MOD 4

First-Order Logic

Chapter 8.1-8.3
 First-order logic
• First-order logic (FOL) models the world in terms of
– Objects, which are things with individual identities
– Properties of objects that distinguish them from other objects
– Relations that hold among sets of objects
– Functions, which are a subset of relations where there is only one
“value” for any given “input”
• Examples:
– Objects: Students, lectures, companies, cars ...
– Relations: Brother-of, bigger-than, outside, part-of, has-color,
occurs-after, owns, visits, precedes, ...
– Properties: blue, oval, even, large, ...
– Functions: father-of, best-friend, second-half, one-more-than ...
The primary difference between propositional and first-order logic
lies in the ontological commitment made by each language—that is,
what it assumes about the nature of reality.

For example, propositional logic assumes that there are facts that
either hold or do not hold in the world. Each fact can be in one
of two states: true or false, and each model assigns true or false
to each proposition symbol.

First-order logic assumes more; namely, that the world consists

of objects with certain relations among them that do or do not
hold
 Models for First-Order Logic
In logic, a model is a formal structure that represents a
possible world. It connects the symbols used in logical
sentences to actual things in that world. This connection
helps us decide whether a sentence is true or false in that
model.
In propositional logic, a model is simple. It only assigns true
or false to each proposition symbol.
• However, models in First-Order Logic (FOL) are more
complex and interesting. These models include objects. The
set of all objects in a model is called the domain. The
domain must have at least one object—it cannot be empty.
Example Domain in the Model
(Figure 8.2)
The domain in this model contains:
1.Richard the Lionheart (King of England from 1189–1199)
2.King John (his brother, ruled from 1199–1215)
3.Richard’s left leg
4.John’s left leg
5.A crown
 Relations Between Objects
The objects in a model can be related to each other in different ways.

In this figure, Richard and John are brothers. This is shown using a binary
relation called "brother". A binary relation connects two objects.

So, the brother relation includes these two pairs:

• <Richard, John>

• <John, Richard>

Another binary relation in the model is "on head", which connects the
crown to John. This shows that the crown is on King John’s head:

• <crown, John>
 Unary Relations (Properties)
Some relations are only about one object. These are called
unary relations, or properties. In this model:
• The "person" property is true for Richard and John.
• The "king" property is true only for John (because Richard
is not ruling anymore).
• The "crown" property is true only for the crown.
 Functions in the Model
Some relationships are better shown as functions. A function
links one object to exactly one other object.
In this model, every person has one left leg. This is a unary
function called "left-leg". It includes:
• Richard → Richard’s left leg
• John → John’s left leg
 Symbols and Interpretations in
First-Order Logic
• In First-Order Logic (FOL), we use symbols to represent
the things in the world we are reasoning about. These
symbols help us talk about objects, relations, and
functions.
 Three Main Types of Symbols

•Constant Symbols
These represent specific objects in the model.
Example: Richard, John
•Predicate Symbols
These represent relations between objects.
Example: Brother, OnHead, Person, King, Crown
•Function Symbols
These represent functions, which give one output for each
input object.
Example: LeftLeg
 What Is an Interpretation?
An interpretation tells us what each symbol actually means
in a specific model. It connects:
• Constant symbols to real objects (like people),
• Predicate symbols to actual relationships between objects
(like being brothers),
• Function symbols to mappings (like assigning a left leg to
a person).
 Example Interpretation for the
Model

•Richard → Richard the Lionheart

•John → King John
•Brother → Relation between Richard and John (both ways)
•OnHead → The crown is on King John's head
•Person, King, Crown → Properties of objects
•LeftLeg → Maps each person to their left leg
 Atomic Sentences in First-Order
Logic
• An atomic sentence is the most basic type of sentence in
First-Order Logic.
It is formed using a predicate symbol, followed by a list of
terms in parentheses.

