6.

Representing Knowledge using

Rules
Procedural versus declarative knowledge
DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE

Factual information stored in memory The knowledge of how to perform, or how

and known to be static in nature. to operate
Knowledge of facts or concepts A skill or action that you are capable of
Performing
Knowledge about that something true or Knowledge about how to do something to
false reach a particular objective or goal
Knowledge is specified but how to use to Control information i.e., necessary to use
which that knowledge is to be put is not the knowledge is considered to be
given embedded in the knowledge itself
E.g.: concepts, facts, propositions, E.g.: procedures, rules, strategies,
assertions, semantic nets … agendas, models
It is explicit knowledge (describing) It is tacit knowledge (doing)
The declarative representation is one in which the
knowledge is specified but how to use to which that
knowledge is to be put is not given.
• Declarative knowledge answers the question 'What do
you know?‘
• It is your understanding of things, ideas, or concepts.
• Can be thought of as the who, what, when, and where
of information.
•Declarative knowledge is normally discussed using
nouns, like the names of people, places, or things or
dates that events occurred.
The procedural representation is one in which the
control information i.e., necessary to use the
knowledge is considered to be embedded in the
knowledge itself.
• Procedural knowledge answers the question
'What can you do?‘
•Procedural knowledge relies on action words, or
verbs.
• It is a person's ability to carry out actions to
complete a task.
The real difference between declarative and procedural
views of knowledge lies in which the control information
presides.
Example:
1. man(Marcus)
2. man(Ceaser)
3. ∀x:man(x) → person(x)
4. Person(Cleopatra)
The statements 1, 2 and 3 are procedural knowledge
and 4 is a declarative knowledge.
Logic Programming
Logic Programming is a programming language
paradigm in which logical assertions are viewed as
programs.
There are several logic programming systems in
use today, the most popular of which is PROLOG.
A PROLOG program is described as a series of
logical assertions, each of which is a Horn clause.
A Horn clause is a clause that has at most one
positive literal. Thus p, ¬p ˅ q, p → q are all Horn
clauses.
Programs written in pure PROLOG are composed only of Horn
Clauses.
Syntactic Difference between the logic and the PROLOG
representations, including:
In logic, variables are explicitly quantified. In PROLOG,
quantification is provided implicitly by the way the variables
are interpreted.
o The distinction between variables and constants is
made in PROLOG by having all variables begin with uppercase
letters and all constants begin with lowercase letters.
In logic, there are explicit symbols for and (Ʌ) and or (˅). In
PROLOG, there is an explicit symbol for and (,), but there is
none for or.
In logic, implications of the form “p implies q” as written as
p → q. In PROLOG, the same implication is written “backward”
as q: -p.
Example:
Representation in Logic:
∀x:pet(x) Ʌ small(x) → apartment(x)
∀x:cat(x) ˅ dog(x) → pet(x)
∀x:poodle(x) → dog(x) Ʌ small(x)
poodle(fluffy)
Representation in PROLOG:
apartmentpet(X) :- pet(X) , small(X) .
pet(X) :- cat(X).
pet(X) :- dog(X).
dog(X) :- poodle(X).
small(X) :- poodle(X).
poodle(fluffy).
PROLOG programs are actually sets of Horn
Clauses that have been transformed as follows:
1. If the Horn Clause contains no negative literals
(i.e., it contains a single literal which is positive),
then leave it as it is.
2. Otherwise, return the Horn clause as an
implication, combining all of the negative literals
into the antecedent of the implication and leaving
the single positive literal (if there is one) as the
consequent.
This procedure causes a clause, which originally
consisted of a disjunction of literals (all but one of
which were negative), to be transformed to single
implication whose antecedent is a conjunction of
(what are now positive) literals.
Forward versus Backward Reasoning
The object of a search procedure is to discover a path
through a problem space from an initial configuration to a
goal state.
1. Forward Reasoning,
• from the start states
•LHS rule must match with initial state
Eg: A → B, B→C => A→C
2. Backward Reasoning,
• from the goal states
•RHS rules must match with goal state
Eg: 8-Puzzle Problem
In both the cases, the control strategy is it must cause
motion and systematic.
The production system model of the search process provides
an easy way of viewing forward and backward reasoning as
symmetric processes.
The rules to be used for solving the 8-puzzle can be written
as:
Reasoning Forward from Initial State:
Begin building a tree of move sequences that
might be solved with initial configuration at root
of the tree.
Generate the next level of the tree by finding all
the rules whose left sides match the root node
and using their right sides to create the new
configurations.
Generate the next level by taking each node
generated at the previous level and applying to it
all of the rules whose left sides match it.
Continue until a configuration that matches the
goal state is generated.
Reasoning Backward from Goal State:
Begin building a tree of move sequences that might be
solved with goal configuration at root of the tree.
Generate the next level of the tree by finding all the rules
whose right sides match the root node.
Use the left sides of the rules to generate the nodes at this
