UNIT IV

Logical Agents - First Order Logic & Inferences

in First Order Logic
First-Order logic:
○ First-order logic is another way of knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. It is an extension to
propositional logic.
○ FOL is sufficiently expressive to represent the natural language statements in a concise way.
○ First-order logic is also known as Predicate logic or First-order predicate logic. First-order logic is a powerful
language that develops information about the objects in a more easy way and can also express the relationship
between those objects.
○ First-order logic (like natural language) does not only assume that the world contains facts like propositional logic
but also assumes the following things in the world:
a. Objects: A, B, people, numbers, colors, wars, theories, squares, pits, wumpus, ......
b. Relations: It can be unary relation such as: red, round, is adjacent, or n-any relation such as: the sister of,
brother of, has color, comes between
c. Function: Father of, best friend, third inning of, end of, ......
○ As a natural language, first-order logic also has two main parts:
a. Syntax
b. Semantics
Properties of First-Order logic:

● It has ability to represent facts about some or all of the objects in the universe.
● It enables to represent law and rules extracted from real world.
● It is useful language representation in mathematics, philosophy and AI related fields.
● It represent facts in more realistic manner rather than just the true or false statement.
● First order logic makes ontological commitment.
Ontological commitment means what assumptions language makes about the nature of reality.
First order logic assumes that real world consists of objects and certain relationship they hold
or not among them.
The syntax of FOL determines which collection of symbols is a logical expression in first-order logic. The basic syntactic
elements of first-order logic are symbols. We write statements in short-hand notation in FOL.

Basic Elements of First-order logic:

Following are the basic elements of FOL syntax:

Atomic sentences:
Constant 1, 2, A, John, Mumbai, cat,....
○ Atomic sentences are the most basic sentences of

Variables x, y, z, a, b,.... first-order logic. These sentences are formed from a

predicate symbol followed by a parenthesis with a
Predicates Brother, Father, >,....
sequence of terms.

Function sqrt, LeftLegOf, .... ○ We can represent atomic sentences as Predicate

(term1, term2, ......, term n).
Connectives ∧, ∨, ¬, ⇒, ⇔
Example: Ravi and Ajay are brothers: => Brothers(Ravi, Ajay).
Equality ==
Chinky is a cat: => cat (Chinky).
Quantifier ∀, ∃
The symbol ∀ means “for all” or “for any”. The symbol ∃ means
“there exists”.
Complex Sentences:

○ Complex sentences are made by combining atomic sentences using connectives.

First-order logic statements can be divided into two parts:

○ Subject: Subject is the main part of the statement.

○ Predicate: A predicate can be defined as a relation, which binds two atoms together in a statement.

Consider the statement: "x is an integer.", it consists of two parts, the first part x is the subject of the statement and
second part "is an integer," is known as a predicate.
Quantifiers in First-order logic:
○ A quantifier is a language element which generates quantification, and quantification specifies the quantity of
specimen in the universe of discourse.
○ These are the symbols that permit to determine or identify the range and scope of the variable in the logical
expression. There are two types of quantifier:
a. Universal Quantifier, (for all, everyone, everything)
b. Existential quantifier, (for some, at least one).

Universal Quantifier:

Universal quantifier is a symbol of logical representation, which specifies that the statement within its range is true
for everything or every instance of a particular thing.

The Universal quantifier is represented by a symbol ∀, which resembles an inverted A.

If x is a variable, then ∀x is read as: ○ For all x

○ For each x
○ For every x.
Example:

All man drink coffee.

Let a variable x which refers to a cat so all x

can be represented in UOD as below:

∀x man(x) → drink (x, coffee).

It will be read as: There are all x where x is a

man who drink coffee.

∀x man(x) → drink (x, coffee).

It will be read as: There are all x where x is a man who drink
coffee.
Points to remember:

○ The main connective for universal quantifier ∀ is implication →.

○ The main connective for existential quantifier ∃ is and ∧.

Properties of Quantifiers:

○ In universal quantifier, ∀x∀y is similar to ∀y∀x.

○ In Existential quantifier, ∃x∃y is similar to ∃y∃x.
○ ∃x∀y is not similar to ∀y∃x.

Some Examples of FOL using quantifier:

1. All birds fly.

In this question the predicate is "fly(bird)."
And since there are all birds who fly so it will be represented as follows.
∀x bird(x) →fly(x).
2. Every man respects his parent.
In this question, the predicate is "respect(x, y)," where x=man, and y= parent.
Since there is every man so will use ∀, and it will be represented as follows:
∀x man(x) → respects (x, parent).

