Representing Knowledge using Rules

Unit-IV

1
 Procedural versus Declarative Knowledge
 We have discussed various search techniques so far. Now we
would consider a set of rules that represent,
1. Knowledge about relationships in the world and
2. Knowledge about how to solve the problem using the content of
the rules.
 Procedural Knowledge:
 A representation in which the control information that is
necessary to use the knowledge is embedded in the knowledge
itself for e.g. computer programs, directions, and recipes; these
indicate specific use or implementation;
 The real difference between declarative and procedural views of
knowledge lies in where control information reside.
2
 Procedural versus Declarative Knowledge
 For example, consider the following
 Man (Marcus)
 Man (Caesar)
 Person (Cleopatra)
 ∀x: Man(x) → Person(x)
 Now, try to answer the question. ?Person(y)
 The knowledge base justifies any of the following answers.
 Y=Marcus
 Y=Caesar
 Y=Cleopatra

 We get more than one value that satisfies the predicate.

 If only one value needed, then the answer to the question will depend on the
order in which the assertions examined during the search for a response.
 If the assertions declarative then they do not themselves say anything about
how they will be examined.
 In case of procedural representation, they say how they will examine. 3
 Procedural versus Declarative Knowledge
 Declarative Knowledge:
 A statement in which knowledge specified, but the use to which that
knowledge is to be put is not given.
 For example, laws, people’s name; these are the facts which can stand alone,
not dependent on other knowledge;
 So to use declarative representation, we must have a program that explains
what is to do with the knowledge and how.
 For example, a set of logical assertions can combine with a resolution theorem
prover to give a complete program for solving problems but in some cases, the
logical assertions can view as a program rather than data to a program.
 Hence the implication statements define the legitimate reasoning paths and
automatic assertions provide the starting points of those paths.
 These paths define the execution paths which is similar to the ‘if then else “in
traditional programming.
 So logical assertions can view as a procedural representation of knowledge.
4
 Logic Programming
 Logic programming is a programming paradigm in which logical
assertions viewed as programs.
 These are several logic programming systems, PROLOG is one of
them.
 A PROLOG program consists of several logical assertions where
each is a horn clause i.e. a clause with at most one positive
literal.
 Ex : P, P V Q, P → Q
 The facts are represented on Horn Clause for two reasons.
1. Because of a uniform representation, a simple and efficient
interpreter can write.
2. The logic of Horn Clause decidable.
5
 Logic Programming
 Also, the first two differences are the fact that PROLOG programs are
actually sets of Horn clause that have been transformed as follows:-
1. If the Horn Clause contains no negative literal then leave it as it is.
2. Also, Otherwise rewrite the Horn clauses as an implication, combining
all of the negative literals into the antecedent of the implications and the
single positive literal into the consequent.
 Moreover, This procedure causes a clause which originally consisted of
a disjunction of literals (one of them was positive) to be transformed
into a single implication whose antecedent is a conjunction universally
quantified.
 But when we apply this transformation, any variables that occurred in
negative literals and so now occur in the antecedent become
existentially quantified, while the variables in the consequent are still
universally quantified.
6
 Logic Programming
 For example the PROLOG clause P(x): – Q(x, y) is equal to
logical expression ∀x: ∃y: Q (x, y) → P(x).
 The difference between the logic and PROLOG representation is
that the PROLOG interpretation has a fixed control strategy. And
so, the assertions in the PROLOG program define a particular
search path to answer any question.
 But, the logical assertions define only the set of answers but not
about how to choose among those answers if there is more than
one.
7
 Logic Programming
 Consider the following example:
1. Logical representation
∀x : pet(x) ۸ small (x) → apartmentpet(x)
∀x : cat(x) ۸ dog(x) → pet(x)
∀x : poodle (x) → dog (x) ۸ small (x)
poodle (fluffy)
2. Prolog representation
apartmentpet (x) : pet(x), small (x)
pet (x): cat (x)
pet (x): dog(x)
dog(x): poodle (x)
small (x): poodle(x)
poodle (fluffy) 8
 Forward versus Backward Reasoning
 A search procedure must find a path between initial and goal states.
 There are two directions in which a search process could proceed.
 The two types of search are:
1. Forward search which starts from the start state
2. Backward search that starts from the goal state
 The production system views the forward and backward as
symmetric processes.
 Consider a game of playing 8 puzzles. The rules defined are
 Square 1 empty and square 2 contains tile n. →
 Also, Square 2 empty and square 1 contains the tile n.
 Square 1 empty Square 4 contains tile n. →
 Also, Square 4 empty and Square 1 contains tile n.
9
 Forward versus Backward Reasoning

