CS 2710, ISSP 2160

1

CS 2710, ISSP 2160

Chapter 9Inference in First-Order Logic

2

Pages to skim

• Storage and Retrieval (p. starts bottom 328)• Efficient forward chaining (starts p. 333) through

Irrelevant facts (ends top 337)• Efficient implementation of logic programs (starts p.

340) through Constraint logic programming (ends p. 345)

• Completeness of resolution (starts p. 350) (though see notes in slides)

3

Inference with Quantifiers• Universal Instantiation:

– Given X (person(X) likes(X, sun))– Infer person(john) likes(john,sun)

• Existential Instantiation:– Given x likes(x, chocolate)– Infer: likes(S1, chocolate)– S1 is a “Skolem Constant” that is not found

anywhere else in the KB and refers to (one of) the individuals that likes sun.

4

Reduction to Propositional Inference• Simple form (pp. 324-325) not efficient. Useful

conceptually.• Replace each universally quantified sentence by all

possible instantiations– All X (man(X) mortal(X)) replaced by– man(tom) mortal(tom)– man(chocolate) mortal(chocolate) – …

• Now, we have propositional logic. • Use propositional reasoning algorithms from Ch 7

5

Reduction to Propositional Inference

• Problem: when the KB includes a function symbol, the set of term substitutions is infinite. father(father(father(tom))) …

• Herbrand 1930: if a sentence is entailed by the original FO KB, then there is a proof using a finite subset of the propositionalized KB

• Since any subset has a maximum depth of nesting in terms, we can find the subset by generating all instantiations with constant symbols, then all with depth 1, and so on

6

First-Order Inference

• We have an approach to FO inference via propositionalization that is complete: any entailed sentence can be proved

• Entailment for FOPC is semi-decidable: algorithms exist that say yes to every entailed sentence, but no algorithm exists that also says no to every nonentailed sentence.

• Our proof procedure could go on and on, generating more and more deeply nested terms, but we will not know whether it is stuck in a loop, or whether the proof is just about to pop out

7

Generalized Modus Ponens

• This is a general inference rule for FOPC that does not require universal instantiation first

• Given:

– p1’, p2’ … pn’, (p1 … pn) q– Subst(theta, pi’) = subst(theta, pi) for all i

• Conclude:– Subst(theta, q)

8

GMP is a lifted version of MP

• GMP “lifts” MP from propositional to first-order logic• Key advantage of lifted inference rules over

propositionalization is that they make only substitutions which are required to allow particular inferences to proceed

9

GMP Example

x,y,z ((parent(x,y) parent(y,z)) grandparent(x,z))• parent(james, john), parent(james, richard),

parent(harry, james)• We can derive:

– Grandparent(harry, john), bindings:{x/harry,y/james,z/john}

– Grandparent(harry, richard), bindings: {x/harry,y/james,z/richard}

10

Unification

• Process of finding all legal substitutions• Key component of all FO inference algorithms • Unify(p,q) = theta, where Subst(theta,p) ==

Subst(theta,q)Assuming all variables universally quantified

11

Standardizing apart

• All X knows(john,X).• All X knows(X,elizabeth).• These ought to unify, since john knows everyone, and

everyone knows elizabeth. • Rename variables to avoid such name clashes

Note:all X p(X) == all Y p(Y)

All X (p(X) ^ q(X)) == All X p(X) ^ All Y q(Y)

12

def Unify (p, q, bdgs): d = disagreement(p, q) # If there is no disagreement, then success. if not d: return bdgs elif not isVar(d[0]) and not isVar(d[1]): return 'fail' else: if isVar(d[0]): var = d[0] ; other = d[1] else: var = d[1] ; other = d[0] if occursp (var,other): return ‘fail’ # Make appropriate substitutions and recurse on the result. else: pp = replaceAll(var,other,p) qq = replaceAll(var,other,q) return Unify (pp,qq, bdgs + [[var,other]])