3. Some boys play cricket.

In this question, the predicate is "play(x, y)," where x= boys, and y= game. Since there are some boys so we will
use ∃, and it will be represented as:
∃x boys(x) → play(x, cricket).

4. Not all students like both Mathematics and Science.

In this question, the predicate is "like(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.
Since there are not all students, so we will use ∀ with negation, so following representation for this:
¬∀ (x) [ student(x) → like(x, Mathematics) ∧ like(x, Science)].

5. Only one student failed in Mathematics.

In this question, the predicate is "failed(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.
Since there is only one student who failed in Mathematics, so we will use following representation for this:
∃(x) [ student(x) → failed (x, Mathematics) ∧∀ (y) [¬(x==y) ∧ student(y) → ¬failed (x,
Mathematics)].
Free and Bound Variables:
The quantifiers interact with variables which appear in a suitable way. There are two types of variables in First-order
logic which are given below:

Free Variable: A variable is said to be a free variable in a formula if it occurs outside the scope of the quantifier.

Example: ∀x ∃(y)[P (x, y, z)], where z is a free variable.

Bound Variable: A variable is said to be a bound variable in a formula if it occurs within the scope of the quantifier.

Example: ∀x [A (x) B( y)], here x and y are the bound variables.

Knowledge Engineering in First-order logic

What is knowledge-engineering?
The process of constructing a knowledge-base in first-order logic is called as knowledge- engineering. In
knowledge-engineering, someone who investigates a particular domain, learns important concept of that domain, and
generates a formal representation of the objects, is known as knowledge engineer.

In this topic, we will understand the Knowledge engineering process in an electronic circuit domain, which is already
familiar. This approach is mainly suitable for creating special-purpose knowledge base.
The knowledge-engineering process:

Following are some main steps of the knowledge-engineering process. Using these steps, we will develop a knowledge
base which will allow us to reason about digital circuit (One-bit full adder) which is given below

1. Identify the task:

The first step of the process is to identify the task, and for the digital circuit, there are various reasoning tasks.
 At the first level or highest level, we will examine the functionality of the circuit:

○ Does the circuit add properly?

○ What will be the output of gate A2, if all the inputs are high?

At the second level, we will examine the circuit structure details such as:

○ Which gate is connected to the first input terminal?

○ Does the circuit have feedback loops?
2. Assemble the relevant knowledge:

In the second step, we will assemble the relevant knowledge which is required for digital circuits. So for digital circuits, we
have the following required knowledge:

○ Logic circuits are made up of wires and gates.

○ Signal flows through wires to the input terminal of the gate, and each gate produces the corresponding output
which flows further.
○ In this logic circuit, there are four types of gates used: AND, OR, XOR, and NOT.
○ All these gates have one output terminal and two input terminals (except NOT gate, it has one input terminal).
3. Decide on vocabulary:

The next step of the process is to select functions, predicate, and constants to represent the circuits, terminals,
signals, and gates. Firstly we will distinguish the gates from each other and from other objects. Each gate is
represented as an object which is named by a constant, such as, Gate(X1). The functionality of each gate is
determined by its type, which is taken as constants such as AND, OR, XOR, or NOT. Circuits will be identified by a
predicate: Circuit (C1).

For the terminal, we will use predicate: Terminal(x).

For gate input, we will use the function In(1, X1) for denoting the first input terminal of the gate, and for output
terminal we will use Out (1, X1).

The function Arity(c, i, j) is used to denote that circuit c has i input, j output.

The connectivity between gates can be represented by predicate Connect(Out(1, X1), In(1, X1)).

We use a unary predicate On (t), which is true if the signal at a terminal is on.
4. Encode general knowledge about the domain:

To encode the general knowledge about the logic circuit, we need some following rules:

If two terminals are connected then they have the same input signal, it can be represented as:

∀ t1, t2 Terminal (t1) ∧ Terminal (t2) ∧ Connect (t1, t2) → Signal (t1) = Signal (2).

Signal at every terminal will have either value 0 or 1, it will be represented as:

∀ t Terminal (t) →Signal (t) = 1 ∨Signal (t) = 0.

Connect predicates are commutative:

∀ t1, t2 Connect(t1, t2) → Connect (t2, t1).

Representation of types of gates:

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r = Type(g) → r = OR ∨r = AND ∨r = XOR ∨r = NOT.

Output of AND gate will be zero if and only if any of its input is zero.

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = AND →Signal (Out(1, g))= 0 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 0.

Output of OR gate is 1 if and only if any of its input is 1:

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = OR → Signal (Out(1, g))= 1 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 1

Output of XOR gate is 1 if and only if its inputs are different:

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = XOR → Signal (Out(1, g)) = 1 ⇔ Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (In(2, g)).

Output of NOT gate is invert of its input:

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (Out(1, g)).

All the gates in the above circuit have two inputs and one output (except NOT gate).

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Arity(g, 1, 1)

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r =Type(g) ∧ (r= AND ∨r= OR ∨r= XOR) → Arity (g, 2, 1).

All gates are logic circuits:

∀ g Gate(g) → Circuit (g).

5. Encode a description of the problem instance:

Now we encode problem of circuit C1, firstly we categorize the circuit and its gate components. This step is easy if
ontology about the problem is already thought. This step involves the writing simple atomics sentences of instances of
concepts, which is known as ontology.

For the given circuit C1, we can encode the problem instance in atomic sentences as below:

Since in the circuit there are two XOR, two AND, and one OR gate so atomic sentences for these gates will be:

1. For XOR gate: Type(x1)= XOR, Type(X2) = XOR

2. For AND gate: Type(A1) = AND, Type(A2)= AND
3. For OR gate: Type (O1) = OR.

6. Pose queries to the inference procedure and get answers:

In this step, we will find all the possible set of values of all the terminal for the adder circuit. The first query will be:

What should be the combination of input which would generate the first output of circuit C1, as 0 and a second output to be
1?

1. ∃ i1, i2, i3 Signal (In(1, C1))=i1 ∧ Signal (In(2, C1))=i2 ∧ Signal (In(3, C1))= i3
7. Debug the knowledge base:

Now we will debug the knowledge base, and this is the last step of the complete process. In this step,
we will try to debug the issues of knowledge base.

In the knowledge base, we may have omitted assertions like 1 ≠ 0.

Inference in First-Order Logic
Inference in First-Order Logic is used to deduce new facts or sentences from existing sentences. Before
understanding the FOL inference rule, let's understand some basic terminologies used in FOL.

Substitution:

Substitution is a fundamental operation performed on terms and formulas. It occurs in all inference systems in
first-order logic. The substitution is complex in the presence of quantifiers in FOL. If we write F[a/x], so it refers to
substitute a constant "a" in place of variable "x".

Equality:

First-Order logic does not only use predicate and terms for making atomic sentences but also uses another way,
which is equality in FOL. For this, we can use equality symbols which specify that the two terms refer to the same
object.

Example: Brother (John) = Smith.

As in the above example, the object referred by the Brother (John) is similar to the object referred by Smith. The
equality symbol can also be used with negation to represent that two terms are not the same objects.

Example: ￢(x=y) which is equivalent to x ≠y.

FOL inference rules for quantifier:
As propositional logic we also have inference rules in first-order logic, so following are some basic inference rules
in FOL:

○ Universal Generalization
○ Universal Instantiation
○ Existential Instantiation
○ Existential introduction
1. Universal Generalization:

2. Universal Instantiation:

○ Universal instantiation is also called as universal elimination or UI is a valid inference rule. It can be applied
multiple times to add new sentences.
○ The new KB is logically equivalent to the previous KB.
○ As per UI, we can infer any sentence obtained by substituting a ground term for the variable.
○ The UI rule state that we can infer any sentence P(c) by substituting a ground term c (a constant within domain x)
from ∀ x P(x) for any object in the universe of discourse.
Example:1.

IF "Every person like ice-cream"=> ∀x P(x) so we can infer that

"John likes ice-cream" => P(c)

Example: 2.

Let's take a famous example,

"All kings who are greedy are Evil." So let our knowledge base contains this detail as in the form of FOL:

∀x king(x) ∧ greedy (x) → Evil (x),

So from this information, we can infer any of the following statements using Universal Instantiation:

○ King(John) ∧ Greedy (John) → Evil (John),

○ King(Richard) ∧ Greedy (Richard) → Evil (Richard),
○ King(Father(John)) ∧ Greedy (Father(John)) → Evil (Father(John)),
3. Existential Instantiation:

○ Existential instantiation is also called as Existential Elimination, which is a valid inference rule in first-order logic.
○ It can be applied only once to replace the existential sentence.
○ The new KB is not logically equivalent to old KB, but it will be satisfiable if old KB was satisfiable.
○ This rule states that one can infer P(c) from the formula given in the form of ∃x P(x) for a new constant symbol c.
○ The restriction with this rule is that c used in the rule must be a new term for which P(c ) is true.

So we can infer: Crown(K) ∧ OnHead( K, John), as long as K does not appear in the knowledge
base.

○ The above used K is a constant symbol, which is called Skolem constant.

