CMSC 471 Fall 2002

Class #15/16 Monday, October 21 / Wednesday, October 23

Todays class
Inference in first-order logic
Inference rules Forward chaining Backward chaining Resolution
Unification Proofs Clausal form Resolution as search

Inference in First-Order Logic

Chapter 9
Some material adopted from notes by Andreas Geyer-Schulz

and Chuck Dyer

Inference rules for FOL

Inference rules for propositional logic apply to FOL as well
Modus Ponens, And-Introduction, And-Elimination,

New (sound) inference rules for use with quantifiers: Universal elimination Existential introduction Existential elimination Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)

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 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

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 dont 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
7

Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)

Apply modus ponens reasoning to generalized rules Combines And-Introduction, Universal-Elimination, and Modus Ponens
E.g, from P(c) and Q(c) and (x)(P(x) ^ Q(x)) => R(x) derive R(c)

General case: Given

atomic sentences P1, P2, ..., PN implication sentence (Q1 ^ Q2 ^ ... ^ QN) => R
Q1, ..., QN and R are atomic sentences

substitution subst(, Pi) = subst(, Qi) for i=1,...,N Derive new sentence: subst(, R)

Substitutions
subst(, ) denotes the result of applying a set of substitutions defined by to the sentence A substitution list = {v1/t1, v2/t2, ..., vn/tn} means to replace all occurrences of variable symbol vi by term ti Substitutions are made in left-to-right order in the list subst({x/IceCream, y/Ziggy}, eats(y,x)) = eats(Ziggy, IceCream)
8

Automated inference for FOL

Automated inference using FOL is harder than PL
Variables can potentially take on an infinite number of possible values from their domains Hence there are potentially an infinite number of ways to apply the Universal-Elimination rule of inference

Godel's Completeness Theorem says that FOL entailment is only semidecidable

If a sentence is true given a set of axioms, there is a procedure that will determine this If the sentence is false, then there is no guarantee that a procedure will ever determine thisi.e., it may never halt
9

Completeness of some inference techniques

Truth Tabling is not complete for FOL because truth table size may be infinite Natural Deduction is complete for FOL but is not practical because the branching factor in the search is too large (swe would have to potentially try every inference rule in every possible way using the set of known sentences) Generalized Modus Ponens is not complete for FOL Generalized Modus Ponens is complete for KBs containing only Horn clauses

10

Horn clauses
A Horn clause is a sentence of the form:
(x) P1(x) ^ P2(x) ^ ... ^ Pn(x) => Q(x)

where there are 0 or more Pis and 0 or 1 Q the Pis and Q are positive (i.e., non-negated) literals Equivalently: P1(x) P2(x) Pn(x) where the Pis are all atomic and at most one of them is positive Prolog is based on Horn clauses Horn clauses represent a subset of the set of sentences representable in FOL

11

Horn clauses II
Special cases
P1 ^ P2 ^ Pn => Q P1 ^ P2 ^ Pn => false true => Q

These are not Horn clauses: p(a) q(a) P ^ Q => R S

12

Unification
Unification is a pattern-matching procedure
Takes two atomic sentences, called literals, as input Returns Failure if they do not match and a substitution list, , if they do

That is, unify(p,q) = means subst(, p) = subst(, q) for two atomic sentences, p and q is called the most general unifier (mgu) All variables in the given two literals are implicitly universally quantified To make literals match, replace (universally quantified) variables by terms
13

Unification algorithm
procedure unify(p, q, ) Scan p and q left-to-right and find the first corresponding terms where p and q disagree (i.e., p and q not equal) If there is no disagreement, return (success!) Let r and s be the terms in p and q, respectively, where disagreement first occurs If variable(r) then { Let = union(, {r/s}) Recurse and return unify(subst(, p), subst(, q), ) } else if variable(s) then { Let = union(, {s/r}) Recurse and return unify(subst(, p), subst(, q), ) } else return Failure end
14

Unification: Remarks
Unify is a linear-time algorithm that returns the most general unifier (mgu), i.e., the shortest-length substitution list that makes the two literals match. In general, there is not a unique minimum-length substitution list, but unify returns one of minimum length A variable can never be replaced by a term containing that variable
Example: x/f(x) is illegal.

