lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

UNIT-3
Logic and Knowledge Representation First-Order Logic: Representation, Syntax
and Semantics of First-Order Logic, Using First-Order Logic, Knowledge
Engineering in First-Order Logic.

Inference in First-Order Logic: Propositional vs. First-Order Inference, Unification

and Lifting, Forward Chaining, Backward Chaining, Resolution.

Knowledge Representation: Ontological Engineering, Categories and Objects,

Events. Mental Events and Mental Objects, Reasoning Systems for Categories,
Reasoning with Default Information.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

First-Order Logic
n the topic of Propositional logic, we have seen that how to represent statements
using propositional logic. But unfortunately, in propositional logic, we can only
represent the facts, which are either true or false. PL is not sufficient to
represent the complex sentences or natural language statements. The
propositional logic has very limited expressive power. Consider the following
sentence, which we cannot represent using PL logic.

● "Some humans are intelligent", or

● "Sachin likes cricket."

To represent the above statements, PL logic is not sufficient, so we required

some more powerful logic, such as 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, ......
 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

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

Syntax of First-Order logic:

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:

Constant 1, 2, A, John, Mumbai, cat,....

Variables x, y, z, a, b,....

Predicates Brother, Father, >,....

Function sqrt, LeftLegOf, ....

Connectives ∧, ∨, ¬, ⇒, ⇔

Equality ==

Quantifier ∀, ∃
 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

Atomic sentences:

● Atomic sentences are the most basic sentences of first-order logic. These
sentences are formed from a predicate symbol followed by a parenthesis
with a sequence of terms.

● We can represent atomic sentences as Predicate (term1, term2, ......, term

n).

Example: Ravi and Ajay are brothers: => Brothers(Ravi, Ajay).

Chinky is a cat: => cat (Chinky).

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.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

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:
 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

∀x man(x) → drink (x, coffee).

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

Existential Quantifier:

Existential quantifiers are the type of quantifiers, which express that the
statement within its scope is true for at least one instance of something.

It is denoted by the logical operator ∃, which resembles as inverted E. When it

is used with a predicate variable then it is called as an existential quantifier.

If x is a variable, then existential quantifier will be ∃x or ∃(x). And it will be

read as:

● There exists a 'x.'

● For some 'x.'

● For at least one 'x.'

 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

Example:

Some boys are intelligent.

∃x: boys(x) ∧ intelligent(x)

It will be read as: There are some x where x is a boy who is intelligent.

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.

 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

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)].
 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

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:
1. ∀ 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:
1. ∀ t Terminal (t) →Signal (t) = 1 ∨Signal (t) = 0.
● Connect predicates are commutative:
1. ∀ t1, t2 Connect(t1, t2) → Connect (t2, t1).
● Representation of types of gates:
1. ∀ 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.
1. ∀ 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:
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:
1. ∀ 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:
1. ∀ 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).
1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Arity(g, 1, 1)
 2. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r =Type(g) ∧ (r= AND ∨r= OR ∨r= XOR) → Arity (g,
2, 1).
● All gates are logic circuits:
1. ∀ 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.

And then represent the connections between all the gates.

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
2. ∧ Signal (Out(1, C1)) =0 ∧ Signal (Out(2, C1))=1

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:

● Universal generalization is a valid inference rule which states that if

premise P(c) is true for any arbitrary element c in the universe of
discourse, then we can have a conclusion as ∀ x P(x).

● It can be represented as: .

● This rule can be used if we want to show that every element has a similar
property.

● In this rule, x must not appear as a free variable.

Example: Let's represent, P(c): "A byte contains 8 bits", so for ∀ x P(x) "All
bytes contain 8 bits.", it will also be true.

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.

● It can be represented as: .

 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.
 ● It can be represented as:

Example:

From the given sentence: ∃x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x, John),

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.

● It can be represented as:

● Example: Let's say that,

"Priyanka got good marks in English." "Therefore,
someone got good marks in English."

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.

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 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.

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.

● Eliminate all implication (→) and rewrite

a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

c. ∀x ∀y ¬ [eats(x, y) Λ ¬ killed(x)] V food(y)

d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)

f. ∀x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x)

 g. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)

h. likes(John, Peanuts).

● Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite

a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

c. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)

d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)

f. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)

g. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)

h. likes(John, Peanuts).

● Rename variables or standardize variables

a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

c. ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)

d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

e. ∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)

f. ∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)

g. ∀k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)

h. likes(John, Peanuts).

● 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)

h. killed(g) V alive(g)

i. ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)

j. likes(John, Peanuts).

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:

● 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

In artificial intelligence, forward and backward chaining is one of the important
topics, but before understanding forward and backward chaining lets first
understand that from where these two terms came.

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.

Consider the following famous example which we will use in both approaches:
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.

Hence it is proved that Robert is Criminal using forward chaining approach.

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
Following is the difference between the forward chaining and backward
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.
S. Forward Chaining Backward Chaining
No
.