For code, see “resources” on the webpage

13

================================ unify: ['loves', ['dog', 'var_x'], ['dog', 'fred']] ['loves', 'var_z', 'var_z'] subs: [['var_z', ['dog', 'var_x']], ['var_x', 'fred']] result: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], ['dog', 'fred']] ================================ unify: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'fred'] ['loves', 'var_x', 'var_y'] subs: [['var_x', ['dog', 'fred']], ['var_y', 'fred']] result: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'fred'] ================================ unify: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'mary'] ['loves', ['dog', 'var_x'], 'var_y'] subs: [['var_x', 'fred'], ['var_y', 'mary']] result: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'mary'] ================================

14

unify: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'mary'] ['loves', ['dog', 'var_x'], 'var_y'] subs: [['var_x', 'fred'], ['var_y', 'mary']] result: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'mary'] ================================ unify: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'fred'] ['loves', 'var_x', 'var_x'] failure ================================ unify: ['loves', ['dog', 'fred'], 'mary'] ['loves', ['dog', 'var_x'], 'var_x']failure ================================ unify: ['loves', 'var_x', 'fred'] ['loves', ['dog', 'var_x'], 'fred'] var_x occurs in ['dog', 'var_x'] failure

15

unify: ['loves', 'var_x', ['dog', 'var_x']] ['loves', 'var_y', 'var_y'] var_y occurs in ['dog', 'var_y'] failure ================================ unify: ['loves', 'var_y', 'var_y'] ['loves', 'var_x', ['dog', 'var_x']] var_x occurs in ['dog', 'var_x'] failure ================================ unify: (fails because vars not standardized apart) ['hates', 'agatha', 'var_x'] ['hates', 'var_x', ['f1', 'var_x']] failure ================================ unify: ['hates', 'agatha', 'var_x'] ['hates', 'var_y', ['f1', 'var_y']] subs: [['var_y', 'agatha'], ['var_x', ['f1', 'agatha']]] result: ['hates', 'agatha', ['f1', 'agatha']]

16

Most General Unifier• The Unify algorithm returns a MGU

L1 = p(X,f(Y),b)L2 = p(X,f(b),b) Subst1 = {X\a, Y\b} Result1 = p(a,f(b),b) Subst2 = {Y\b} Result2 = p(X,f(b),b) Subst1 is more restrictive than Subst2. In fact,Subst2 is a MGU of L1 and L2.

17

Storage and retrieval

• Hash statements by predicate for quick retrieval (predicate indexing), e.g., of all sentences that unify with tall(X)

• Why attempt to unify – tall(X) and silly(dog(Y))

• Instead– Predicates[tall] = {all tall facts} – Unify(tall(X),s) for s in Predicates[tall]

• Subsumption lattice for efficiency (see p. 329 for your interest)

18

Inference Methods

• Unification (prerequisite)• Forward Chaining

– Production Systems– RETE Method (OPS)

• Backward Chaining– Logic Programming (Prolog)

• Resolution– Transform to CNF– Generalization of Prop. Logic resolution

19

Resolution Theorem Proving (FOL)

• Convert everything to CNF• Resolve, with unification

– Save bindings as you go!• If resolution is successful, proof succeeds• If there was a variable in the item to prove, return

variable’s value from unification bindings

20

Converting to CNF

21

Converting sentences to CNF1. Eliminate all ↔ connectives

(P ↔ Q) ((P Q) ^ (Q P)) 2. Eliminate all connectives

(P Q) (P Q) 3. Reduce the scope of each negation symbol to a single predicate

P P(P Q) P Q(P Q) P 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

22

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) becomes (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) becomes (x)loves(x,F(x)) In this case, F(x) specifies the person that x loves

E.g., x1 x2 x3 y P(… y …) becomes x1 x2 x3 P(… FF(x1,x2,x3) …) (FF is a new name)

23

Converting sentences to clausal form6. 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” partEx: (x)P(x) P(x)

7. Put into conjunctive normal form (conjunction of disjunctions) using distributive and associative laws(P Q) R (P R) (Q R)(P Q) R (P Q R)

8. Split conjuncts into separate clauses9. Standardize variables so each clause contains only

variable names that do not occur in any other clause

24

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)))))

25

An Example7. 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 clausesP(x) P(y) P(F(x,y)) P(x) Q(x,G(x)) P(x) P(G(x))

9. Standardize variablesP(x) P(y) P(F(x,y)) P(z) Q(z,G(z)) P(w) P(G(w))

Note: Now that quantifiers are gone, we do need the upper/lower-case distinction

26

1. all X (read (X) --> literate (X)) 2. all X (dolphin (X) --> ~literate (X))3. exists X (dolphin (X) ^ intelligent (X))(a translation of ``Some dolphins are intelligent'') ``Are there some who are intelligent but cannot read?''4. exists X (intelligent(X) ^ ~read (X)) Set of clauses (1-3):1. ~read(X) v literate(X)2. ~dolphin(Y) v ~literate(Y)3a. dolphin (a)3b. intelligent (a) Negation of 4:~(exists Z (intelligent(Z) ^ ~read (Z)))In Clausal form:~intelligent(Z) v read(Z)Resolution proof: in lecture.

27

More complicated example 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?

• These 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) )G. Kills(Curiosity, Tuna) GOAL

28

• Convert to clause formA1. (Dog(D)) A2. (Owns(Jack,D))B. (Dog(y), Owns(x, y), AnimalLover(x))C. (AnimalLover(a), Animal(b), Kills(a,b))D. (Kills(Jack,Tuna), Kills(Curiosity,Tuna))E. Cat(Tuna)F. (Cat(z), Animal(z))

• Add the negation of query: G: (Kills(Curiosity, Tuna))

D is a skolem constant

29

• The resolution refutation proof R1: G, D, {} (Kills(Jack, Tuna))R2: R1, C, {a/Jack, b/Tuna} (~AnimalLover(Jack),

~Animal(Tuna))R3: R2, B, {x/Jack} (~Dog(y), ~Owns(Jack, y),

~Animal(Tuna))R4: R3, A1, {y/D} (~Owns(Jack, D),

~Animal(Tuna))R5: R4, A2, {} (~Animal(Tuna))R6: R5, F, {z/Tuna} (~Cat(Tuna))R7: R6, E, {} FALSE

30

• The proof tree

G D

C

B

A1

A2

F

A

R1: K(J,T)

R2: AL(J) A(T)

R3: D(y) O(J,y) A(T)

R4: O(J,D), A(T)

R5: A(T)

R6: C(T)

R7: FALSE

{}

{a/J,b/T}

{x/J}

{y/D}

{}

{z/T}

{}

31

Decidability and Completeness

• Resolution is a refutation complete inference procedure for First-Order Logic– If a set of sentences contains a contradiction, then a

finite sequence of resolutions will prove this.– If not, resolution may loop forever (“semi-decidable”)

• Here are notes by Charles Elkan that go into this more deeply

32

Decidability and Completeness

• Refutation Completeness: If KB |= A then KB |- A– If it’s entailed, then there’s a proof

• Semi-decidable: – If there’s a proof, we’ll halt with it. – If not, maybe halt, maybe not

• Logical entailment in FOL is semi-decidable: if the desired conclusion follows from the premises, then eventually resolution refutation will find a contradiction

33

Decidability and Completeness

• Propositional logic– logical entailment is decidable– There exists a complete inference procedure

• First-Order logic– logical entailment is semi-decidable– Resolution procedure is refutation complete

34

• Strategies (heuristics) for efficient resolution include– Unit preference. If a clause has only one literal, use it

first.– Set of support. Identify “useful” rules and ignore the

rest. (p. 305)– Input resolution. Intermediately generated sentences

can only be combined with original inputs or original rules.