Example 1:
Brother(Richard, John)
This means that Richard the Lionheart is the brother of King
John, according to the interpretation we’ve defined earlier.
•If the model says Richard and John are brothers, then
Brother(Richard, John) i true.
s

•If the model does not contain that relation, then the sentence is
false.
 Quantifiers in First-Order Logic
What Are Quantifiers?
Quantifiers allow us to make general or specific statements
about a set of objects rather than listing them one by one.
There are two main types:
• Universal Quantifier (∀) – "For all..."
• Existential Quantifier (∃) – "There exists..."
A. Universal Quantification (∀)

Syntax:
∀x P(x)
Means: “For every object x, the property P(x) holds.”
Example:
“All kings are persons”
∀x King(x) ⇒ Person(x)
•This means that if x is a king, then x must be a person.

Key Points:
•Variables (e.g., x) are written in lowercase.
•A variable can be an argument of a function: e.g., LeftLeg(x)
•A ground term contains no variables.
•The quantified statement is true if it holds for every object in
the domain.
Example Interpretations:
x → Richard, x → King John, x → crown...
∀x King(x) ⇒ Person(x) is true only if the implication is true for
all these cases.
 B. Existential Quantification (∃)
Syntax:
∃x P(x)
Means: “There exists at least one object x such that P(x) is
true.”
Example:
“King John has a crown on his head”
∃x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x, John)
•This means at least one object x satisfies both being a
crown and being on John's head.
•Existential quantification uses the logical AND (∧).
•Only one valid case is needed for the statement to be true.
 C. Nested Quantifiers
• Quantifiers can be nested to form complex logical
statements.

Same-Type Nesting:
“Brothers are siblings”
∀x ∀y Brother(x, y) ⇒ Sibling(x, y)
Can be written as:
∀x, y Brother(x, y) ⇒ Sibling(x, y)
 D. Connection Between ∀ and ∃
• They are interconnected through negation, following De
Morgan’s Laws
• Equivalences:
• .Expression Equivalent Form
∀x ¬P(x) ¬∃x P(x)
¬∀x P(x) ∃x ¬P(x)
∃x ¬P(x) ¬∀x P(x)
∀x P(x) ¬∃x ¬P(x)
∃x P(x) ¬∀x ¬P(x)
 FOL Provides
• Variable symbols
– E.g., x, y, foo
• Connectives
– Same as in PL: not (), and (), or (), implies (→), if
and only if (biconditional )
• Quantifiers
– Universal x or (Ax)
– Existential x or (Ex)
 Sentences are built from terms and atoms

• A term (denoting a real-world individual) is a constant symbol, a

variable symbol, or an n-place function of n terms.
x and f(x1, ..., xn) are terms, where each xi is a term.
A term with no variables is a ground term
• An atomic sentence (which has value true or false) is an n-place
predicate of n terms
• A complex sentence is formed from atomic sentences connected
by the logical connectives:
P, PQ, PQ, P→Q, PQ where P and Q are sentences
• A quantified sentence adds quantifiers  and 
• A well-formed formula (wff) is a sentence containing no “free”
variables. That is, all variables are “bound” by universal or
existential quantifiers.
(x)P(x,y) has x bound as a universally quantified variable, but y is free.
 Quantifiers
• Universal quantification
– (x)P(x) means that P holds for all values of x in the
domain associated with that variable
– E.g., (x) dolphin(x) → mammal(x)
• Existential quantification
– ( x)P(x) means that P holds for some value of x in the
domain associated with that variable
– E.g., ( x) mammal(x)  lays-eggs(x)
– Permits one to make a statement about some object
without naming it
 Quantifiers
• Universal quantifiers are often used with “implies” to form “rules”:
(x) student(x) → smart(x) means “All students are smart”
• Universal quantification is rarely used to make blanket statements
about every individual in the world:
(x)student(x)smart(x) means “Everyone in the world is a student and is smart”
• Existential quantifiers are usually used with “and” to specify a list of
properties about an individual:
(x) student(x)  smart(x) means “There is a student who is smart”
• A common mistake is to represent this English sentence as the FOL
sentence:
(x) student(x) → smart(x)
– But what happens when there is a person who is not a student?
 Quantifier Scope
• Switching the order of universal quantifiers does not change
the meaning:
– (x)(y)P(x,y) (y)(x) P(x,y)
• Similarly, you can switch the order of existential
quantifiers:
– (x)(y)P(x,y) (y)(x) P(x,y)
• Switching the order of universals and existentials does
change meaning:
– Everyone likes someone: (x)(y) likes(x,y)
– Someone is liked by everyone: (y)(x) likes(x,y)
Connections between All and Exists