1. Forward chaining starts from known

Backward chaining starts from the goal
facts and applies inference rule and works backward through
to extract more data unit it inference rules to find the required
reaches to the goal. facts that support the goal.

2. It is a bottom-up approach It is a top-down approach

3. Forward chaining is known as data-

Backward chaining is known as goal-
driven inference technique as we driven technique as we start from
reach to the goal using the the goal and divide into sub- goal to
available data. extract the facts.

4. Forward chaining reasoning applies

Backward chaining reasoning
a breadth-first search strategy. applies a depth-first search strategy.

5. Forward chaining tests for all the Backward chaining only tests for few
available rules required rules.
6. Forward chaining is suitable for Backward chaining is suitable for
the planning, monitoring, diagnostic, prescription, and
control, and interpretation debugging application.
application.

7. Forward chaining can generate Backward chaining generates a

an infinite number of possible finite number of possible
conclusions. conclusions.

8. It operates in the forward It operates in the backward

direction. direction.

9. Forward chaining is aimed for Backward chaining is only aimed

any conclusion. for the required data.
Categories and Objects
The organization of objects into categories
• much reasoning takes place at the level of categories.
• For example, a shopper would normally have the goal of buying a basketball,
rather than a particular basketball such as BB9
• Categories also serve to make predictions about objects once they are
classified.
• Representation of categories in first-order logic:
• predicates eg. Basketball(b)
• Objects eg. Basketball
Categories serve to organize and simplify the knowledge base through
inheritance
• Subclass relations organize categories into a taxonomy, or taxonomic
hierarchy
• Subset(Basketballs,
Balls) Examples
• An object is a member of a category. BB9 Basketballs
• A category is a subclass of another category. Basketballs C Balls
• All members of a category have some properties. (x Basketballs) Spherical (x)
.Members of a category can be recognized by some properties. Orange(x)
Round(x) A Diameter(x) = 9.5" Axe Balls x Basketballs
• A category as a whole has some properties. Dogs DomesticatedSpecies
Objects
• The real world can be seen as consisting of primitive objects (e.g., atomic
particles) and composite objects built from them.
● Stuff
● things
• some properties are intrinsic: they belong to the very substance of the object,
rather than to the object as a whole
• Extrinsic properties-weight, length, shape, and so qn-are not retained under
subdivision.
• A category of objects that includes in its definition only intrinsic properties is
then a substance, or mass noun; a class that includes any extrinsic properties in
its definition is a count noun.
 Events
how situation calculus represents actions and their effects.
• Situation calculus-it was designed to describe a world in which actions are
discrete, instantaneous, and happen one at a time.
• Event calculus-based on points of time rather than on situations.
• Event calculus reifies fluents and events.
• The fluent
At(Shankar,Berkeley): is an object that refers to the fact of Shankar being in
Berkeley, but does not by itself say anything about whether it is true.
• To assert that a fluent is actually true at some point in time we use the
predicate T, as in • T(At(Shankar,Berkeley),t).
• Events are described as instances of event categories
• The event E1 of Shankar flying from San Francisco to Washington, D.C.
is describedasE1EFlyingsɅFlyer(E1,Shankar)AOrigin
(E1,SF)ADestination(E1,DC).
The complete set of predicates for one version of the event calculus is T(f,t)
Fluent f is true at time t
Happens (e, i)
Event e happens over the time interval i
Initiates (e, f,t)
Event e causes fluent f to start to hold at time t Terminates
(e, f,t)
Event e causes fluent ƒ to cease to hold at time t
Clipped (f, i)
Fluent ƒ ceases to be true at some point during time inter
Restored (f, i) Fluent ƒ becomes true sometime during time interval i
Processes
• Any process e that happens over an interval also happens over any subinterval
• Categories of events with this property are called process categories or liquid
event categories.
(eЄProcesses)ɅHappens(e,(t1,t4))^(t1<t2<t3<t4) Happens(e,(t2,t3))
Mental Events and Mental Objects
Knowledge about one's own knowledge and reasoning processes is useful for
controlling the inference
• The agent should know what are in its knowledge base and what are not
• What we need is a model of the mental objects that are in someone's head (or
some-thing's knowledge base) and of the mental processes that manipulate
those mental objects.
• propositional attitudes that an agent can have toward mental objects: attitudes
such as Believes, Knows, Wants, Intends, and Informs.

Reasoning in Artificial intelligence

In previous topics, we have learned various ways of knowledge representation in
artificial intelligence. Now we will learn the various ways to reason on this
knowledge using different logical schemes.

Reasoning:
The reasoning is the mental process of deriving logical conclusion and making
predictions from available knowledge, facts, and beliefs. Or we can say,
"Reasoning is a way to infer facts from existing data." It is a general process of
thinking rationally, to find valid conclusions.

In artificial intelligence, the reasoning is essential so that the machine can also
think rationally as a human brain, and can perform like a human.