 We can solve the problem in 2 ways:

(a). Reasoning forward from the initial state

1) Begin building a tree of move sequences by starting with the
initial configuration at the root of the tree.
2) Generate the next level of the tree by finding all rules whose left-
hand side matches against the root node. The right-hand side is
used to create new configurations.
3) Generate the next level by considering the nodes in the previous
level and applying it to all rules whose left-hand side match.
10
 Forward versus Backward Reasoning
(b). Reasoning backward from the goal states:
•Step 1. Begin building a tree of move sequences by starting with the goal
node configuration at the root of the tree.
Step 2. Generate the next level of the tree by finding all rules whose right-
hand side matches against the root node. The left-hand side used to create
new configurations.
Step 3. Generate the next level by considering the nodes in the previous
level and applying it to all rules whose right-hand side match.
So, The same rules can use in both cases.
Also, In forwarding reasoning, the left-hand sides of the rules matched
against the current state and right sides used to generate the new state.
Moreover, in backward reasoning, the right-hand sides of the rules
matched against the current state and left sides are used to generate the new
state.
11
 Forward versus Backward Reasoning
 There are four factors influencing the type of reasoning. They are,
1) Are there more possible start or goal state? We move from
smaller set of sets to the length.
2) In what direction is the branching factor greater? We proceed in
the direction with the lower branching factor.
3) Will the program be asked to justify its reasoning process to a
user? If, so then it is selected since it is very close to the way in
which the user thinks.
4) What kind of event is going to trigger a problem-solving episode?
If it is the arrival of a new factor, the forward reasoning makes
sense. If it is a query to which a response is desired, backward
reasoning is more natural.

12
 Forward versus Backward Reasoning
Example 1 of Forward versus Backward Reasoning
It is easier to drive from an unfamiliar place from home, rather than from
home to an unfamiliar place.
Also, if you consider a home as starting place an unfamiliar place as a
goal then we have to backtrack from unfamiliar place to home.
Example 2 of Forward versus Backward Reasoning
Consider a problem of symbolic integration. Moreover, the problem space
is a set of formulas, which contains integral expressions.
Here START is equal to the given formula with some integrals.
GOAL is equivalent to the expression of the formula without any integral.
Here we start from the formula with some integrals and proceed to an
integral free expression rather than starting from an integral free
expression.
13
 Forward versus Backward Reasoning
Example 3 of Forward versus Backward Reasoning
The third factor is nothing but deciding whether the reasoning process can
justify its reasoning. If it justifies then it can apply.
For example, doctors are usually unwilling to accept any advice from
diagnostics process because it cannot explain its reasoning.
Example 4 of Forward versus Backward Reasoning
Prolog is an example of backward chaining rule system. In Prolog rules
restricted to Horn clauses. This allows for rapid indexing because all the
rules for deducing a given fact share the same rule head.
Rules matched with unification procedure. Unification tries to find a set
of bindings for variables to equate a sub-goal with the head of some rule.
Rules in the Prolog program matched in the order in which they appear.

14
 Combining Forward and Backward Reasoning
Combining Forward and Backward Reasoning
Instead of searching either forward or backward, you can search both
simultaneously.
Also, That is, start forward from a starting state and backward from a goal
state simultaneously until the paths meet.
This strategy called Bi-directional search. The following figure shows the
reason for a Bidirectional search to be ineffective.

Figure: Forward versus Backward Reasoning 15

 Forward versus Backward Reasoning
 Also, The two searches may pass each other resulting in more
work.
 Based on the form of the rules one can decide whether the same
rules can apply to both forward and backward reasoning.
 Moreover, If left-hand side and right of the rule contain pure
assertions then the rule can reverse.
 And so the same rule can apply to both types of reasoning.
 If the right side of the rule contains an arbitrary procedure then
the rule cannot reverse.
 So, In this case, while writing the rule the commitment to a
direction of reasoning must make.

16
Please read the following topics yourself:
Matching (Page 138-142)
Control knowledge (Page 142-145) from book authored by Elaine
Rich, Kevin Knight and ShivaShankar B. Nair.

17