Artificial intelligence: Inference in first-order logic

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Inference in first-order logic
Advertisements

Inference in first-order logic
First-Order Logic.
Inference Rules Universal Instantiation Existential Generalization
ITCS 3153 Artificial Intelligence Lecture 15 First-Order Logic Chapter 9 Lecture 15 First-Order Logic Chapter 9.
Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9. Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward.
1 Resolution in First Order Logic CS 171/271 (Chapter 9, continued) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
Inference in FOL All rules of inference for propositional logic apply to first-order logic We just need to reduce FOL sentences to PL sentences by instantiating.
First-Order Logic Inference
1 FOL CS 331/531 Dr M M Awais Unification “It is an algorithm for determining the substitutions needed to make two predicate calculus expressions match”
1 FOL Resolution based Inferencing Resolution based rules studied earlier can lead to inferences, rules such as modus ponen, unit resolution etc… Other.
CSCE 580 Artificial Intelligence Ch.9: Inference in First-Order Logic
Inference in FOL Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 9 Spring 2004.
Cooperating Intelligent Systems Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9, AIMA.
Inference in FOL Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 9.
Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9. Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward.
1 CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Carla P. Gomes Module: FOL Inference (Reading R&N: Chapter 8)
Cooperating Intelligent Systems Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9, AIMA.
Inference in FOL Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 9 Fall 2004.
Inference in FOL Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 9 Spring 2005.
Inference in First-Order Logic Inference Rules with Quantifiers The three new inference rules are as follows: Universal Elimination: For any sentence ,
1 Inference in First-Order Logic. 2 Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward chaining.
Cooperating Intelligent Systems Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9, AIMA.
CHAPTER 9 Oliver Schulte Inference in First-Order Logic.
INFERENCE IN FIRST-ORDER LOGIC IES 503 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE İPEK SÜĞÜT.
Inference in First-Order Logic CS 271: Fall 2007 Instructor: Padhraic Smyth.
CS 4100 Artificial Intelligence Prof. C. Hafner Class Notes Jan 26, 2012.
Logic review A summary of chapters 7, 8, 9 of Artificial Intelligence: A modern approach by Russel and Norving.
Inference in first-order logic I CIS 391 – Introduction to Artificial Intelligence AIMA Chapter (through p. 278) Chapter 9.5 (through p. 300)
1 Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9. 2 Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward.
Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9. Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward.
First-Order Logic Semantics Reading: Chapter 8, , FOL Syntax and Semantics read: FOL Knowledge Engineering read: FOL.
March 14, 2006AI: Chapter 9: Inference in First- Order Logic 1 Artificial Intelligence Chapter 9: Inference in First- Order Logic Michael Scherger Department.
Inference in first- order logic. Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward chaining.
Computing & Information Sciences Kansas State University Friday, 29 Sep 2006CIS 490 / 730: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 16 of 42 Friday, 29 September.
Inference in First-Order Logic 부산대학교 전자전기컴퓨터공학과 인공지능연구실 김민호
1 Inference in First-Order Logic CS 271: Fall 2009.
1 Inference in First Order Logic CS 171/271 (Chapter 9) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
5/18/2005EE562 EE562 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR ENGINEERS Lecture 13, 5/18/2005 University of Washington, Department of Electrical Engineering Spring.
1 First Order Logic (Syntax, Semantics and Inference)
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence – CE Chapter 9 - Inference in first-order logic Ramin Halavati In which we define.
1 First Order Logic CS 171/271 (Chapters 8 and 9) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
1/19 Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9- Part2 Modified by Vali Derhami.
Inference in first-order logic
Inference in First Order Logic. Outline Reducing first order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward and backward.
First-Order Logic Reading: C. 8 and C. 9 Pente specifications handed back at end of class.
Inference in First-Order Logic Chapter 9. Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward.
1 Chaining in First Order Logic CS 171/271 (Chapter 9, continued) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
Logical Agents. Outline Knowledge-based agents Logic in general - models and entailment Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability.
Presented By S.Yamuna AP/CSE
Inference in first-order logic
Logical Agents Chapter 7.
School of Computer Science & Engineering
Inference in First-Order Logic
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Inference in First-Order Logic
Inference in first-order logic part 1
Example of Knowledge Base
Artificial intelli-gence 1:Inference in first-order logic
Artificial Intelligence
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Inference in First Order Logic
Notes 9: Inference in First-order logic
Inference in first-order logic
Inference in first-order logic part 1
Inference in First Order Logic (1)
First-Order Logic Inference
First-Order Logic Prof. Dr. Widodo Budiharto 2018
Presentation transcript:

Artificial intelligence: Inference in first-order logic

Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward chaining Backward chaining Resolution AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

FOL to PL First order inference can be done by converting the knowledge base to PL and using propositional inference. How to convert universal quantifiers? Replace variable by ground term. How to convert existential quantifiers? Skolemization. AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Universal instantiation (UI) Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is entailed by it: v  Subst({v/g}, ) for any variable v and ground term g (Subst(x,y) = substitution of y by x) 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)) . AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Existential instantiation (EI) For any sentence , variable v, and constant symbol k that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base: v  Subst({v/k}, ) 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 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