We can relate sentences involving  and 

using De Morgan’s laws:
(x) P(x) (x) P(x)
(x) P (x) P(x)
(x) P(x)  (x) P(x)
(x) P(x) (x) P(x)
 Quantified inference rules
• Universal instantiation
– x P(x)  P(A)
• Universal generalization
– P(A)  P(B) …  x P(x)
• Existential instantiation
– x P(x) P(F)  skolem constant F
• Existential generalization
– P(A)  x P(x)
 Universal instantiation
(a.k.a. universal elimination)
• If (x) P(x) is true, then P(C) is true, where C is any
constant in the domain of x
• Example:
(x) eats(Ziggy, x)  eats(Ziggy, IceCream)
• The variable symbol can be replaced by any ground term,
i.e., any constant symbol or function symbol applied to
ground terms only
 Existential instantiation
(a.k.a. existential elimination)
• From (x) P(x) infer P(c)
• Example:
– (x) eats(Ziggy, x) → eats(Ziggy, Stuff)
• Note that the variable is replaced by a brand-new constant
not occurring in this or any other sentence in the KB
• Also known as skolemization; constant is a skolem
constant
• In other words, we don’t want to accidentally draw other
inferences about it by introducing the constant
• Convenient to use this to reason about the unknown object,
rather than constantly manipulating the existential quantifier
 Existential generalization
(a.k.a. existential introduction)
• If P(c) is true, then (x) P(x) is inferred.
• Example
eats(Ziggy, IceCream)  (x) eats(Ziggy, x)
• All instances of the given constant symbol are replaced by
the new variable symbol
• Note that the variable symbol cannot already exist
anywhere in the expression
 Translating English to FOL
Every gardener likes the sun.
x gardener(x) → likes(x,Sun)
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
x t person(x) time(t) → can-fool(x,t)
You can fool all of the people some of the time.
x t (person(x) → time(t) can-fool(x,t))
x (person(x) → t (time(t) can-fool(x,t))
Equivalent
All purple mushrooms are poisonous.
x (mushroom(x)  purple(x)) → poisonous(x)
No purple mushroom is poisonous.
x purple(x)  mushroom(x)  poisonous(x)
x (mushroom(x)  purple(x)) → poisonous(x) Equivalent
There are exactly two purple mushrooms.
x y mushroom(x)  purple(x)  mushroom(y)  purple(y) ^ (x=y)  z
(mushroom(z)  purple(z)) → ((x=z)  (y=z))
Clinton is not tall.
tall(Clinton)
X is above Y iff X is on directly on top of Y or there is a pile of one or more other
objects directly on top of one another starting with X and ending with Y.
x y above(x,y) (on(x,y)  z (on(x,z)  above(z,y)))
Monty Python and The Art of Fallacy

