Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Inference in First-Order Logic (FOL)

    Uploaded by

    justadityabist
    This document discusses various techniques for performing inference in first-order logic (FOL), including: 1) Reducing FOL inference to propositional inference through universal instantiation and propositionalization. 2) Unification, which finds substitutions to make logical expressions identical. 3) Generalized modus ponens, which performs inference by applying substitutions found through unification. It also describes algorithms like forward chaining and backward chaining for automated logical inference on knowledge bases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Inference in First-Order Logic (FOL)

    Uploaded by

    justadityabist
    71 views56 pages
    This document discusses various techniques for performing inference in first-order logic (FOL), including: 1) Reducing FOL inference to propositional inference through universal instantiation and propositionalization. 2) Unification, which finds substitutions to make logical expressions identical. 3) Generalized modus ponens, which performs inference by applying substitutions found through unification. It also describes algorithms like forward chaining and backward chaining for automated logical inference on knowledge bases.

    Original Title

    10.Module4_INFERENCE-IN-FOL_updated_22.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses various techniques for performing inference in first-order logic (FOL), including: 1) Reducing FOL inference to propositional inference through universal instantiation and propositionalization. 2) Unification, which finds substitutions to make logical expressions identical. 3) Generalized modus ponens, which performs inference by applying substitutions found through unification. It also describes algorithms like forward chaining and backward chaining for automated logical inference on knowledge bases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    71 views56 pages

    Inference in First-Order Logic (FOL)

    Uploaded by

    justadityabist
    This document discusses various techniques for performing inference in first-order logic (FOL), including: 1) Reducing FOL inference to propositional inference through universal instantiation and propositionalization. 2) Unification, which finds substitutions to make logical expressions identical. 3) Generalized modus ponens, which performs inference by applying substitutions found through unification. It also describes algorithms like forward chaining and backward chaining for automated logical inference on knowledge bases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 56

    Inference in First-Order Logic (FOL)

    Outline
    • Reducing first-order inference to propositional
    inference
    • Unification
    • Generalized Modus Ponens
    • Forward chaining
    • Backward chaining
    • Resolution
    Universal instantiation (UI)
    • Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is entailed by it:

    v α
    Subst({v/g}, α)

    for any variable v and ground term g

    • E.g., x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x) yields:


    King(John)  Greedy(John)  Evil(John)
    King(Richard)  Greedy(Richard)  Evil(Richard)
    King(Father(John))  Greedy(Father(John))  Evil(Father(John))
    Existential instantiation (EI)
    • For any sentence α, variable v, and constant symbol k
    that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge
    base:

    v α
    Subst({v/k}, α)

    • E.g., x Crown(x)  OnHead(x,John) yields:


    Crown(C1)  OnHead(C1,John)

    provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called a


    Skolem constant
    Reduction to propositional inference
    Suppose the KB contains just the following:

    x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x)


    King(John)
    Greedy(John)
    Brother(Richard,John)

    • Instantiating the universal sentence in all possible ways, we have:


    King(John)  Greedy(John)  Evil(John)
    King(Richard)  Greedy(Richard)  Evil(Richard)
    King(John)
    Greedy(John)
    Brother(Richard,John)

    • The new KB is propositionalized: proposition symbols are

    King(John), Greedy(John), Evil(John), King(Richard), etc.


    Reduction contd.
    • Every FOL KB can be propositionalized so as to preserve
    entailment

    • (A ground sentence is entailed by new KB iff entailed by


    original KB)

    • Idea: propositionalize KB and query, apply resolution, return


    result

    • Problem: with function symbols, there are infinitely many


    ground terms,
    – e.g., Father(Father(Father(John)))
    Reduction contd.
    Theorem: Herbrand (1930). If a sentence α is entailed by an FOL KB, it is
    entailed by a finite subset of the propositionalized KB

    Idea: For n = 0 to ∞ do
    create a propositional KB by instantiating with depth-$n$ terms
    see if α is entailed by this KB

    Problem: works if α is entailed, loops if α is not entailed

    Theorem: Turing (1936), Church (1936) Entailment for FOL is


    semidecidable (algorithms exist that say yes to every entailed sentence, but no
    algorithm exists that also says no to every nonentailed sentence.)
    Problems with propositionalization
    • Propositionalization seems to generate lots of irrelevant sentences.