This occurs check should be done in the above pseudocode before making the recursive calls

15

Unification examples
Example:
parents(x, father(x), mother(Bill)) parents(Bill, father(Bill), y) {x/Bill, y/mother(Bill)}

Example:
parents(x, father(x), mother(Bill)) parents(Bill, father(y), z) {x/Bill, y/Bill, z/mother(Bill)}

Example:
parents(x, father(x), mother(Jane)) parents(Bill, father(y), mother(y)) Failure
16

Forward chaining
Proofs start with the given axioms/premises in KB, deriving new sentences using GMP until the goal/query sentence is derived This defines a forward-chaining inference procedure because it moves forward from the KB to the goal Natural deduction using GMP is complete for KBs containing only Horn clauses

17

Forward chaining algorithm

18

Backward chaining
Backward-chaining deduction using GMP is complete for KBs containing only Horn clauses Proofs start with the goal query, find implications that would allow you to prove it, and then prove each of the antecedents in the implication, continuing to work backwards until you arrive at the axioms, which we know are true Example: Does Ziggy eat fish (x) eats(Ziggy, x) => eats(Ziggy, Stuff)

19

Backward chaining algorithm

20

Completeness of GMP
GMP (using forward or backward chaining) is complete for KBs that contain only Horn clauses It is not complete for simple KBs that contain non-Horn clauses The following entail that S(A) is true:
(x) P(x) => Q(x) (x) ~P(x) => R(x) (x) Q(x) => S(x) (x) R(x) => S(x)

If we want to conclude S(A), with GMP we cannot, since the second one is not a Horn form It is equivalent to P(x) R(x)
21

Resolution
Resolution is a sound and complete inference procedure for FOL Resolution Rule for PL: P1 P2 ... Pn ~P1 Q2 ... Qm Resolvent: P2 ... v Pn Q2 ... Qm Examples P and ~P Q, derive Q (Modus Ponens) (~P Q) and (~Q R), derive ~P R P and ~P, derive False [contradiction!] (P Q) and (~P ~Q), derive True
22

FOL resolution
Given sentences
P1 ... Pn Q1 ... Qm

where each Pi and Qi is a literal, i.e., a positive or negated predicate symbol with its terms, if Pj and ~Qk unify with substitution list , then derive the resolvent sentence:
subst(, P1 ... Pj-1 Pj+1 ... Pn Q1 Qk-1 Qk+1 ... Qm)

Example
From clause P(x, f(a)) P(x, f(y)) Q(y) and clause ~P(z, f(a)) ~Q(z), derive resolvent clause P(z, f(y)) Q(y) ~Q(z) using = {x/z}
23

A resolution proof tree

24

Resolution refutation proofs

Given a consistent set of axioms KB and goal sentence Q, show that KB |= Q Proof by contradiction: Add ~Q to KB and try to prove false.
i.e., (KB |- Q) <=> (KB ~Q |- False)

Resolution can establish that a given sentence Q is entailed by KB, but cant (in general) be used to generate all logical consequences of a set sentences Also, it cannot be used to prove that Q is not entailed by KB. Resolution wont always give an answer since entailment is only semidecidable
And you cant just run two proofs in parallel, one trying to prove Q and the other trying to prove ~Q, since KB might not entail either one
25

Procedure
procedure resolution(KB, Q) ;; KB is a set of consistent, true FOL sentences, Q is a goal sentence ;; to derive. Returns success if KB |- Q, and failure otherwise KB = union(KB, ~Q) while false KB do Choose 2 sentences, S1 and S2, in KB that contain literals that unify if none, return Failure resolvent = resolution-rule(S1, S2) KB = union(KB, resolvent) return Success end
26

Refutation resolution proof tree

27

Resolution issues
Resolution is only applicable to sentences in clausal form, e.g. P1 P2 ... Pn where Pis are negated or non-negated atomic predicates Issues:
Can we convert every FOL sentence into this form?
Yes as we will see shortly

How to pick which pair of sentences to resolve?