– Subsumption. Prune unnecessary facts from the database.

35

Horn Clauses

• A Horn Clause is a CNF clause with at most one positive literal

• Horn Clauses form the basis of forward and backward chaining

• The Prolog language is based on Horn Clauses• Deciding entailment with Horn Clauses is linear in the

size of the knowledge base

36

Reasoning with Horn Clauses

• Forward Chaining– For each new piece of data, generate all new facts,

until the desired fact is generated– Data-directed reasoning

• Backward Chaining– To prove the goal, find a clause that contains the

goal as its head, and prove the body recursively– Goal-directed reasoning

• The state space is an AND-OR graph; see 7.5.4

37

Forward Chaining over FO Definite (Horn) Clauses

• Clauses (disjunctions) with at most one positive literal• First-order literals can include variables, which are

assumed to be universally quantified• Use GMP to perform forward chaining

(Semi-decidable as for full FOPC)

38

Def FOL-FC-Ask(KB,A) returns subst or false KB: set of FO definite clauses with variables standardized apart A: the query, an atomic sentenceRepeat until new is empty new {} for each implication (p1 ^ … ^ pn q) in KB: for each T such that SUBST(T,p1^…^pn) = SUBST(T,p1’^…^pn’) for some p1’,…,pn’ in KB q’ SUBST(T,q) if q’ is not a renaming of a sentence already in KB or new: add q’ to new S Unify(q’,A) if S is not fail then return S add new to KBReturn false

Process can be made more efficient; read on your own, for interest

39

Backward Chaining over Definite (Horn) Clauses

• Logic programming• Prolog is most popular form• Depth-first search, so space requirements are lower, but

suffers from problems from repeated states

40

american(X) ^ weapon(Y) ^ sells(X,Y,Z) ^ hostile(Z) criminal(X).owns(nono,m1). missile(m1).missile(X1) ^ owns(nono,X1) sells(west,X1,nono).missile(X2) weapon(X2).enemy(X3,america) hostile(X3).american(west).enemy(nono,america).

Goal: criminal(west).

Backward chaining proof: in lecture

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

41

Horn clauses are all of the form: L1 ^ L2 ^ ... ^ Ln -> Ln+1 Or, equivalently, in clausal form: ~L1 v ~L2 v ... v ~Ln v Ln+1 Prolog (like databases) makes the "closed world assumption": if P cannot be proved, infer not P Think of the system as an arrogant know-it-all: "If it were true, I would know it. Since I can't prove it, it must not be true" Thus, it uses "negation as failure".

42

neighbor(canada,us) neighbor(mexico,us)neighbor(pakistan,india) ?- neighbor(canada,india). no In full first-order logic, you would have to be able toinfer “~neighbor(canada,india)" for"neighbor(canada,india)" to be false.

Be careful! “~neighbor(canada,india) is not entailed by theSentences above!

43

bachelor(X) :- male(X), \+ married(X).male(bill).male(jim).married(bill).married(mary). An individual is a bachelor if it is male and it isnot married. \+ is the negation-as-failure operator in Prolog. | ?- bachelor(bill). no| ?- bachelor(jim).yes| ?- bachelor(mary).no| ?- bachelor(X).X = jim;no| ?-

44

Comparing backward chaining in prolog with

resolution• [In lecture]

45

WrapUp

• You are responsible for everything in Chapter 9 except the following (though you are encouraged to read them):– Storage and Retrieval (p. starts bottom 328)– Efficient forward chaining (starts p. 333) through

Irrelevant facts (ends top 337)– Efficient implementation of logic programs (starts p.

340) through Constraint logic programming (ends p. 345)

– Completeness of resolution (starts p. 350) (though see notes in slides)

• Also, see files posted on the schedule (clausal form conversion, resolution, etc.)