    • E.g., from:
    •
    x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x)
    King(John)
    y Greedy(y)
    Brother(Richard,John)

    • it seems obvious that Evil(John), but propositionalization produces lots of


    facts such as Greedy(Richard) that are irrelevant
    Unification
    Finding substitutions that make different logical expressions look
    identical is known as unification.
    Unification
    • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such
    that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

    θ = {x/John,y/John} works

    • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ
    p q θ
    Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane)
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ)
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y))
    Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ)

    • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)


    Unification
    • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such
    that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

    θ = {x/John,y/John} works

    • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ
    p q θ
    Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ)
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y))
    Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ)

    • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)


    Unification
    • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such
    that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

    θ = {x/John,y/John} works

    • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ

    p q θ
    Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y))
    Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ)

    • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)


    Unification
    • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such
    that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

    θ = {x/John,y/John} works

    • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ
    • p q θ
    Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) {y/John,x/Mother(John)}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ)

    • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)


    Unification
    • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such
    that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

    θ = {x/John,y/John} works

    • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ

    p q θ
    Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) {y/John,x/Mother(John)}}
    Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ) {fail}

    • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)


    Unification
    • To unify Knows(John,x) and Knows(y,z),

    θ = {y/John, x/z } or θ = {y/John, x/John, z/John}

    • The first unifier is more general than the second.

    • There is a single most general unifier (MGU) that is


    unique up to renaming of variables.

    MGU = { y/John, x/z }


    The unification algorithm
    The unification algorithm
    Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)
    p1', p2', … , pn', ( p1  p2  …  pn q) where pi'θ = pi θ for all i
    qθ
    p1' is King(John) p1 is King(x)
    p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
    θ is {x/John,y/John} q is Evil(x)
    q θ is Evil(John)

    • GMP used with KB of definite clauses (exactly one positive literal)

    • All variables assumed universally quantified


    Soundness of GMP
    • Need to show that
    p1', …, pn', (p1  …  pn  q) ╞ qθ

    provided that pi'θ = piθ for all I

    • Lemma: For any sentence p, we have p ╞ pθ by UI


    •

    1. (p1  …  pn  q) ╞ (p1  …  pn  q)θ = (p1θ  …  pnθ  qθ)


    2. p1', \; …, \;pn' ╞ p1'  …  pn' ╞ p1'θ  …  pn'θ
    3. From 1 and 2, qθ follows by ordinary Modus Ponens
    Example knowledge base
    • The law says that it is a crime for an American to sell weapons
    to hostile nations. The country Nono, an enemy of America,
    has some missiles, and all of its missiles were sold to it by
    Colonel West, who is American.

    » Prove that Col. West is a criminal


    Example knowledge base contd.
    ... it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
    American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)
    Nono … has some missiles, i.e., x Owns(Nono,x)  Missile(x):

    Owns(Nono,M1) and Missile(M1)


    … all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West
    Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
    Missiles are weapons:

    Missile(x)  Weapon(x)
    An enemy of America counts as "hostile“:
    Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
    West, who is American …

    American(West)
    The country Nono, an enemy of America …

    Enemy(Nono,America)
    Forward chaining algorithm
    Forward chaining proof
    Forward chaining proof
    Forward chaining proof
    Properties of forward chaining
    • Sound and complete for first-order definite clauses

    • Datalog = first-order definite clauses + no functions


    • FC terminates for Datalog in finite number of iterations

    • May not terminate in general if α is not entailed

    • This is unavoidable: entailment with definite clauses is


    semidecidable
    Efficiency of forward chaining
    Incremental forward chaining: no need to match a rule on
    iteration k if a premise wasn't added on iteration k-1
     match each rule whose premise contains a newly added positive literal

    Matching itself can be expensive:


    Database indexing allows O(1) retrieval of known facts

    – e.g., query Missile(x) retrieves Missile(M1)

    Forward chaining is widely used in deductive databases


    Hard matching example
    Diff(wa,nt)  Diff(wa,sa)  Diff(nt,q) 
    Diff(nt,sa)  Diff(q,nsw)  Diff(q,sa) 
    Diff(nsw,v)  Diff(nsw,sa)  Diff(v,sa) 
    Colorable()

    Diff(Red,Blue) Diff (Red,Green)


    Diff(Green,Red) Diff(Green,Blue)
    Diff(Blue,Red) Diff(Blue,Green)

    • Colorable() is inferred iff the CSP has a solution


    • CSPs include 3SAT as a special case, hence matching
    is NP-hard
    Backward chaining algorithm

