth-n terms
see if α is entailed by this KB
● Problem: works if α is entailed, loops if α is not entailed
● Theorem: Turing (1936), Church (1936), entailment in FOL is semidecidable

Practical Problems with Propositionalization 10
● Propositionalization seems to generate lots of irrelevant sentences.
● E.g., from ∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ 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
● With p k-ary predicates and n constants, there are p ⋅ nk instantiations
● With function symbols, it gets nuch much worse!

11
unification

Plan 12
● We have the inference rule

– ∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ Evil(x)
● We have facts that (partially) match the precondition

– King(John)
– ∀ y Greedy(y)
● We need to match them up with substitutions: θ = {x/John, y/John} works

– unification
– generalized modus ponens

Unification 13
● U NIFY(α, β) = θ if αθ = βθ
p q θ
Knows(John, x) Knows(John, Jane)
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M ary)
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M other(y))
Knows(John, x) Knows(x, M ary)

Unification 14
p q θ
Knows(John, x) Knows(John, Jane) {x/Jane}
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M ary)

Unification 15
p q θ
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M ary) {x/M ary, y/John}

Unification 16
p q θ
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M other(y)) {y/John, x/M other(John)}

Unification 17
p q θ
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M other(y)) {y/John, x/M other(John)}
Knows(John, x) Knows(x, M ary) f ail
● Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17, M ary)
Knows(John, x) Knows(z17, M ary) {z17/John, x/M ary}

18
generalized modus ponens

Generalized Modus Ponens 19
● Generalized modus ponens used with KB of definite clauses

(exactly one positive literal)
● All variables assumed universally quantified
p1′, p2′, . . . , pn′, (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ . . . ∧ pn ⇒ q)

where pi′θ = piθ for all i
qθ
● Rule: King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ Evil(x)

● Precondition of rule: p1 is King(x) p2 is Greedy(x)
● Implication: q is Evil(x)
● Facts: p1′ is King(John) p2′ is Greedy(y)
● Substitution: θ is {x/John, y/John}
⇒ Result of modus ponens: qθ is Evil(John)

20
forward chaining

Example Knowledge 21
● 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 22
● . . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:

American(x) ∧ W eapon(y) ∧ Sells(x, y, z) ∧ Hostile(z) Ô⇒ 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
M issile(x) ∧ Owns(N ono, x) Ô⇒ Sells(W est, x, N ono)
● Missiles are weapons:
M issile(x) ⇒ W eapon(x)
● An enemy of America counts as “hostile”:
Enemy(x, America) Ô⇒ Hostile(x)
● West, who is American . . .
American(W est)
● The country Nono, an enemy of America . . .
Enemy(N ono, America)

Forward Chaining Proof 23

(Note: ∀ x M issile(x) ∧ Owns(N ono, x) Ô⇒ Sells(W est, x, N ono))

(Note: American(x) ∧ W eapon(y) ∧ Sells(x, y, z) ∧ Hostile(z) Ô⇒ Criminal(x))

Properties of Forward Chaining 26
● Sound and complete for first-order definite clauses

(proof similar to propositional proof)
● Datalog (1977) = first-order definite clauses + no functions (e.g., crime example)

Forward chaining terminates for Datalog in poly iterations: at most p ⋅ nk literals
● May not terminate in general if α is not entailed
● This is unavoidable: entailment with definite clauses is semidecidable

Efficiency of Forward Chaining 27
● Simple observation: no need to match a rule on iteration k

if a premise wasn’t added on iteration k − 1
Ô⇒ match each rule whose premise contains a newly added literal
● Matching itself can be expensive
● Database indexing allows O(1) retrieval of known facts

e.g., query M issile(x) retrieves M issile(M1)
● Matching conjunctive premises against known facts is NP-hard
● Forward chaining is widely used in deductive databases

Hard Matching Example 28
Diff(wa, nt) ∧ Diff(wa, sa) ∧

Diff(nt, q)Diff(nt, sa) ∧
Diff(q, nsw) ∧ Diff(q, sa) ∧
Diff(nsw, v) ∧ Diff(nsw, sa) ∧
Diff(v, sa) Ô⇒ Colorable()
Diff(Red, Blue) Diff(Red, Green)
Diff(Green, Red) Diff(Green, Blue)
Diff(Blue, Red) Diff(Blue, Green)
● Colorable() is inferred iff the constraint satisfaction problem has a solution
● CSPs include 3SAT as a special case, hence matching is NP-hard

Forward Chaining Algorithm 29
function FOL-FC-A SK(KB, α) returns a substitution or false

repeat until new is empty
new ← ∅
for each sentence r in KB do
( p 1 ∧ . . . ∧ p n Ô⇒ q) ← S TANDARDIZE -A PART(r)
for each θ such that (p 1 ∧ . . . ∧ p n)θ = (p ′1 ∧ . . . ∧ p ′n)θ
for some p ′1, . . . , p ′n in KB
q ′ ← S UBST(θ, q)
if q ′ is not a renaming of a sentence already in KB or new then do
add q ′ to new
φ ← U NIFY(q ′, α)
if φ is not fail then return φ
add new to KB
return false

30
backward chaining

Backward Chaining 31
● Start with query
● Check if it can be derived by given rules and facts

– apply rules that infer the query
– recurse over pre-conditions

Backward Chaining Example 32







Properties of Backward Chaining 39
● Depth-first recursive proof search: space is linear in size of proof
● Incomplete due to infinite loops

Ô⇒ fix by checking current goal against every goal on stack
● Inefficient due to repeated subgoals (both success and failure)

Ô⇒ fix using caching of previous results (extra space!)
● Widely used (without improvements!) for logic programming

Backward Chaining Algorithm 40
function FOL-BC-A SK(KB, goals, θ) returns a set of substitutions

inputs: KB, a knowledge base
goals, a list of conjuncts forming a query (θ already applied)
θ, the current substitution, initially the empty substitution ∅
local variables: answers, a set of substitutions, initially empty
if goals is empty then return {θ}
q ′ ← S UBST(θ, F IRST(goals))
for each sentence r in KB
where S TANDARDIZE -A PART(r) = ( p 1 ∧ . . . ∧ p n ⇒ q)
and θ′ ← U NIFY(q, q ′) succeeds
new goals ← [ p 1, . . . , p n∣R EST(goals)]
answers ← FOL-BC-A SK(KB, new goals, C OMPOSE(θ′, θ)) ∪ answers
return answers

41
logic programming

Logic Programming 42
● 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 43
● Basis: backward chaining with Horn clauses + bells & whistles
● Widely used in Europe, Japan (basis of 5th Generation project)
● Compilation techniques ⇒ approaching a billion logical inferences per second
● Program = set of clauses = head :- literal1, . . . literaln.
criminal(X) :- american(X), weapon(Y), sells(X,Y,Z), hostile(Z).

missile(M1).
owns(Nono,M1).
sells(West,X,Nono) :- missile(X), owns(Nono,X).
weapon(X) :- missile(X).
hostile(X) :- enemy(X,America).
American(West).
Enemy(Nono,America).

Prolog Systems 44
● 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

45
resolution

Resolution: Brief Summary 46
● Full first-order version:
`1 ∨ ⋯ ∨ `k , m1 ∨ ⋯ ∨ m n
(`1 ∨ ⋯ ∨ ì−1 ∨ ì+1 ∨ ⋯ ∨ `k ∨ m1 ∨ ⋯ ∨ mj−1 ∨ mj+1 ∨ ⋯ ∨ mn)θ
where U NIFY(ì, ¬mj ) = θ.
● For example,
¬Rich(x) ∨ U nhappy(x) Rich(Ken)
U nhappy(Ken)
with θ = {x/Ken}
● Apply resolution steps to CN F (KB ∧ ¬α); complete for FOL

Conversion to CNF 47
Everyone who loves all animals is loved by someone:

∀ x [∀ y Animal(y) Ô⇒ Loves(x, y)] Ô⇒ [∃ 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)]

∀ x [∃ y ¬¬Animal(y) ∧ ¬Loves(x, y)] ∨ [∃ y Loves(y, x)]
∀ x [∃ y Animal(y) ∧ ¬Loves(x, y)] ∨ [∃ y Loves(y, x)]

Conversion to CNF 48
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)
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)]

Our Previous Example 49
● Rules
– American(x) ∧ W eapon(y) ∧ Sells(x, y, z) ∧ Hostile(z) Ô⇒ Criminal(x)
– M issile(M1) and Owns(N ono, M1)
– M issile(x) ∧ Owns(N ono, x) Ô⇒ Sells(W est, x, N ono)
– M issile(x) ⇒ W eapon(x)
– Enemy(x, America) Ô⇒ Hostile(x)
– American(W est)
– Enemy(N ono, America)
● Converted to CNF
– ¬American(x) ∨ ¬W eapon(y) ∨ ¬Sells(x, y, z) ∨ ¬Hostile(z) ∨ Criminal(x)
– M issile(M1) and Owns(N ono, M1)
– ¬M issile(x) ∨ ¬Owns(N ono, x) ∨ Sells(W est, x, N ono)
– ¬M issile(x) ∨ W eapon(x)
– ¬Enemy(x, America) ∨ Hostile(x)
– American(W est)
– Enemy(N ono, America)
● Query: ¬Criminal(W est)

Resolution Proof 50

Inference in Fol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inference in Fol

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

Inference in Fol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inference in First-Order Logic

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

450B . C. Stoics propositional logic, inference (maybe)

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Subset of propositional logic: horn clauses

● First order logic (FOL)

● Today: inference for first order logic

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference

● Generalized Modus Ponens

● Forward and backward chaining

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is entailed by it:

for any variable v and ground term g

● E.g., ∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ Evil(x) yields

King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) Ô⇒ Evil(John)

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● For any sentence α, variable v, and constant symbol k

● E.g., ∃ x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x, John) yields

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Suppose the KB contains just the following:

● Instantiating the universal sentence in all possible ways, we have

● The new KB is propositionalized: proposition symbols are

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Claim: a ground sentence is entailed by new KB iff entailed by original KB

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Propositionalization seems to generate lots of irrelevant sentences.

● E.g., from ∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ Evil(x)

it seems obvious that Evil(John), but propositionalization produces lots of facts

● With p k-ary predicates and n constants, there are p ⋅ nk instantiations

● With function symbols, it gets nuch much worse!

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● We have the inference rule

● We have facts that (partially) match the precondition

● We need to match them up with substitutions: θ = {x/John, y/John} works

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17, M ary)

Knows(John, x) Knows(z17, M ary) {z17/John, x/M ary}

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

generalized modus ponens

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Generalized modus ponens used with KB of definite clauses

● All variables assumed universally quantified

p1′, p2′, . . . , pn′, (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ . . . ∧ pn ⇒ q)

● Rule: King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) Ô⇒ Evil(x)

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

● Prove that Col. West is a criminal

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024

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

Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Inference in First-Order Logic 5 March 2024