EI versus UI UI can be applied several times to add new sentences; the new KB is logically equivalent to the old. EI can be applied once to replace the existential sentence; the new KB is not equivalent to the old but is satisfiable if the old KB was satisfiable. AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) The new KB is propositionalized: proposition symbols are John, Richard and also King(John), Greedy(John), Evil(John), King(Richard), etc. AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Reduction contd. CLAIM: A ground sentence is entailed by a new KB iff entailed by the original KB. CLAIM: Every FOL KB can be propositionalized so as to preserve entailment 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))) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Reduction contd. THEOREM: Herbrand (1930). If a sentence  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  is entailed by this KB PROBLEM: works if  is entailed, loops if  is not entailed THEOREM: Turing (1936), Church (1936) Entailment for FOL is semi decidable algorithms exist that say yes to every entailed sentence, but no algorithm exists that also says no to every non-entailed sentence. AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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. With p k-ary predicates and n constants, there are p·nk instantiations! AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Lifting and Unification Instead of translating the knowledge base to PL, we can redefine the inference rules into FOL. Lifting; they only make those substitutions that are required to allow particular inferences to proceed. E.g. generalised Modus Ponens To intriduce substitutions different logical expressions have to be look identical Unification AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Unification We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution  such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)  = {x/John,y/John} works Unify( ,) =  if  =  p q  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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Unification We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution  such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)  = {x/John,y/John} works Unify( ,) =  if  =  p q  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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Unification We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution  such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)  = {x/John,y/John} works Unify( ,) =  if  =  p q  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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Unification We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution  such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)  = {x/John,y/John} works Unify( ,) =  if  =  p q  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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Unification We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution  such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)  = {x/John,y/John} works Unify( ,) =  if  =  p q  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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Unification To unify Knows(John,x) and Knows(y,z),  = {y/John, x/z } or  = {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 } AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

The unification algorithm AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

The unification algorithm AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP) p1', p2', … , pn', ( p1  p2  …  pn q) q p1' is King(John) p1 is King(x) p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)  is {x/John,y/John} q is Evil(x) q is Evil(John) GMP used with KB of definite clauses (exactly one positive literal). All variables assumed universally quantified. where pi' = pi for all i AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Soundness of GMP Need to show that p1', …, pn', (p1  …  pn  q) |= q provided that pi' = pi for all I LEMMA: For any sentence p, we have p |= p by UI (p1  …  pn  q) |= (p1  …  pn  q) = (p1  …  pn  q) p1', …, pn' |= p1'  …  pn' |= p1'  …  pn' From 1 and 2, q follows by ordinary Modus Ponens. AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Example knowledge base contd. ... it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations: AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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: AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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“: AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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 … AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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 … AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Forward chaining algorithm 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Forward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Forward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Forward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Properties of forward chaining Sound and complete for first-order definite clauses. Cfr. Propositional logic proof. Datalog = first-order definite clauses + no functions (e.g. crime KB) FC terminates for Datalog in finite number of iterations May not terminate in general DF clauses with functions if  is not entailed This is unavoidable: entailment with definite clauses is semidecidable AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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) Matching conjunctive premises against known facts is NP-hard. (Pattern matching) Forward chaining is widely used in deductive databases AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining algorithm SUBST(COMPOSE(1, 2), p) = SUBST(2, SUBST(1, p)) AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Backward chaining example 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Logic programming Logic programming Procedural programming Identify problem Assemble information <coffee break> Encode info in KB Encode problem instances as facts Ask queries Find false facts. Procedural programming Identify problem Assemble information Figure out solution Program solution Encode problem instance as data Apply program to data Debug procedural errors Should be easier to debug Capital(NY, US) than x=x+2 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Logic programming: Prolog 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). Efficient unification and retrieval of matching clauses. 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 AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

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=[] AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Resolution: brief summary Full first-order version: l1  ···  lk, m1  ···  mn (l1  ···  li-1  li+1  ···  lk  m1  ···  mj-1  mj+1  ···  mn) where Unify(li, mj) = . 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  = {x/Ken} Apply resolution steps to CNF(KB  ); complete for FOL AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Conversion to CNF Everyone who loves all animals is loved by someone: x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)] Eliminate biconditionals and implications x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)] 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)] AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Conversion to CNF contd. Standardize variables: each quantifier should use a different one: x [y Animal(y)  Loves(x,y)]  [z Loves(z,x)] 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) Drop universal quantifiers: [Animal(F(x))  Loves(x,F(x))]  Loves(G(x),x) Distribute  over  : [Animal(F(x))  Loves(G(x),x)]  [Loves(x,F(x))  Loves(G(x),x)] AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018

Resolution proof: definite clauses AI 1 28 november 201828 november 201828 november 2018