    SUBST(COMPOSE(θ1, θ2), p) = SUBST(θ2,


    SUBST(θ1, p))
    Backward chaining example
    Backward chaining example
    Backward chaining example
    Backward chaining example
    Backward chaining example
    Backward chaining example
    Backward chaining example
    Backward chaining example
    Properties of backward chaining
    • Depth-first recursive proof search: space is linear in
    size of proof
    • Incomplete due to infinite loops
    –  fix by checking current goal against every goal on stack
    –
    • Inefficient due to repeated subgoals (both success and
    failure)
    –  fix using caching of previous results (extra space)
    –
    • Widely used for logic programming
    Logic programming: Prolog
    • Algorithm = Logic + Control

    • Basis: backward chaining with Horn clauses + bells & whistles


    Widely used in Europe, Japan (basis of 5th Generation project)
    Compilation techniques  60 million LIPS

    • Program = set of clauses = head :- literal1, … literaln.


    •
    criminal(X) :- american(X), weapon(Y), sells(X,Y,Z), hostile(Z).

    • Depth-first, left-to-right backward chaining


    • Built-in predicates for arithmetic etc., e.g., X is Y*Z+3
    • Built-in predicates that have side effects (e.g., input and output

    • predicates, assert/retract predicates)


    • Closed-world assumption ("negation as failure")
    – e.g., given alive(X) :- not dead(X).
    – alive(joe) succeeds if dead(joe) fails
    –
    Prolog
    • Appending two lists to produce a third:
    append([],Y,Y).
    append([X|L],Y,[X|Z]) :- append(L,Y,Z).

    • query: append(A,B,[1,2]) ?

    • answers: A=[] B=[1,2]


    •
    A=[1] B=[2]

    A=[1,2] B=[]
    Resolution: brief summary
    • Full first-order version: Generic Representation of Unification

    l1  ···  lk, m1  ···  mn

    (l1  ···  li-1  li+1  ···  lk  m1  ···  mj-1  mj+1  ···  mn)θ
    where Unify(li, mj) = θ.

    • The two clauses are assumed to be standardized apart so that they share no
    variables.

    • For example,

    Rich(x)  Unhappy(x)
    Rich(Ken)
    Unhappy(Ken)

    with θ = {x/Ken}
    Example Problem 1
    KB:
    Everyone who loves all animals is loved by
    someone.
    Anyone who kills animals is loved by no-one.
    Jack loves all animals.
    Either Curiosity or Jack killed the cat, who is
    named Tuna.
    Query: Did Curiosity kill the cat?
    Inference Procedure:
    1.Express sentences in FOL.
    2.Eliminate existential quantifiers.
    3.Convert to CNF form and negated query.
    Conversion to FOL
    Conversion to CNF
    • Everyone who loves all animals is loved by someone:
    x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)]

    • 1. Eliminate biconditionals and implications


    x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)]

    • 2. Move  inwards: x p ≡ x p,  x p ≡ x p

    x [y (Animal(y)  Loves(x,y))]  [y Loves(y,x)]


    x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)]
    x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)]
    Conversion to CNF contd.
    3. Standardize variables: each quantifier should use a different one

    x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [z Loves(z,x)]

    4. Skolemize: a more general form of existential instantiation.


    Each existential variable is replaced by a Skolem function of the enclosing
    universally quantified variables:

    x [Animal(F(x))  Loves(x,F(x))]  Loves(G(x),x)

    5. Drop universal quantifiers:


    6. [Animal(F(x))  Loves(x,F(x))]  Loves(G(x),x) [ SOP = Sum of Product]
    7. Distribute  over  : [Conjunctive of Disjunctive = POS]

    [Animal(F(x))  Loves(G(x),x)]  [Loves(x,F(x))  Loves(G(x),x)]


    Final CNF
    Resolution-based Inference
    Example knowledge base
    • The law says that it is a crime for an American to sell weapons
    to hostile nations. The country Nono, an enemy of America,
    has some missiles, and all of its missiles were sold to it by
    Colonel West, who is American.