Cast
– Sir Bedevere the Wise, master of (odd) logic
– King Arthur
– Villager 1, witch-hunter
– Villager 2, ex-newt
– Villager 3, one-line wonder
– All, the rest of you scoundrels, mongrels, and
nere-do-wells.
 An example from Monty Python
by way of Russell & Norvig
• FIRST VILLAGER: We have found a witch. May we burn
her?
• ALL: A witch! Burn her!
• BEDEVERE: Why do you think she is a witch?
• SECOND VILLAGER: She turned me into a newt.
• B: A newt?
• V2 (after looking at himself for some time): I got better.
• ALL: Burn her anyway.
• B: Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a
witch.
 Monty Python cont.
• B: Tell me… what do you do with witches?
• ALL: Burn them!
• B: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
• Third Villager: …wood?
• B: So why do witches burn?
• V2 (after a beat): because they’re made of wood?
• B: Good.
• ALL: I see. Yes, of course.
 Monty Python cont.
• B: So how can we tell if she is made of wood?
• V1: Make a bridge out of her.
• B: Ah… but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
• ALL: Yes, of course… um… er…
• B: Does wood sink in water?
• ALL: No, no, it floats. Throw her in the pond.
• B: Wait. Wait… tell me, what also floats on water?
• ALL: Bread? No, no no. Apples… gravy… very small
rocks…
• B: No, no, no,
 Monty Python cont.
• KING ARTHUR: A duck!
• (They all turn and look at Arthur. Bedevere looks up, very
impressed.)
• B: Exactly. So… logically…
• V1 (beginning to pick up the thread): If she… weighs the
same as a duck… she’s made of wood.
• B: And therefore?
• ALL: A witch!
 Monty Python Fallacy #1
• x witch(x) → burns(x)
• x wood(x) → burns(x)
• -------------------------------
•  z witch(x) → wood(x)

• p→q
• r→q
• ---------
• p→r Fallacy: Affirming the conclusion
 Monty Python Near-Fallacy #2
• wood(x) → can-build-bridge(x)
• -----------------------------------------
•  can-build-bridge(x) → wood(x)

• B: Ah… but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
 Monty Python Fallacy #3
• x wood(x) → floats(x)
• x duck-weight (x) → floats(x)
• -------------------------------
•  x duck-weight(x) → wood(x)

• p→q
• r→q
• -----------
• r→p
 Monty Python Fallacy #4
• z light(z) → wood(z)
• light(W)
• ------------------------------
•  wood(W) ok…………..

• witch(W) → wood(W) applying universal instan.