second level of the tree.
Generate the next level of the tree by taking each node at
the previous level and finding all the rules whose right sides
match it. Then use the corresponding left sides to generate the
new nodes.
Continue until a node that matches the initial state is
generated.
This method of reasoning backward from the desired final
state is often called goal directed reasoning.
To reason forward, the left sides (preconditions) are
matched against the current state and the right sides
(results) are used to generate new nodes until the goal is
reached.
To reason backward, the right sides are matched against
the current node and the left sides are used to generate new
nodes representing new goal states to be achieved.
The following 4 factors influence whether it is better to
reason Forward or Backward:
1. Are there more possible start states or goal states? We
would like to move from the smaller set of states to the
larger (and thus easier to find) set of states.
2. In which direction branching factor (i.e, average number
of nodes that can be reached directly from a single node) is
greater? We would like to proceed in the direction with
lower branching factor.
3. Will the program be used to justify its reasoning process
to a user? If so, it is important to proceed in the direction
that corresponds more closely with the way the user will
think.
4. What kind of event is going to trigger a problem-solving
episode? If it is arrival of a new fact, forward reasoning
makes sense. If it is a query to which a response is desired,
backward reasoning is more natural.
Backward-Chaining Rule Systems
 Backward-chaining rule systems are good for goal-
directed problem solving.
For example, a query system would probably use
backward chaining to reason about and answer user
questions.
Unification tries to find a set of bindings for variables to
equate a (sub) goal with the head of some rule.
Medical expert system, diagnostic problems.
Forward-Chaining Rule Systems
 Instead of being directed by goals, we sometimes want
to be directed by incoming data.
For example, suppose you sense searing heat near your
hand. You are likely to jerk your hand away.
Rules that match dump their right-hand side assertions
into the state and the process repeats.
Matching is typically more complex for forward-
chaining systems than backward ones.
Synthesis systems – Design/Configuration
Example of Forward Chaining
Rules:
1) If hot and smoky then ADD fire
2) If alarm_beeps then ADD smoky
3) If fire then ADD switchon_sprinkles
Facts:
1) alarm_beeps (given)
2) hot (given)
………
(3) smoky (from F1 by R2)
(4) fire (from F2, F4 by R1)
(5) switch_on_sprinklers (from F2 by R3)
Example of Backward Chaining
Goal: Should I switch on sprinklers?
Combining Forward and Backward Reasoning
Sometimes certain aspects of a problem are best handled
via forward chaining and other aspects by backward
chaining.
Consider a forward-chaining medical diagnosis program.
It might accept twenty or so facts about a patient’s
condition then forward chain on those concepts to try to
deduce the nature and/or cause of the disease.
Now suppose that at some point, the left side of a rule
was nearly satisfied – nine out of ten of its preconditions
were met.
It might be efficient to apply backward reasoning to
satisfy the tenth precondition in a directed manner, rather
than wait for forward chaining to supply the fact by
accident.
 Matching
To solve problems – search appropriate rules to
individual problem states to generate new states to
which the rules can then be applied and so forth until a
solution is found.
How we extract from the entire collection of rules those
that can be applied at a given point?
-matching between the current state and the
preconditions of the rules.
How should this be done?
The answer to this question can be critical to the success
of a rule based system.
 Indexing
One way to select applicable rules is to do a simple
search though all the rules comparing each one’s
precondition to the current state and extracting all the
one’s that match.
There are two problems with this simple solution:
The large number of rules will be necessary and
scanning through all of them at every step would be
inefficient.
It’s not always obvious whether a rule’s preconditions
are satisfied by a particular state.
Solution: Instead of searching through rules use the
current state as an index into the rules and select the
matching one’s immediately.
Indexing in some form is very important in the efficient
operation of rule based systems.
Matching with Variables:
when preconditions are not stated as exact descriptions of
particular situations, the problem of selecting applicable
rules is made more difficult.
-describe properties that the situations must have.
Discovering whether there is a match between a particular
situation and the preconditions of a given rule must itself
involve a significant search process.
Backward-chaining systems use depth-first backtracking to
select individual rules.
Forward-chaining systems employ sophisticated conflict
resolution strategies to choose among the applicable rules.
It is possible to apply unification repeatedly over the
cross product of preconditions and state description
elements.
One efficient many-many match algorithm is RETE.
RETE Matching Algorithm
The matching consists of 3 parts
1. Rules & Productions
2. Working Memory
3. Inference Engine
The Inference Engine is a cycle of production system
which is match, select, execute.
User Interface
Interface Engine Match

