Unit 4

20/02/2025 1
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Unit-4
• Knowledge Representation – Knowledge based agents – The Wumpus world –
Propositional Logic - syntax, semantics and knowledge base building - inferences –
reasoning patterns in propositional logic – predicate logic – representing facts in logic:
Syntax and semantics – Unification – Unification Algorithm - Knowledge representation
using rules - Knowledge representation using semantic nets - Knowledge representation
using frames inferences - Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning Methods.

20/02/2025 2
 Knowledge Representation & Reasoning
• The second most important concept in AI
• If we are going to act rationally in our environment, then we must have some way of
describing that environment and drawing inferences from that representation.
• how do we describe what we know about the world ?
• how do we describe it concisely ?
• how do we describe it so that we can get hold of the right piece of knowledge when
we need it ?
• how do we generate new pieces of knowledge ?
• how do we deal with uncertain knowledge ?

20/02/2025 3
 Knowledge Representation & Reasoning
Knowledge

Declarative Procedural
• Declarative knowledge deals with factoid questions (what is the capital of
India? Etc.)
• Procedural knowledge deals with “How”
• Procedural knowledge can be embedded in declarative knowledge

20/02/2025 4
 Planning
Given a set of goals, construct a sequence of actions that achieves
those goals:
• often very large search space
• but most parts of the world are independent of most other
parts
• often start with goals and connect them to actions
• no necessary connection between order of planning and order
of execution
• what happens if the world changes as we execute the plan
and/or our actions don’t produce the expected results?
20/02/2025 5
 Learning
• If a system is going to act truly appropriately, then it must
be able to change its actions in the light of experience:
• how do we generate new facts from old ?
• how do we generate new concepts ?
• how do we learn to distinguish different situations in
new environments ?

20/02/2025 6
 What is knowledge representation?

•Knowledge representation and reasoning (KR, KRR) is the part of Artificial

intelligence which concerned with AI agents thinking and how thinking contributes
to intelligent behavior of agents.
•It is responsible for representing information about the real world so that a
computer can understand and can utilize this knowledge to solve the complex real
world problems such as diagnosis a medical condition or communicating with
humans in natural language.
•It is also a way which describes how we can represent knowledge in artificial
intelligence. Knowledge representation is not just storing data into some database,
but it also enables an intelligent machine to learn from that knowledge and
experiences so that it can behave intelligently like a human.
20/02/2025 7
 What to Represent?
Following are the kind of knowledge which needs to be represented in AI systems:
•Object: All the facts about objects in our world domain. E.g., Guitars contains
strings, trumpets are brass instruments.
•Events: Events are the actions which occur in our world.
•Performance: It describe behavior which involves knowledge about how to do
things.
•Meta-knowledge: It is knowledge about what we know.
•Facts: Facts are the truths about the real world and what we represent.
•Knowledge-Base: The central component of the knowledge-based agents is the
knowledge base. It is represented as KB. The Knowledgebase is a group of the
Sentences (Here, sentences are used as a technical term and not identical with the
English language).
20/02/2025 8
 Approaches to knowledge Representation
• Representational adequacy the ability to represent all of the kinds of
knowledge that are needed in that domain.
• Inferential Adequacy: - the ability to manipulate the representation structures
in such a way as to derive new structures corresponding to new knowledge
inferred from ol.
• Inferential Efficiency: - the ability to incorporate into the knowledge structure
additional information that can be used to focus the attention of the inference
mechanism in the most promising directions.
• Acquisitioned Efficiency: - the ability to acquire new information easily. The
simplest case involves direct insertion by a person of new knowledge into the
database.
20/02/2025 9
 Knowledge Representation Issues
• It becomes clear that particular knowledge representation models allow for more specific more powerful
problem solving mechanisms that operate on them.
• Examine specific techniques that can be used for representing & manipulating knowledge within programs.
• Representation & Mapping
• Facts :- truths in some relevant world
• These are the things we want to represent.
• Representations of facts in some chosen formalism.
• Things we are actually manipulating. Structuring these entities is as two levels.
• The knowledge level, at which facts concluding each agents behavior & current goals are described.
Facts Internal Representations

English understanding English generation

English Representations

20/02/2025 10
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-Knowledge
base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-Propositional
logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge
representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning over
time
• Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory 11
20/02/2025
 A KNOWLEDGE-BASED AGENT
• A knowledge-based agent includes a knowledge base and an inference system.
• A knowledge base is a set of representations of facts of the world.
• Each individual representation is called a sentence.
• The sentences are expressed in a knowledge representation language.
• The agent operates as follows:
1. It TELLs the knowledge base what it perceives.
2. It ASKs the knowledge base what action it should perform.
3. It performs the chosen action.

12
20/02/2025
 Requirements for a Knowledge-Based Agent
1. \what it already knows" [McCarthy '59]
A knowledge base of beliefs.
2. \it must rst be capable of being told" [McCarthy '59]
A way to put new beliefs into the knowledge base.
3. \automatically deduces for itself a suciently wide class of
immediate consequences" [McCarthy '59]
A reasoning mechanism to derive new beliefs from ones already
in the knowledge base.

20/02/2025 13
 ARCHITECTURE OF A KNOWLEDGE-BASED
AGENT
• Knowledge Level.
• The most abstract level: describe agent by saying what it knows.
• Example: A taxi agent might know that the Golden Gate Bridge connects San
Francisco with the Marin County.
• Logical Level.
• The level at which the knowledge is encoded into sentences.
• Example: Links(GoldenGateBridge, SanFrancisco, MarinCounty).
• Implementation Level.
• The physical representation of the sentences in the logical level.
• Example: ‘(links goldengatebridge sanfrancisco marincounty )

14
20/02/2025
 THE WUMPUS WORLD ENVIRONMENT
• The Wumpus computer game
• The agent explores a cave consisting of rooms connected by passageways.
• Lurking somewhere in the cave is the Wumpus, a beast that eats any agent that
enters its room.
• Some rooms contain bottomless pits that trap any agent that wanders into the
room.
• Occasionally, there is a heap of gold in a room.
• The goal is to collect the gold and exit the world without being eaten

15
20/02/2025
 A TYPICAL WUMPUS WORLD
• The agent always starts in the
field [1,1].
• The task of the agent is to
find the gold, return to the
field [1,1] and climb out of the
cave.

20/02/2025
16
 AGENT IN A WUMPUS WORLD: PERCEPTS
• The agent perceives
• a stench in the square containing the Wumpus and in the adjacent squares (not
diagonally)
• a breeze in the squares adjacent to a pit
• a glitter in the square where the gold is
• a bump, if it walks into a wall
• a woeful scream everywhere in the cave, if the wumpus is killed
• The percepts are given as a five-symbol list. If there is a stench and a breeze, but no
glitter, no bump, and no scream, the percept is
[Stench, Breeze, None, None, None]

17
20/02/2025
 WUMPUS WORLD ACTIONS
• go forward
• turn right 90 degrees
• turn left 90 degrees
• grab: Pick up an object that is in the same square as the agent
• shoot: Fire an arrow in a straight line in the direction the agent is facing. The arrow
continues until it either hits and kills the wumpus or hits the outer wall. The agent
has only one arrow, so only the first Shoot action has any effect
• climb is used to leave the cave. This action is only effective in the start square
• die: This action automatically and irretrievably happens if the agent enters a square
with a pit or a live wumpus

18
20/02/2025
 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: WUMPUS WORLD
•Performance measure
• gold +1000,
• death -1000
(falling into a pit or being eaten by the wumpus)
• -1 per step, -10 for using the arrow
•Environment
• Rooms / squares connected by doors.
• Squares adjacent to wumpus are smelly
• Squares adjacent to pit are breezy
• Glitter iff gold is in the same square
• Shooting kills wumpus if you are facing it
• Shooting uses up the only arrow
• Grabbing picks up gold if in same square
• Releasing drops the gold in same square
• Randomly generated at start of game. Wumpus only senses current room.
•Sensors: Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream [perceptual inputs]
•Actuators: Left turn, Right turn, Forward, Grab, Release, Shoot
20/02/2025 19
 WUMPUS WORLD CHARACTERIZATION
Fully Observable No – only local perception

Deterministic Yes – outcomes exactly specified

Static Yes – Wumpus and Pits do not move

Discrete Yes

Single-agent? Yes – Wumpus is essentially a “natural feature.”