to fallacious conclusion #1
• wood(W)
• ---------------------------------
•  witch(z)
 Example: A simple genealogy KB by FOL
• Build a small genealogy knowledge base using FOL that
– contains facts of immediate family relations (spouses, parents, etc.)
– contains definitions of more complex relations (ancestors, relatives)
– is able to answer queries about relationships between people
• Predicates:
– parent(x, y), child(x, y), father(x, y), daughter(x, y), etc.
– spouse(x, y), husband(x, y), wife(x,y)
– ancestor(x, y), descendant(x, y)
– male(x), female(y)
– relative(x, y)
• Facts:
– husband(Joe, Mary), son(Fred, Joe)
– spouse(John, Nancy), male(John), son(Mark, Nancy)
– father(Jack, Nancy), daughter(Linda, Jack)
– daughter(Liz, Linda)
– etc.
• Rules for genealogical relations
– (x,y) parent(x, y) child (y, x)
(x,y) father(x, y) parent(x, y)  male(x) (similarly for mother(x, y))
(x,y) daughter(x, y) child(x, y)  female(x) (similarly for son(x, y))
– (x,y) husband(x, y) spouse(x, y)  male(x) (similarly for wife(x, y))
(x,y) spouse(x, y) spouse(y, x) (spouse relation is symmetric)
– (x,y) parent(x, y) → ancestor(x, y)
(x,y)(z) parent(x, z)  ancestor(z, y) → ancestor(x, y)
– (x,y) descendant(x, y) ancestor(y, x)
– (x,y)(z) ancestor(z, x)  ancestor(z, y) → relative(x, y)
(related by common ancestry)
(x,y) spouse(x, y) → relative(x, y) (related by marriage)
(x,y)(z) relative(z, x)  relative(z, y) → relative(x, y) (transitive)
(x,y) relative(x, y) relative(y, x) (symmetric)
• Queries
– ancestor(Jack, Fred) /* the answer is yes */
– relative(Liz, Joe) /* the answer is yes */
– relative(Nancy, Matthew)
/* no answer in general, no if under closed world assumption */
– (z) ancestor(z, Fred)  ancestor(z, Liz)
 Semantics of FOL
• Domain M: the set of all objects in the world (of interest)
• Interpretation I: includes
– Assign each constant to an object in M
– Define each function of n arguments as a mapping Mn => M
– Define each predicate of n arguments as a mapping Mn => {T, F}
– Therefore, every ground predicate with any instantiation will have a
truth value
– In general there is an infinite number of interpretations because |M| is
infinite
• Define logical connectives: ~, ^, , =>, <=> as in PL
• Define semantics of (x) and (x)
– (x) P(x) is true iff P(x) is true under all interpretations
– (x) P(x) is true iff P(x) is true under some interpretation
• Model: an interpretation of a set of sentences such that every
sentence is True
• A sentence is
– satisfiable if it is true under some interpretation
– valid if it is true under all possible interpretations
– inconsistent if there does not exist any interpretation under which the
sentence is true
• Logical consequence: S |= X if all models of S are also
models of X
 Axioms, definitions and theorems
•Axioms are facts and rules that attempt to capture all of the
(important) facts and concepts about a domain; axioms can
be used to prove theorems
–Mathematicians don’t want any unnecessary (dependent) axioms –ones
that can be derived from other axioms
–Dependent axioms can make reasoning faster, however
–Choosing a good set of axioms for a domain is a kind of design
problem
•A definition of a predicate is of the form “p(X) …” and
can be decomposed into two parts
–Necessary description: “p(x) → …”
–Sufficient description “p(x)  …”
–Some concepts don’t have complete definitions (e.g., person(x))
 More on definitions
• A necessary condition must be satisfied for a statement to be true.
• A sufficient condition, if satisfied, assures the statement’s truth.
• Duality: “P is sufficient for Q” is the same as “Q is necessary for P.”
• Examples: define father(x, y) by parent(x, y) and male(x)
– parent(x, y) is a necessary (but not sufficient) description of
father(x, y)
• father(x, y) → parent(x, y)
– parent(x, y) ^ male(x) ^ age(x, 35) is a sufficient (but not necessary)
description of father(x, y):
father(x, y)  parent(x, y) ^ male(x) ^ age(x, 35)
– parent(x, y) ^ male(x) is a necessary and sufficient description of
father(x, y)
parent(x, y) ^ male(x) father(x, y)
 More on definitions

S(x) is a P(x)
necessary (x) P(x) => S(x)
S(x)
condition of P(x)

S(x) is a S(x)
sufficient (x) P(x) <= S(x)
P(x)
condition of P(x)

S(x) is a P(x)
necessary and (x) P(x) <=> S(x)
sufficient S(x)
condition of P(x)
 Higher-order logic
• FOL only allows to quantify over variables, and variables
can only range over objects.
• HOL allows us to quantify over relations
• Example: (quantify over functions)
“two functions are equal iff they produce the same value for all
arguments”
f g (f = g)  (x f(x) = g(x))
• Example: (quantify over predicates)
r transitive( r ) → (xyz) r(x,y)  r(y,z) → r(x,z))
• More expressive, but undecidable. (there isn’t an effective
algorithm to decide whether all sentences are valid)
– First-order logic is decidable only when it uses predicates with only one
argument.
 Expressing uniqueness
• Sometimes we want to say that there is a single, unique
object that satisfies a certain condition
• “There exists a unique x such that king(x) is true”
– x king(x)  y (king(y) → x=y)
– x king(x)  y (king(y)  xy)
– ! x king(x)
• “Every country has exactly one ruler”
– c country(c) → ! r ruler(c,r)
• Iota operator: “ x P(x)” means “the unique x such that p(x)
is true”
– “The unique ruler of Freedonia is dead”
– dead( x ruler(freedonia,x))
 Notational differences
• Different symbols for and, or, not, implies, ...
–        • 
– p v (q ^ r)
– p + (q * r)
– etc
• Prolog
cat(X) :- furry(X), meows (X), has(X, claws)
• Lispy notations
(forall ?x (implies (and (furry ?x)
(meows ?x)
(has ?x claws))
(cat ?x)))
Logical agents for the Wumpus World