Determines the search strategy of the prover more later

How to pick which pair of literals, one from each sentence, to unify?
Again, part of the search strategy

28

Example proof
Did Curiosity kill the cat?

Jack owns a dog. Every dog owner is an animal lover. No animal lover kills an animal. Either Jack or Curiosity killed the cat, who is named Tuna. Did Curiosity kill the cat? The axioms can be represented as follows: A. (x) Dog(x) ^ Owns(Jack,x) B. (x) ((y) Dog(y) ^ Owns(x, y)) => AnimalLover(x) C. (x) AnimalLover(x) => (y) Animal(y) => ~Kills(x,y) D. Kills(Jack,Tuna) Kills(Curiosity,Tuna) E. Cat(Tuna) F. (x) Cat(x) => Animal(x)
29

Example proof, cont.

Did Curiosity kill the cat? Convert to implicative normal form A1. [True => ] Dog(D) A2. [True => ] Owns(Jack,D) B. Dog(y) ^ Owns(x, y) => AnimalLover(x) C. AnimalLover(x) ^ Animal(y) ^ Kills(x,y) => False D. [True => ] Kills(Jack,Tuna) v Kills(Curiosity,Tuna) E. [True => ] Cat(Tuna) F. Cat(x) => Animal(x) Add the query: Q. Kills(Curiosity, Tuna) => False
30

Example proof III

Did Curiosity kill the cat? The Proof G. A1, B, {y/D}: Owns(x,D) => AnimalLover(x) H. A2, G, {x/Jack}: [True => ] AnimalLover(Jack) I. E,F, {x/Tuna}: [True => ] Animal(Tuna) J. C,I, {y/Tuna}: AnimalLover(x) ^ Kills(x,Tuna) => False K. H,J: {x/Jack} Kills(Jack,Tuna) => False L. D,Q: [True => ] Kills(Jack,Tuna) M. L,K: [True => ] False
31

Curiosity Killed the Cat

32

Converting to clausal form

The canonical (standard) form for resolution is Conjunctive Normal Form (conjunction of disjunctions), or equivalently, Implicative Normal Form (conjunction implies disjunction) Example: If Johns house is big, then it is a lot of work, unless he has a housekeeper and does not have a garden FOL:
Big(h) ^ House(h,j) => Work(h) (Cleans(c,h) ^ ~Garden(g,h))

Implicative Normal Form:

Big(h) ^ House(h,j) => Work(h) Cleans(c,h) Big(h) ^ House(h,j) ^ Garden(g,h) => Work(h)
33

Converting sentences to clausal form

1. Eliminate all <=> connectives
(P <=> Q) ==> ((P => Q) ^ (Q => P))

2. Eliminate all => connectives

(P => Q) ==> (~P v Q)

3. Reduce the scope of each negation symbol to a single predicate

~~P ==> P ~(P v Q) ==> ~P ^ ~Q ~(P ^ Q) ==> ~P v ~Q ~(x)P ==> (x)~P ~(x)P ==> (x)~P

4. Standardize variables: rename all variables so that each quantifier has its own unique variable name
34

Converting sentences to clausal form

Skolem constants and functions
5. Eliminate existential quantification by introducing Skolem constants/functions
(x)P(x) ==> P(c) c is a Skolem constant (a brand-new constant symbol that is not used in any other sentence) (x)(y)P(x,y) ==> (x)P(x, f(x)) since is within the scope of a universally quantified variable, use a Skolem function f to construct a new value that depends on the universally quantified variable f must be a brand-new function name not occurring in any other sentence in the KB. E.g., (x)(y)loves(x,y) ==> (x)loves(x,f(x)) In this case, f(x) specifies the person that x loves
35

Converting sentences to clausal form

6. Remove universal quantifiers by (1) moving them all to the left end; (2) making the scope of each the entire sentence; and (3) dropping the prefix part
Ex: (x)P(x) ==> P(x)

