CSCE 580

Artificial Intelligence
The Resolution Refutation Proof
Technique for First-Order Logic
Fall 2009
Marco Valtorta
mgv@cse.sc.edu

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Acknowledgment
• The slides are based on the textbook [AIMA] and other
sources, including other fine textbooks and the
accompanying slide sets
• The other textbooks I considered are:
– David Poole, Alan Mackworth, and Randy Goebel.
Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach.
Oxford, 1998
• A second edition (by Poole and Mackworth) is under
development. Dr. Poole allowed us to use a draft of it in this
course
– Ivan Bratko. Prolog Programming for Artificial
Intelligence, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 2001
• The fourth edition is under development
– George F. Luger. Artificial Intelligence: Structures and
Strategies for Complex Problem Solving, Sixth Edition.
Addison-Welsey, 2009
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Outline
• Reducing first-order inference to propositional
inference
• Unification
• Generalized Modus Ponens
• Forward chaining
• Backward chaining
• Resolution

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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))
.
.
.

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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

• Logical equivalence is not preserved, because skolemization adds new
constants to formulas; however, the new KB is satisfiable iff the old
one is satisfiable (s-equivalence)
• In general, skolemization adds Skolem function, as in
x y Is_Father(y,x), which skolemizes to x Is_Father(Father(x),x)
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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.

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Reduction ctd.
• 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)))
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Reduction ctd.
Theorem: Herbrand (1930). If a sentence α is entailed by an FOL KB, it is
entailed by a finite subset of the propositionalized KB
Note: Herbrand showed that no new constants have to be introduced (so, in the example, the
only constants needed are John and Richard), except for one in case the KB contains no
constants, in which case one constant must be introduced

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, may loop forever 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 non-
entailed sentence.)
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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.

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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(z 17,OJ)

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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(z 17,OJ)

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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(z 17,OJ)

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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(z 17,OJ)

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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(z 17,OJ)

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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 }
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 The unification algorithm

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 The unification algorithm

Occurs check: when unifying a variable x with a term T, check

whether x occurs in T. Note that this should be done after the
already found substitutions are applied.
For example, unifying t(x,f(x)) and t(g(y),y) “occur checks” because
after x\g(y) is applied, one obtains t(g(y),f(g(y))) and t(g(y),y).
Unifying f(g(y)) with y leads to the attempted substitution y\g(y),
which triggers the occurs check, leading to failure.
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)
p1', p2', … , pn', ( p1  p2  …  pn q)
where pi'θ = pi θ for all i
qθ
E.g.,
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

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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

• (p1  …  pn  q) ╞ (p1  …  pn  q)θ = (p1θ  …

 pnθ  qθ)
• p1', …, pn' ╞ p1'  …  pn' ╞ p1'θ  …  pn'θ
• From 1 and 2, qθ follows by ordinary Modus Ponens
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Example knowledge base ctd.
... 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)
Note: This definite clause KB has no functions. It is therefore a Datalog
KB
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Forward chaining algorithm

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Forward chaining proof

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Forward chaining proof

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Forward chaining proof

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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

The rete algorithm builds a dataflow network to allow for

reuse of matchings; it is used in production system
languages such as OPS-5

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

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining algorithm

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

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining example

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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=[]
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Backward chaining is incomplete
• Goal trees are built by backward chaining

• C is true, as shown in the following (natural deduction)

proof by cases (split on D)

• It is impossible to prove C by backward chaining

• Two additions make backward chaining complete:
– addition of contrapositives (ex: ~C -> ~D)
– ancestor checking
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 PTTP: A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover
• Prolog is not a full theorem prover for three main reasons:
– It uses an unsound unification algorithm without the occurs check
– Its inference system is complete for Horn clauses, but not for more
general formulas, as shown in the previous slide
– Its unbounded depth-first search strategy is incomplete. Also, it cannot
display the proofs it finds
• The Prolog Technology Theorem Prover (PTTP) overcomes these limitations
by
– transforming clauses so that head literals have no repeated variables and
unification without the occurs check is valid; remaining unification is
done using complete unification with the occurs check in the body
– adding contrapositives of clauses (so that any literal, not just a
distinguished head literal, can be resolved on) and the model- elimination
procedure reduction rule that matches goals with the negations of their
ancestor goals
– using a sequence of bounded depth-first searches to prove a theorem;
– retaining information on what formulas are used for each inference so
that the proof can be printed
• Proof of soundness and completeness follows from the soundness and
completeness of resolution refutation
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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
• Full disclosure: For completeness, one needs either
– general (non-binary) resolution, in which subsets of literals that are unifiable
are resolved, or
– Factoring, which replaces unifiable atoms literals in a clause with a single
atom
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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)]

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 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)]
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Completeness of Resolution
• Resolution is refutation-complete: if S is an
unsatisfiable set of clauses, then the application of a
finite number of resolution steps to S will yield a
contradiction

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Resolution proof: definite clauses

• This is an input resolution proof

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Resolution proof: general case

• Curiosity killed the cat: pp.298-300 [AIMA-2]

• Not a unit resolution proof; not an input resolution
proof
UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Resolution Strategies
• Breadth-First Strategy (complete)
• Set-of-Support Strategy (complete)
– At least one parent of each resolvent is selected from among the clauses
resulting from the negation of the goal or from their descendants (the set
of support)
• Unit-Preference Strategy (complete)
• Unit Resolution (complete for Horn clauses: forward chaining)
– Each resolvent has a parent that is a unit clause
• Linear-Input Form Strategy (not complete)
– Each resolvent has at least one parent belonging to the base set (i.e. the set
of clauses given as input)
– Complete for Horn clauses
– Called “input resolution” in [AIMA]
• Ancestry-Filtered Form Strategy (complete)
– Each resolvent has a parent that is either in the base set or an ancestor of
the other parent
– Called “linear resolution” in [AIMA]

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Example KB [Nilsson, 1980]
• Whoever can read is literate • Whoever can read is literate
 x[R(x) L(x)] – (1) ~R(x)  L(x)
• Dolphins are not literate • Dolphins are not literate
 x[D(x) ~L(x)] – (2) ~D(x)  ~L(x)
• Some dolphins are intelligent • Some dolphins are intelligent
 x[D(x)  I(x)] – (3a) D(A)
• Goal: Some who are – (3b) I(A)
intelligent cannot read • Goal: Some who are
 x[I(x)  ~R(x)] intelligent cannot read
– (4’) ~I(z)  R(z)

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 An example proof
• (5) R(A) resolvent of
3b and 4
• (6) L(A) resolvent of
5 and 1
• (7) ~D(A) resolvent
of 6 and 2
• (8) NIL resolvent of
7 and 3a

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Breadth-first strategy

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Set-of-Support Strategy

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Linear-Input Form Strategy

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Ancestry-Filtered Form Strategy

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering
 Four more examples
• Prove by resolution the result of exercise 8.2 [AIMA-2]
– The goal is a universal formula!
• Group theory axioms and some consequences of them
[Schoening, example on pp.94-95]
• (a) every dragon is happy if all its children can fly; (b) green
dragons can fly; (c) a dragon is green if it is a child of at least
one green dragon; show that all green dragons are happy
• (a) Every barber shaves all persons who do not shave
themselves; (b) no barber shaves any person who shaves
himself or herself; show that there are no barbers
– Shows the need for factoring or non-binary resolution
(p.297 [AIMA-2])

UNIVERSITYOF
UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH
SOUTHCAROLINA
CAROLINA
DepartmentofofComputer
Department ComputerScience
Scienceand
andEngineering
Engineering