Three (non-exclusive) agent architectures:

– Reflex agents
• Have rules that classify situations, specifying how to
react to each possible situation
– Model-based agents
• Construct an internal model of their world
– Goal-based agents
• Form goals and try to achieve them
 A simple reflex agent
• Rules to map percepts into observations:
b,g,u,c,t Percept([Stench, b, g, u, c], t) → Stench(t)
s,g,u,c,t Percept([s, Breeze, g, u, c], t) → Breeze(t)
s,b,u,c,t Percept([s, b, Glitter, u, c], t) → AtGold(t)
• Rules to select an action given observations:
t AtGold(t) → Action(Grab, t);
• Some difficulties:
– Consider Climb. There is no percept that indicates the agent should
climb out – position and holding gold are not part of the percept
sequence
– Loops – the percept will be repeated when you return to a square,
which should cause the same response (unless we maintain some
internal model of the world)
 Representing change
• Representing change in the world in logic can be
tricky.
• One way is just to change the KB
– Add and delete sentences from the KB to reflect changes
– How do we remember the past, or reason about changes?
• Situation calculus is another way
• A situation is a snapshot of the world at some
instant in time
• When the agent performs an action A in
situation S1, the result is a new situation
S2.
Situations
 Situation calculus
• A situation is a snapshot of the world at an interval of time during which
nothing changes
• Every true or false statement is made with respect to a particular situation.
– Add situation variables to every predicate.
– at(Agent,1,1) becomes at(Agent,1,1,s0): at(Agent,1,1) is true in situation (i.e., state)
s0.
– Alternatively, add a special 2nd-order predicate, holds(f,s), that means “f is true in
situation s.” E.g., holds(at(Agent,1,1),s0)
• Add a new function, result(a,s), that maps a situation s into a new situation as a
result of performing action a. For example, result(forward, s) is a function that
returns the successor state (situation) to s
• Example: The action agent-walks-to-location-y could be represented by
– (x)(y)(s) (at(Agent,x,s)  onbox(s)) → at(Agent,y,result(walk(y),s))
 Deducing hidden properties
• From the perceptual information we obtain in situations, we
can infer properties of locations
l,s at(Agent,l,s)  Breeze(s) → Breezy(l)
l,s at(Agent,l,s)  Stench(s) → Smelly(l)
• Neither Breezy nor Smelly need situation arguments
because pits and Wumpuses do not move around
 Deducing hidden properties II
• We need to write some rules that relate various aspects of a
single world state (as opposed to across states)
• There are two main kinds of such rules:
– Causal rules reflect the assumed direction of causality in the world:
(l1,l2,s) At(Wumpus,l1,s)  Adjacent(l1,l2) → Smelly(l2)
( l1,l2,s) At(Pit,l1,s)  Adjacent(l1,l2) → Breezy(l2)
Systems that reason with causal rules are called model-based
reasoning systems
– Diagnostic rules infer the presence of hidden properties directly
from the percept-derived information. We have already seen two
diagnostic rules:
( l,s) At(Agent,l,s)  Breeze(s) → Breezy(l)
( l,s) At(Agent,l,s)  Stench(s) → Smelly(l)
 Representing change:
The frame problem
• Frame axioms: If property x doesn’t change as a result of
applying action a in state s, then it stays the same.
– On (x, z, s)  Clear (x, s) →
On (x, table, Result(Move(x, table), s)) 
On(x, z, Result (Move (x, table), s))
– On (y, z, s)  y x → On (y, z, Result (Move (x, table), s))
– The proliferation of frame axioms becomes very cumbersome in
complex domains
 The frame problem II
• Successor-state axiom: General statement that
characterizes every way in which a particular predicate can
become true:
– Either it can be made true, or it can already be true and not be
changed:
– On (x, table, Result(a,s)) 
[On (x, z, s)  Clear (x, s)  a = Move(x, table)] 
[On (x, table, s)  a  Move (x, z)]
• In complex worlds, where you want to reason about longer
chains of action, even these types of axioms are too
cumbersome
– Planning systems use special-purpose inference methods to reason