○ The Existential instantiation is a special case of Skolemization process.
4. Existential introduction

○ An existential introduction is also known as an existential generalization, which is a valid

inference rule in first-order logic.
○ This rule states that if there is some element c in the universe of discourse which has a
property P, then we can infer that there exists something in the universe which has the
property P.
Generalized Modus Ponens Rule:
For the inference process in FOL, we have a single inference rule which is called Generalized Modus Ponens. It is
lifted version of Modus ponens.

Generalized Modus Ponens can be summarized as, " P implies Q and P is asserted to be true, therefore Q must be
True."

According to Modus Ponens, for atomic sentences pi, pi', q. Where there is a substitution θ such that SUBST (θ, pi',) =
SUBST(θ, pi), it can be represented as:

Example:

We will use this rule for Kings are evil, so we will find some x such that x is king, and x is greedy so we can infer that x is evil.

1. Here let say, p1' is king(John) p1 is king(x)

2. p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
3. θ is {x/John, y/John} q is evil(x)
4. SUBST(θ,q).
What is Unification?
○ Unification is a process of making two different logical atomic expressions identical by finding a substitution.
Unification depends on the substitution process.
○ It takes two literals as input and makes them identical using substitution.
○ 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).
○ 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.

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

○ 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.
○ 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:

○ Predicate symbol must be same, atoms or expression with different predicate symbol can never be unified.
○ Number of Arguments in both expressions must be identical.
○ 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.
Resolution in FOL

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.
 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).

Example: Step-1: Conversion of Facts into FOL

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-2: Conversion of FOL into CNF

Eliminate all implication (→) and rewrite Rename variables or standardize

Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite
variables
a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x) a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables) b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
c. ∀x ∀y ¬ [eats(x, y) Λ ¬ killed(x)] V c. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V
c. ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V
food(y) food(y)
food(z)
d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil) d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x) e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
e. ∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
f. ∀x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x) f. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
f. ∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)

○ 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.
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.

a. ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
b. food(Apple)
c. food(vegetables)
d. ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
e. eats (Anil, Peanuts)
f. alive(Anil)
g. ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)

○ 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:
Explanation of Resolution graph:

○ 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)
○ In the second step of the resolution graph, ¬ food(Peanuts) , and food(z) get resolved (canceled) by
substitution of { Peanuts/z}, and we are left with ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) V killed(y) .
○ 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) .
○ 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) .
○ In the last step of the resolution graph ¬ alive(Anil) and alive(Anil) get resolved.
○
Forward Chaining and backward chaining in AI

Inference engine:
The inference engine is the component of the intelligent system in artificial intelligence, which applies logical
rules to the knowledge base to infer new information from known facts. The first inference engine was part of the
expert system. Inference engine commonly proceeds in two modes, which are:

a. Forward chaining
b. Backward chaining

Horn Clause and Definite clause:

Horn clause and definite clause are the forms of sentences, which enables knowledge base to use a more restricted and
efficient inference algorithm. Logical inference algorithms use forward and backward chaining approaches, which
require KB in the form of the first-order definite clause
Definite clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with exactly one positive literal is known as a definite
clause or strict horn clause.

Horn clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with at most one positive literal is known as horn clause.
Hence all the definite clauses are horn clauses.

Example: (¬ p V ¬ q V k). It has only one positive literal k.

It is equivalent to p ∧ q → k.
A. Forward Chaining
Forward chaining is also known as a forward deduction or forward reasoning method when using an inference engine.
Forward chaining is a form of reasoning which start with atomic sentences in the knowledge base and applies inference
rules (Modus Ponens) in the forward direction to extract more data until a goal is reached.

The Forward-chaining algorithm starts from known facts, triggers all rules whose premises are satisfied, and add their
conclusion to the known facts. This process repeats until the problem is solved.

Properties of Forward-Chaining:

○ It is a down-up approach, as it moves from bottom to top.

○ It is a process of making a conclusion based on known facts or data, by starting from the initial state and reaches
the goal state.
○ Forward-chaining approach is also called as data-driven as we reach to the goal using available data.
○ Forward -chaining approach is commonly used in the expert system, such as CLIPS, business, and production rule
systems.
Example:

"As per the law, it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. Country A, an enemy of America, has
some missiles, and all the missiles were sold to it by Robert, who is an American citizen."

Prove that "Robert is criminal."

To solve the above problem, first, we will convert all the above facts into first-order definite clauses, and then we will use
a forward-chaining algorithm to reach the goal.

Facts Conversion into FOL:

○ It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. (Let's say p, q, and r are variables)
American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p) ...(1)
○ Country A has some missiles. ?p Owns(A, p) ∧ Missile(p). It can be written in two definite clauses by using
Existential Instantiation, introducing new Constant T1.
Owns(A, T1) ......(2)
Missile(T1) .......(3)
○ All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.
?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)
○ Missiles are weapons.
Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)
○ Enemy of America is known as hostile.
Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)
○ Country A is an enemy of America.
Enemy (A, America) .........(7)
○ Robert is American
American(Robert). ..........(8)
Forward chaining proof:
Step-1:

In the first step we will start with the known facts and will choose the sentences which do not have implications, such
as: American(Robert), Enemy(A, America), Owns(A, T1), and Missile(T1). All these facts will be represented as below.

Step-2:

At the second step, we will see those facts which infer from available facts and with satisfied premises.

Rule-(1) does not satisfy premises, so it will not be added in the first iteration.

Rule-(2) and (3) are already added.

Rule-(4) satisfy with the substitution {p/T1}, so Sells (Robert, T1, A) is added, which infers from the conjunction of Rule
(2) and (3).

Rule-(6) is satisfied with the substitution(p/A), so Hostile(A) is added and which infers from Rule-(7).
Step-3:

At step-3, as we can check Rule-(1) is satisfied with the substitution {p/Robert, q/T1, r/A}, so we can add Criminal(Robert)
which infers all the available facts. And hence we reached our goal statement.
B. Backward Chaining:
Backward-chaining is also known as a backward deduction or backward reasoning method when using an inference engine.
A backward chaining algorithm is a form of reasoning, which starts with the goal and works backward, chaining through
rules to find known facts that support the goal.

Properties of backward chaining:

○ It is known as a top-down approach.

○ Backward-chaining is based on modus ponens inference rule.
○ In backward chaining, the goal is broken into sub-goal or sub-goals to prove the facts true.
○ It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals decides which rules are selected and used.
○ Backward -chaining algorithm is used in game theory, automated theorem proving tools, inference engines, proof
assistants, and various AI applications.
○ The backward-chaining method mostly used a depth-first search strategy for proof.
Example:

In backward-chaining, we will use the same above example, and will rewrite all the rules.

○ American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p) ...(1)

Owns(A, T1) ........(2)
○ Missile(T1)
○ ?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)
○ Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)
○ Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)
○ Enemy (A, America) .........(7)
○ American(Robert). ..........(8)
Backward-Chaining proof:
In Backward chaining, we will start with our goal predicate, which is Criminal(Robert), and then infer further rules.

Step-1:

At the first step, we will take the goal fact. And from the goal fact, we will infer other facts, and at last, we will prove
those facts true. So our goal fact is "Robert is Criminal," so following is the predicate of it.

Step-2:

At the second step, we will infer other facts form goal fact which satisfies the rules. So as we can see in Rule-1, the goal
predicate Criminal (Robert) is present with substitution {Robert/P}. So we will add all the conjunctive facts below the first
level and will replace p with Robert.

Here we can see American (Robert) is a fact, so it is proved here.

Step-3:t At step-3, we will extract further fact Missile(q) which infer from Weapon(q), as it satisfies Rule-(5). Weapon (q) is
also true with the substitution of a constant T1 at q.
Step-4:

At step-4, we can infer facts Missile(T1) and Owns(A, T1) form Sells(Robert, T1, r) which satisfies the Rule- 4, with the
substitution of A in place of r. So these two statements are proved here.
Step-5:

At step-5, we can infer the fact Enemy(A, America) from Hostile(A) which satisfies Rule- 6. And hence all the statements
are proved true using backward chaining.
Difference between backward chaining and forward chaining
○ Forward chaining as the name suggests, start from the known facts and move forward by applying inference rules to
extract more data, and it continues until it reaches to the goal, whereas backward chaining starts from the goal, move
backward by using inference rules to determine the facts that satisfy the goal.
○ Forward chaining is called a data-driven inference technique, whereas backward chaining is called a goal-driven inference
technique.
○ Forward chaining is known as the down-up approach, whereas backward chaining is known as a top-down approach.
○ Forward chaining uses breadth-first search strategy, whereas backward chaining uses depth-first search strategy.
○ Forward and backward chaining both applies Modus ponens inference rule.
○ Forward chaining can be used for tasks such as planning, design process monitoring, diagnosis, and classification,
whereas backward chaining can be used for classification and diagnosis tasks.
○ Forward chaining can be like an exhaustive search, whereas backward chaining tries to avoid the unnecessary path of
reasoning.
○ In forward-chaining there can be various ASK questions from the knowledge base, whereas in backward chaining there can
be fewer ASK questions.
○ Forward chaining is slow as it checks for all the rules, whereas backward chaining is fast as it checks few required rules
only.