Knowledge Select
Working Execute
Memory Base
The above cycle is repeated until no rules are put in the conflict set
or until stopping condition is reached.
To eliminate the need to perform thousands of matches of cycles on
effective matching algorithm is called RETE.
The Algorithm consists of two Steps:
1. Working memory changes need to be examined.
2. Grouping rules which share the same condition & linking them
to their common terms.
RETE gains efficiency from 3 major sources.
1. RETE maintains a network of rule condition and it uses changes
in the state description to determine which new rules might apply.
Full matching is only pursued for candidates that could be affected
by incoming/outgoing data.
2. Structural Similarity in rules: RETE stores the rules so that they
share structures in memory, set of conditions that appear in several
rules are matched once for cycle.
3. Persistence of variable binding consistency. While all the
individual preconditions of the rule might be met, there may be
variable binding conflicts that prevent the rule from firing.
RETE remembers its previous calculations and is able to merge
new binding information efficiently.
Approximate Matching:
Rules should be applied if their preconditions
approximately match to the current situation.
Eg: Speech understanding program
Rules: A description of a physical waveform to phones
Physical Signal: difference in the way individuals
speak, result of background noise.
Conflict Resolution:
When several rules matched at once such a situation is called conflict
resolution.
There are 3 approaches to the problem of conflict resolution in
production system:
1. Preference based on rule match
2. Preference based on the objects match
3. Preference based on the action
1. Preference based on rule match:
a. Physical order of rules in which they are presented to the
system
b. Priority is given to rules in the order in which they appear
2. Preference based on the objects match:
a. Considers importance of objects that are matched
b. Considers the position of the match able objects in terms of
Long Term Memory (LTM) & Short Term Memory(STM)
LTM: Stores a set of rules
STM (Working Memory): Serves as storage area for the facts deduced by
rules in long term memory
3. Preference based on the Action:
a. One way to do is find all the rules temporarily and examine the results
of each.
Using a Heuristic Function that can evaluate each of the resulting states
compare the merits of the result and then select the preferred one.
Search Control Knowledge:
It is knowledge about which paths are most likely to lead quickly to a
goal state
Search Control Knowledge requires Meta Knowledge.
It can take many forms.
Knowledge about
 which states are more preferable to others.
which rule to apply in a given situation.
 the Order in which to pursue sub goals.
 useful Sequences of rules to apply.