about the expected state of the world at any point in time during a
multi-step plan
 Qualification problem
• Qualification problem:
– How can you possibly characterize every single effect of an action,
or every single exception that might occur?
– When I put my bread into the toaster, and push the button, it will
become toasted after two minutes, unless…
• The toaster is broken, or…
• The power is out, or…
• I blow a fuse, or…
• A neutron bomb explodes nearby and fries all electrical components,
or…
• A meteor strikes the earth, and the world we know it ceases to exist,
or…
 Ramification problem
• Similarly, it’s just about impossible to characterize every side effect of
every action, at every possible level of detail:
– When I put my bread into the toaster, and push the button, the bread will
become toasted after two minutes, and…
• The crumbs that fall off the bread onto the bottom of the toaster over tray will
also become toasted, and…
• Some of the aforementioned crumbs will become burnt, and…
• The outside molecules of the bread will become “toasted,” and…
• The inside molecules of the bread will remain more “breadlike,” and…
• The toasting process will release a small amount of humidity into the air because
of evaporation, and…
• The heating elements will become a tiny fraction more likely to burn out the next
time I use the toaster, and…
• The electricity meter in the house will move up slightly, and…
 Knowledge engineering!
• Modeling the “right” conditions and the “right” effects at
the “right” level of abstraction is very difficult
• Knowledge engineering (creating and maintaining
knowledge bases for intelligent reasoning) is an entire field
of investigation
• Many researchers hope that automated knowledge
acquisition and machine learning tools can fill the gap:
– Our intelligent systems should be able to learn about the conditions
and effects, just like we do!
– Our intelligent systems should be able to learn when to pay attention
to, or reason about, certain aspects of processes, depending on the
context!
 Preferences among actions
• A problem with the Wumpus world knowledge base that we
have built so far is that it is difficult to decide which action
is best among a number of possibilities.
• For example, to decide between a forward and a grab,
axioms describing when it is OK to move to a square would
have to mention glitter.
• This is not modular!
• We can solve this problem by separating facts about
actions from facts about goals. This way our agent can be
reprogrammed just by asking it to achieve different
goals.
 Preferences among actions
• The first step is to describe the desirability of actions
independent of each other.
• In doing this we will use a simple scale: actions can be
Great, Good, Medium, Risky, or Deadly.
• Obviously, the agent should always do the best action it can
find:
(a,s) Great(a,s) → Action(a,s)
(a,s) Good(a,s)  (b) Great(b,s) → Action(a,s)
(a,s) Medium(a,s)  ((b) Great(b,s)  Good(b,s)) → Action(a,s)
...
 Preferences among actions
• We use this action quality scale in the following way.
• Until it finds the gold, the basic strategy for our agent is:
– Great actions include picking up the gold when found and climbing
out of the cave with the gold.
– Good actions include moving to a square that’s OK and hasn't been
visited yet.
– Medium actions include moving to a square that is OK and has
already been visited.
– Risky actions include moving to a square that is not known to be
deadly or OK.
– Deadly actions are moving into a square that is known to have a pit
or a Wumpus.
 Goal-based agents
• Once the gold is found, it is necessary to change strategies.
So now we need a new set of action values.
• We could encode this as a rule:
– (s) Holding(Gold,s) → GoalLocation([1,1]),s)
• We must now decide how the agent will work out a
sequence of actions to accomplish the goal.
• Three possible approaches are:
– Inference: good versus wasteful solutions
– Search: make a problem with operators and set of states
– Planning: to be discussed later