Types of Reasoning
In artificial intelligence, reasoning can be divided into the following categories:

● Deductive reasoning

● Inductive reasoning

● Abductive reasoning

● Common Sense Reasoning

● Monotonic Reasoning

● Non-monotonic Reasoning are the forms of propositional logic.

 lOMoAR cPSD| 14288805

www.android.universityupdates.in | www.universityupdates.in | https://telegram.me/jntuh

1. Deductive reasoning:

Deductive reasoning is deducing new information from logically related known

information. It is the form of valid reasoning, which means the argument's
conclusion must be true when the premises are true.

Deductive reasoning is a type of propositional logic in AI, and it requires various

rules and facts. It is sometimes referred to as top-down reasoning, and
contradictory to inductive reasoning.

In deductive reasoning, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion.

Deductive reasoning mostly starts from the general premises to the specific
conclusion, which can be explained as below example.

Example:

Premise-1: All the human eats veggies

Premise-2: Suresh is human.

Conclusion: Suresh eats veggies.

The general process of deductive reasoning is given below:

2. Inductive Reasoning:

Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion using limited

sets of facts by the process of generalization. It starts with the series of specific
facts or data and reaches to a general statement or conclusion.

Inductive reasoning is a type of propositional logic, which is also known as cause-

effect reasoning or bottom-up reasoning.
In inductive reasoning, we use historical data or various premises to generate a
generic rule, for which premises support the conclusion.

In inductive reasoning, premises provide probable supports to the conclusion,

so the truth of premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Example:

Premise: All of the pigeons we have seen in the zoo are white.

Conclusion: Therefore, we can expect all the pigeons to be white.

3. Abductive reasoning:

Abductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning which starts with single or

multiple observations then seeks to find the most likely explanation or
conclusion for the observation.

Abductive reasoning is an extension of deductive reasoning, but in abductive

reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion.

Example:

Implication: Cricket ground is wet if it is raining

Axiom: Cricket ground is wet.

Conclusion It is raining.

4. Common Sense Reasoning

Common sense reasoning is an informal form of reasoning, which can be

gained through experiences.

Common Sense reasoning simulates the human ability to make presumptions

about events which occurs on every day.
It relies on good judgment rather than exact logic and operates on heuristic
knowledge and heuristic rules.

Example:

1. One person can be at one place at a time.

2. If I put my hand in a fire, then it will burn.

The above two statements are examples of common sense reasoning which a
human mind can easily understand and assume.

5. Monotonic Reasoning:

In monotonic reasoning, once the conclusion is taken, then it will remain the
same even if we add some other information to existing information in our
knowledge base. In monotonic reasoning, adding knowledge does not decrease
the set of prepositions that can be derived.

To solve monotonic problems, we can derive the valid conclusion from the
available facts only, and it will not be affected by new facts.

Monotonic reasoning is not useful for the real-time systems, as in real time,
facts get changed, so we cannot use monotonic reasoning.

Monotonic reasoning is used in conventional reasoning systems, and a

logic-based system is monotonic.

Any theorem proving is an example of monotonic reasoning.

Example:

● Earth revolves around the Sun.

It is a true fact, and it cannot be changed even if we add another sentence in

knowledge base like, "The moon revolves around the earth" Or "Earth is not
round," etc.
Advantages of Monotonic Reasoning:

● In monotonic reasoning, each old proof will always remain valid.

● If we deduce some facts from available facts, then it will remain valid for
always.

Disadvantages of Monotonic Reasoning:

● We cannot represent the real world scenarios using Monotonic reasoning.

● Hypothesis knowledge cannot be expressed with monotonic reasoning,

which means facts should be true.

● Since we can only derive conclusions from the old proofs, so new
knowledge from the real world cannot be added.

6. Non-monotonic Reasoning

In Non-monotonic reasoning, some conclusions may be invalidated if we add

some more information to our knowledge base.

Logic will be said as non-monotonic if some conclusions can be invalidated by

adding more knowledge into our knowledge base.

Non-monotonic reasoning deals with incomplete and uncertain models.

"Human perceptions for various things in daily life, "is a general example of
non-monotonic reasoning.

Example: Let suppose the knowledge base contains the following knowledge:

● Birds can fly

● Penguins cannot fly

● Pitty is a bird

So from the above sentences, we can conclude that Pitty can fly.
However, if we add one another sentence into knowledge base "Pitty is a
penguin", which concludes "Pitty cannot fly", so it invalidates the above
conclusion.

Advantages of Non-monotonic reasoning:

● For real-world systems such as Robot navigation, we can

use non-monotonic reasoning.

● In Non-monotonic reasoning, we can choose probabilistic facts or can

make assumptions.

Disadvantages of Non-monotonic Reasoning:

● In non-monotonic reasoning, the old facts may be invalidated by adding

new sentences.

● It cannot be used for theorem proving.