    » Prove that Col. West is a criminal


    Example knowledge base contd.
    ... it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
    American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)
    Nono … has some missiles, i.e., x Owns(Nono,x)  Missile(x):

    Owns(Nono,M1) and Missile(M1)


    … all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West
    Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
    Missiles are weapons:

    Missile(x)  Weapon(x)
    An enemy of America counts as "hostile“:
    Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
    West, who is American …

    American(West)
    The country Nono, an enemy of America …

    Enemy(Nono,America)
    Resolution proof: definite clauses
    Example Problem 2
    • Consider the following axioms:
    1. All hounds howl at night.
    2. Anyone who has any cats will not have any
    mice.
    3. Light sleepers do not have anything which
    howls at night.
    4. John has either a cat or a hound.
    • Prove that If John is a light sleeper, then John
    does not have any mice.
    FOL Conversion
    1. ∀ x (HOUND(x) → HOWL(x))
    2. ∀ x ∀ y (HAVE (x,y) ∧ CAT (y) → ¬ ∃ z
    (HAVE(x,z) ∧ MOUSE (z)))
    3. ∀ x (LS(x) → ¬ ∃ y (HAVE (x,y) ∧ HOWL(y)))
    4. ∃ x (HAVE (John,x) ∧ (CAT(x) ∨
    HOUND(x)))
    5. LS(John) → ¬ ∃ z (HAVE(John,z) ∧
    MOUSE(z))
    1. ∀ x (HOUND(x) → HOWL(x))
    ¬ HOUND(x) ∨ HOWL(x)
    2. ∀ x ∀ y (HAVE (x,y) ∧ CAT (y) → ¬ ∃ z (HAVE(x,z) ∧ MOUSE (z)))
    ∀ x ∀ y (HAVE (x,y) ∧ CAT (y) → ∀ z ¬ (HAVE(x,z) ∧ MOUSE (z)))

    ∀ x ∀ y ∀ z (¬ (HAVE (x,y) ∧ CAT (y)) ∨ ¬ (HAVE(x,z) ∧ MOUSE


    (z)))

    ¬ HAVE(x,y) ∨ ¬ CAT(y) ∨ ¬ HAVE(x,z) ∨ ¬ MOUSE(z)


    3.∀ x (LS(x) → ¬ ∃ y (HAVE (x,y) ∧ HOWL(y)))
    ∀ x (LS(x) → ∀ y ¬ (HAVE (x,y) ∧ HOWL(y)))

    ∀ x ∀ y (LS(x) → ¬ HAVE(x,y) ∨ ¬ HOWL(y))

    ∀ x ∀ y (¬ LS(x) ∨ ¬ HAVE(x,y) ∨ ¬ HOWL(y))

    ¬ LS(x) ∨ ¬ HAVE(x,y) ∨ ¬ HOWL(y)


    4. ∃ x (HAVE (John,x) ∧ (CAT(x) ∨ HOUND(x)))
    HAVE(John,a) ∧ (CAT(a) ∨ HOUND(a))

    5. ¬ [LS(John) → ¬ ∃ z (HAVE(John,z) ∧
    MOUSE(z))] (negated conclusion)
    ¬ [¬ LS (John) ∨ ¬ ∃ z (HAVE (John, z) ∧ MOUSE(z))]
    LS(John) ∧ ∃ z (HAVE(John, z) ∧ MOUSE(z)))
    LS(John) ∧ HAVE(John,b) ∧ MOUSE(b)
    1. ¬ HOUND(x) ∨ HOWL(x)
    2. ¬ HAVE(x,y) ∨ ¬ CAT(y) ∨ ¬ HAVE(x,z) ∨
    ¬ MOUSE(z)
    3. ¬ LS(x) ∨ ¬ HAVE(x,y) ∨ ¬ HOWL(y)
    4. (i) HAVE(John,a)
    (ii) CAT(a) ∨ HOUND(a)
    5. (i) LS(John)
    (ii) HAVE(John,b)
    (iii) MOUSE(b)
    CAT(a) ∨
    [1.,4.(b):] 6.
    HOWL(a)
    ¬ HAVE(x,y) ∨ ¬
    [2,5.(c):] 7. CAT(y) ∨ ¬
    HAVE(x,b)
    ¬ HAVE(John,y) ∨
    [7,5.(b):] 8.
    ¬ CAT(y)
    ¬ HAVE(John,a) ∨
    [6,8:] 9.
    HOWL(a)
    [4.(a),9:] 10. HOWL(a)
    ¬ LS(x) ∨ ¬
    [3,10:] 11.
    HAVE(x,a)
    [4.(a),11:] 12. ¬ LS(John)
    [5.(a),12:] 13. □

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy