CS 188: Artificial Intelligence

Propositional Logic: Semantics, Inference, Agents

Instructor: Sergey Levine and Stuart Russell

University of California, Berkeley
 Knowledge
 Knowledge base = set of sentences in a formal language
 Declarative approach to building an agent (or other system):
 Tell it what it needs to know (or have it Learn the knowledge)
 Then it can Ask itself what to do—answers should follow from the KB
 Agents can be viewed at the knowledge level
i.e., what they know, regardless of how implemented
 A single inference algorithm can answer any answerable question
 Cf. a search algorithm answers only “how to get from A to B” questions

Knowledge base Domain-specific facts

Inference engine Generic code

 Logic
 Syntax: What sentences are allowed?
 Semantics:
 What are the possible worlds?
 Which sentences are true in which worlds? (i.e., definition of truth)

1
2 3
Syntaxland Semanticsland
 Examples
 Propositional logic
 Syntax: P  (Q  R); X1  (Raining  Sunny)
 Possible world: {P=true,Q=true,R=false,S=true} or 1101
 Semantics:    is true in a world iff  is true and  is true (etc.)
 First-order logic
 Syntax: x y P(x,y)  Q(Joe,f(x))  f(x)=f(y)
 Possible world: Objects o1, o2, o3; P holds for <o1,o2>; Q holds for < o1, o3>;
f(o1)=o1; Joe=o3; etc.
 Semantics: () is true in a world if =oj and  holds for oj; etc.
 Inference: entailment
 Entailment:  |=  (“ entails ” or “ follows from ”) iff in
every world where  is true,  is also true
 I.e., the -worlds are a subset of the -worlds [models()  models()]
 In the example, 2 |= 1
 (Say 2 is Q  R  S  W
1 is Q )
1
2
 Inference: proofs
 A proof is a demonstration of entailment between  and 
 Method 1: model-checking
 For every possible world, if  is true make sure that is  true too
 OK for propositional logic (finitely many worlds); not easy for first-order logic
 Method 2: theorem-proving
 Search for a sequence of proof steps (applications of inference rules) leading
from  to 
 E.g., from P  (P  Q), infer Q by Modus Ponens
 Sound algorithm: everything it claims to prove is in fact entailed
 Complete algorithm: every that is entailed can be proved
 Quiz
 What’s the connection between complete inference algorithms and
complete search algorithms?
 Answer 1: they both have the words “complete…algorithm”
 Answer 2: they both solve any solvable problem
 Answer 3: Formulate inference as a search problem
 Initial state: KB contains 
 Actions: apply any inference rule that matches KB, add conclusion
 Goal test: KB contains 
Hence any complete search algorithm (BFS, IDS, …) yields a complete inference
algorithm…
provided the inference rules themselves are strong enough
Propositional logic syntax: The gruesome details
 Given: a set of proposition symbols {X1,X2,…, Xn}
 (we often add True and False for convenience)
 Xi is a sentence
 If  is a sentence then  is a sentence
 If  and  are sentences then    is a sentence
 If  and  are sentences then    is a sentence
 If  and  are sentences then    is a sentence
 If  and  are sentences then    is a sentence
 And p.s. there are no other sentences!
Propositional logic semantics: The unvarnished truth
function PL-TRUE?(,model) returns true or false
if  is a symbol then return Lookup(, model)
if Op() =  then return not(PL-TRUE?(Arg1(),model))
if Op() =  then return and(PL-TRUE?(Arg1(),model),
PL-TRUE?(Arg2(),model))
if Op() =  then return or(PL-TRUE?(Arg1(),model),
not(PL-TRUE?(Arg2(),model)))
etc. (Sometimes called “recursion over syntax”)
 PacMan facts
 If Pacman is at 3,3 at time 16 and goes North and there is no wall
at 3,4 then Pacman is at 3,4 at time 17:
 At_3,3_16  N_16  Wall_3,4  At_3,3_17
 At time 0 Pacman does one of four actions:
 (W_0 v E_0 v N_0 v S_0)
 (W_0  E_0)  (W_0  S_0)  …
 Simple theorem proving: Forward chaining
 Forward chaining applies Modus Ponens to generate new facts:
 Given X1  X2  … Xn  Y and X1, X2, …, Xn
 Infer Y
 Forward chaining keeps applying this rule, adding new facts, until
nothing more can be added
 Requires KB to contain only definite clauses:
 (Conjunction of symbols)  symbol; or
 A single symbol (note that X is equivalent to True  X)
 Forward chaining algorithm
function PL-FC-ENTAILS?(KB, q) returns true or false
count ← a table, where count[c] is the number of symbols in c’s premise
inferred ← a table, where inferred[s] is initially false for all s
agenda ← a queue of symbols, initially symbols known to be true in KB
while agenda is not empty do
p ← Pop(agenda)
if p = q then return true
if inferred[p] = false then
inferred[p]←true
for each clause c in KB where p is in c.premise do
decrement count[c]
if count[c] = 0 then add c.conclusion to agenda
return false
 Forward chaining example: Proving Q
CLAUSES COUNT INFERRED
 PQ 1// 0 A false
xxxx true
 LMP 2 1// 0
// B false
xxxx true
 BLM 2// 1// 0 L false
xxxx true
 APL 2// 1// 0 M false
xxxx true
 ABL 2// 1// 0 P false
xxxx true
 A 0 Q xxxx
false true
 B 0
AGENDA
A
x B x P
x xL M x Q
x L x
 Properties of forward chaining
 Theorem: FC is sound and complete for definite-clause KBs
 Soundness: follows from soundness of Modus Ponens (easy to check)
 Completeness proof:
1. FC reaches a fixed point where no new atomic sentences are derived
2. Consider the final inferred table as a model m, assigning true/false to symbols
3. Every clause in the original KB is true in m A xxxx
false true
Proof: Suppose a clause a1... ak  b is false in m B xxxx
false true
Then a1... ak is true in m and b is false in m L xxxx
false true
M xxxx
false true
Therefore the algorithm has not reached a fixed point!
P xxxx
false true
4. Hence m is a model of KB Q xxxx
false true
5. If KB |= q, q is true in every model of KB, including m
 Simple model checking
function TT-ENTAILS?(KB, α) returns true or false
return TT-CHECK-ALL(KB,α,symbols(KB) U symbols(α),{})
function TT-CHECK-ALL(KB,α,symbols,model) returns true or false
if empty?(symbols) then
if PL-TRUE?(KB,model) then return PL-TRUE?(α,model)
else return true
else
P ← first(symbols)
rest ← rest(symbols)
return and (TT-CHECK-ALL(KB,α,rest,model ∪ {P = true})
TT-CHECK-ALL(KB,α,rest,model ∪ {P = false }))
 Simple model checking, contd.
 Same recursion as backtracking P1=true P1=false

 O(2n) time, linear space P2=true P2=false

 We can do much better!

Pn=true Pn=false

KB?
α?
11111…1

0000…0
 Satisfiability and entailment
 A sentence is satisfiable if it is true in at least one world (cf CSPs!)
 Suppose we have a hyper-efficient SAT solver; how can we use it to
test entailment?
 Suppose  |= 
 Then    is true in all worlds
 Hence (  ) is false in all worlds
 Hence    is false in all worlds, i.e., unsatisfiable
 So, add the negated conclusion to what you know, test for
(un)satisfiability; also known as reductio ad absurdum
 Efficient SAT solvers operate on conjunctive normal form
 Conjunctive normal form (CNF)
 Replace biconditional by two implications
Every sentence can be expressed as a conjunction of clauses
 Each clause is a disjunction of literals
Replace    by  v 

 Each literal is a symbol or a negated symbol Distribute v over 

 Conversion to CNF by a sequence of standard transformations:

 At_1,1_0  (Wall_0,1  Blocked_W_0)
 At_1,1_0  ((Wall_0,1  Blocked_W_0)  (Blocked_W_0 Wall_0,1))
 At_1,1_0 v ((Wall_0,1 v Blocked_W_0)  (Blocked_W_0 v Wall_0,1))
 (At_1,1_0 v Wall_0,1 v Blocked_W_0) 
(At_1,1_0 v Blocked_W_0 v Wall_0,1)
 Efficient SAT solvers
 DPLL (Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland) is the core of modern solvers
 Essentially a backtracking search over models with some extras:
 Early termination: stop if
 all clauses are satisfied; e.g., (A  B)  (A  C) is satisfied by {A=true}
 any clause is falsified; e.g., (A  B)  (A  C) is satisfied by {A=false,B=false}
 Pure literals: if all occurrences of a symbol in as-yet-unsatisfied clauses have
the same sign, then give the symbol that value
 E.g., A is pure and positive in (A  B)  (A  C)  (C  B) so set it to true
 Unit clauses: if a clause is left with a single literal, set symbol to satisfy clause
 E.g., if A=false, (A  B)  (A  C) becomes (false  B)  (false  C), i.e. (B)  (C)
 Satisfying the unit clauses often leads to further propagation, new unit clauses, etc.
 DPLL algorithm
function DPLL(clauses,symbols,model) returns true or false
if every clause in clauses is true in model then return true
if some clause in clauses is false in model then return false
P,value ←FIND-PURE-SYMBOL(symbols,clauses,model)
if P is non-null then return DPLL(clauses, symbols–P, model∪{P=value})
P,value ←FIND-UNIT-CLAUSE(clauses,model)
if P is non-null then return DPLL(clauses, symbols–P, model∪{P=value})
P ← First(symbols); rest ← Rest(symbols)
return or(DPLL(clauses,rest,model∪{P=true}),
DPLL(clauses,rest,model∪{P=false}))
 Efficiency
 Naïve implementation of DPLL: solve ~100 variables
 Extras:
 Variable and value ordering (from CSPs)
 Divide and conquer
 Caching unsolvable subcases as extra clauses to avoid redoing them
 Cool indexing and incremental recomputation tricks so that every step of the
DPLL algorithm is efficient (typially O(1))
 Index of clauses in which each variable appears +ve/-ve
 Keep track number of satisfied clauses, update when variables assigned
 Keep track of number of remaining literals in each clause
 Real implementation of DPLL: solve ~10000000 variables
 SAT solvers in practice
 Circuit verification: does this VLSI circuit compute the right answer?
 Software verification: does this program compute the right answer?
 Software synthesis: what program computes the right answer?
 Protocol verification: can this security protocol be broken?
 Protocol synthesis: what protocol is secure for this task?
 Planning: how can I eat all the dots???
 A knowledge-based agent
function KB-AGENT(percept) returns an action
persistent: KB, a knowledge base
t, an integer, initially 0
TELL(KB, MAKE-PERCEPT-SENTENCE(percept, t))
action ← ASK(KB, MAKE-ACTION-QUERY(t))
TELL(KB, MAKE-ACTION-SENTENCE(action, t))
t←t+1
return action
 Example: Partially observable Pacman
 Pacman has to act given only local perception
 Four Boolean percept variables for wall in each direction
 What knowledge does he need to begin with?
 Sensor model: sentences stating how the current percept
variables are determined by the current state variables
 Transition model: sentences stating how the next-state
variables are determined by the current state variables and
Pacman’s action
 Initial conditions: what Pacman knows about the initial state
 Domain constraints: what is generally true, e.g., Pacman can
do one thing at a time and be in one place at a time
 Pacman variables
 Pacman’s location
 At_1,1_0 (Pacman is at [1,1] at time 0) At_3,3_4 etc
 Wall locations (these do not change with time)
 Wall_0,0 Wall_0,1 etc
 Percepts
 Blocked_W_0 (blocked by wall to my West at time 0) etc.
 Actions
 W_0 (Pacman moves West at time 0), E_0 etc.
 NxN world for T time steps => N2T + N2 + 4T + 4T = O(N2T) variables
 2N2T possible worlds! N=10, T=100 => 103010 worlds (each a “history”)
 Sensor model
 State facts about how Pacman’s percepts arise…
 Pacman perceives a wall to the West at time t
if and only if he is in x,y and there is a wall at x-1,y ….
 Blocked_W_0 
((At_1,1_0  Wall_0,1) v
(At_1,2_0  Wall_0,2) v
(At_1,3_0  Wall_0,3) v …. )

How many of these sentences? How big are they?

 Quiz
 What is wrong with sentences like
 At_1,1_0  Wall_0,1  Blocked_W_0
 If you are at [1,1] at time 0 and there is a wall in [0,1], the west percept is blocked
 True but incomplete!
 They say “under these conditions the percept variable is true”
 They don’t say when it is false
 In particular, they allow for worlds where the percept is always true!!
 Unintended or non-standard models
 Transition model
 How does each state variable or fluent at each time gets its value?
 State variables for POPacman are At_x,y_t , e.g., At_3,3_17
 A state variable gets its value according to a successor-state axiom
 Xt  [Xt-1  (some actiont-1 made it false)] v
[Xt-1  (some actiont-1 made it true)]
 For Pacman location:
 At_3,3_17  [At_3,3_16  ((Wall_3,4  N_16) v (Wall_4,3  E_16) v …)]
v [At_3,3_16  ((At_3,2_16  Wall_3,3  N_16) v
(At_2,3_16  Wall_3,3  N_16) v …)]
 Initial state
 Pacman may know its initial location:
 At_1,1_0  At_1,2_0  At_1,3_0 ….
 Or, it may not:
 At_1,1_0 v At_1,2_0 v At_1,3_0 v … v At_3,3_0
 We also need a domain constraint – exactly one thing at a time
 (W_0  E_0)  (W_0  S_0)  …
 (W_1  E_1)  (W_1  S_1)  …
 …  (W_0 v E_0 v N_0 v S_0)  …
 State estimation
 State estimation means keeping track of what’s true now
 A logical agent can just ask itself!
 E.g., ask whether KB  <actions>  <percepts> |= Wall_2,2
 This is “lazy”: it involves reasoning about one’s whole life history at each step!
 A more “eager” form of state estimation:
 After each action and percept
 For each state variable Xt
 If Xt is entailed, add to KB
 If Xt is entailed, add to KB
 Planning as satisfiability
 Given a hyper-efficient SAT solver, can we use it to make plans?
 Yes, for fully observable, deterministic case:
 planning problem is solvable iff there is some satisfying assignment
 solution obtained from truth values of action variables
 For T = 1 to infinity, set up the KB as follows and run SAT solver:
 Initial state, domain constraints
 Transition model sentences up to time T
 Goal is true at time T
 Read off action variables from solution
 Summary
 One possible agent architecture: knowledge + inference
 Logics provide a formal way to encode knowledge
 A logic is defined by: syntax, set of possible worlds, truth condition
 Logical inference computes entailment relations among sentences
 SAT solvers based on DPLL provide incredibly efficient inference
 Logical agents can construct plans by asking whether there is a
future in which the goal is achieved