7. Put into conjunctive normal form (conjunction of disjunctions)

(P ^ Q) R ==> (P R) ^ (Q R) (P Q) R ==> (P Q R)

8. Split conjuncts into a separate clauses 9. Standardize variables so each clause contains only variable names that do not occur in any other clause
36

An example
(x)(P(x) => ((y)(P(y) => P(f(x,y))) ^ ~(y)(Q(x,y) => P(y)))) 2. Eliminate =>
(x)(~P(x) ((y)(~P(y) P(f(x,y))) ^ ~(y)(~Q(x,y) P(y))))

3. Reduce scope of negation

(x)(~P(x) ((y)(~P(y) P(f(x,y))) ^ (y)(Q(x,y) ^ ~P(y))))

4. Standardize variables
(x)(~P(x) ((y)(~P(y) P(f(x,y))) ^ (z)(Q(x,z) ^ ~P(z))))

5. Eliminate existential quantification

(x)(~P(x) ((y)(~P(y) P(f(x,y))) ^ (Q(x,g(x)) ^ ~P(g(x)))))

6. Drop universal quantification symbols

(~P(x) ((~P(y) P(f(x,y))) ^ (Q(x,g(x)) ^ ~P(g(x)))))

37

Example
7. Convert to conjunction of disjunctions
(~P(x) ~P(y) P(f(x,y))) ^ (~P(x) Q(x,g(x))) ^ (~P(x) ~P(g(x)))

8. Create separate clauses

~P(x) ~P(y) P(f(x,y)) ~P(x) Q(x,g(x)) ~P(x) ~P(g(x))

9. Standardize variables
~P(x) ~P(y) P(f(x,y)) ~P(z) Q(z,g(z)) ~P(w) ~P(g(w))
38

Resolution TP as search
Resolution can be thought of as the bottom-up construction of a search tree, where the leaves are the clauses produced by KB and the negation of the goal When a pair of clauses generates a new resolvent clause, add a new node to the tree with arcs directed from the resolvent to the two parent clauses Resolution succeeds when a node containing the False clause is produced, becoming the root node of the tree A strategy is complete if its use guarantees that the empty clause (i.e., false) can be derived whenever it is entailed
39

Breadth-first search
Level 0 clauses are the original axioms and the negation of the goal Level k clauses are the resolvents computed from two clauses, one of which must be from level k-1 and the other from any earlier level Compute all possible level 1 clauses, then all possible level 2 clauses, etc. Complete, but very inefficient

40

Strategies
There are a number of general (domain-independent) strategies that are useful in controlling a resolution theorem prover Well briefly look at the following Breadth first Set of support Unit resolution Input resolution Ordered resolution Subsumption
41

Set of support
At least one parent clause must be the negation of the goal or a descendant of such a goal clause (i.e., derived from a goal clause) Complete (assuming all possible set-of-support clauses are derived) Gives a goal-directed character to the search

42

Unit resolution
Prefer resolution steps in which at least one parent clause is a unit clause, i.e., a clause containing a single literal Not complete in general, but complete for Horn clause KBs

43

Input resolution
At least one parent must be one of the input sentences (i.e., either a sentence in the original KB or the negation of the goal) Not complete in general, but complete for Horn clause KBs Linear resolution
Extension of input resolution One of the parent sentences must be an input sentence or an ancestor of an input sentece Complete

44

Ordered resolution
Search for resolvable sentences in order (left to right) This is how Prolog operates Resolve the first element in the sentence first This forces the user to define what is important in generating the code The way the sentences are written controls the resolution

45

Subsumption
Eliminate all sentences that are subsumed by (more specific than) an existing sentence to keep the KB small Like factoring, this is just removing things that merely clutter up the space and will not affect the final result E.g., if P(x) is already in the KB, adding P(A) makes no sense P(x) is a superset of P(A) Likewise adding P(A) Q(B) would add nothing to the KB

46

Proof tree that West is a criminal

47

A failed proof tree

48

Sketch of a completeness proof for resolution

49