Set 8:

Inference in First-order logic

ICS 271 Fall 2012

Chapter 9: Russell and Norvig
 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))
.

.Obtained by substituting {x/John}, {x/Richard} and {x/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)

• Given query “evil(x) 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.

Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)
p1', p2', … , pn', ( p1 ∧ p2 ∧ … ∧ pn ⇒q) where p 'θ = p θ for all i
i 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
 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.,

 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.,

 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.,

 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
 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

Enemy(x,America) ⇒ Hostile(x)
Missile(x) ∧ Owns(Nono,x) ⇒ Sells(West,x,Nono)

Missile(x) ⇒ Weapon(x)
 Forward chaining proof

American(x) ∧ Weapon(y) ∧ Sells(x,y,z) ∧ Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)

 Forward chaining proof

*American(x) ∧ Weapon(y) ∧ Sells(x,y,z) ∧ Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)

*Owns(Nono,M1) and Missile(M1)
*Missile(x) ∧ Owns(Nono,x) ⇒ Sells(West,x,Nono)
*Missile(x) ⇒ Weapon(x)
*Enemy(x,America) ⇒ Hostile(x)
*American(West)
*Enemy(Nono,America)
 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 example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
 Backward chaining algorithm

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

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:

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}

• Apply resolution steps to CNF(KB ∧ ¬α); complete for 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:

[Animal(F(x)) ∧ ¬Loves(x,F(x))] ∨ Loves(G(x),x)

6. Distribute ∨ over ∧ :

[Animal(F(x)) ∨ Loves(G(x),x)] ∧ [¬Loves(x,F(x)) ∨ Loves(G(x),x)]

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
 Converting to clause form

∀x, y P( x) ∧ P( y ) ∧ I ( x,27 ) ∧ I ( y,28) → S ( x, y )

P( A), P( B )
I ( A,27 ) ∨ I ( A,28)
I ( B,27 )
¬S ( B, A)

Prove I(A,27)
 Example: Resolution
Refutation Prove I(A,27)
Example: Answer Extraction