20/02/2025 20
 EXPLORING A WUMPUS WORLD
The knowledge base of the agent
consists of the rules of the
Wumpus world plus the percept
“nothing” in [1,1]

Boolean percept
feature values:
<0, 0, 0, 0, 0>

None, none, none, none, none

Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream

20/02/2025 21
 EXPLORING A WUMPUS WORLD

T=0 The KB of the agent consists of

None, none, none, none, none the rules of the Wumpus world plus
the percept “nothing” in [1,1].
Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream By inference, the agent’s knowledge
base also has the information that
World “known” to agent [2,1] and [1,2] are okay.
at time = 0. Added as propositions.

20/02/2025 22
 EXPLORING A WUMPUS WORLD
T=0 T=1

P?

A/B P?
V

None, breeze, none, none, none

None, none, none, none, none A – agent
V – visited
Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream B - breeze
Where next? @ T = 1 What follows?
Pit(2,2) or Pit(3,1)
20/02/2025 23
 EXPLORING A WUMPUS WORLD
4 T=3
W
3 S
P
S P?
2
P
1 P?

1 2 3 4
Stench, none, none, none, none

Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream

Where is Wumpus? Wumpus cannot be in (1,1) or in (2,2) (Why?)🡺 Wumpus in (1,3)
Not breeze in (1,2) 🡺 no pit in (2,2); but we know there is
pit in (2,2) or (3,1) 🡺 pit in (3,1)

20/02/2025 24
 EXPLORING A WUMPUS WORLD
We reasoned about the possible states the Wumpus world can be in,
given our percepts and our knowledge of the rules of the Wumpus
world.
I.e., the content of KB at T=3.
W
What follows is what holds true in all those worlds that satisfy what is
known at that time T=3 about the particular Wumpus world we are in.
P
Example property: P_in_(3,1)

Models(KB) Models(P_in_(3,1)) P

Essence of logical reasoning:

Given all we know, Pit_in_(3,1) holds.
(“The world cannot be different.”)
20/02/2025 25
 NO INDEPENDENT ACCESS TO THE WORLD
• The reasoning agent often gets its knowledge about the facts of the world as a sequence of
logical sentences and must draw conclusions only from them without independent access to
the world.
• Thus it is very important that the agent’s reasoning is sound!

26
20/02/2025
 SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE BASED AGENTS
• Intelligent agents need knowledge about the world for making good decisions.
• The knowledge of an agent is stored in a knowledge base in the form of sentences in
a knowledge representation language.
• A knowledge-based agent needs a knowledge base and an inference mechanism. It
operates by storing sentences in its knowledge base, inferring new sentences with the
inference mechanism, and using them to deduce which actions to take.
• A representation language is defined by its syntax and semantics, which specify the
structure of sentences and how they relate to the facts of the world.
• The interpretation of a sentence is the fact to which it refers. If this fact is part of the
actual world, then the sentence is true.

27
20/02/2025
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-Knowledge base
agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-Propositional logic-
Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge representation
using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning over time
• Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory
20/02/2025 28
 What is a Logic?
• A language with concrete rules
• No ambiguity in representation (may be other errors!)
• Allows unambiguous communication and processing
• Very unlike natural languages e.g. English
• Many ways to translate between languages
• A statement can be represented in different logics
• And perhaps differently in same logic
• Expressiveness of a logic
• How much can we say in this language?
• Not to be confused with logical reasoning
• Logics are languages, reasoning is a process (may use logic)

20/02/2025 29
30-03-2021
 Syntax and Semantics
• Syntax
• Rules for constructing legal sentences in the logic
• Which symbols we can use (English: letters, punctuation)
• How we are allowed to combine symbols
• Semantics
• How we interpret (read) sentences in the logic
• Assigns a meaning to each sentence
• Example: “All lecturers are seven foot tall”
• A valid sentence (syntax)
• And we can understand the meaning (semantics)
• This sentence happens to be false (there is a counterexample)
20/02/2025 30
 Propositional Logic
• Syntax
• Propositions, e.g. “it is wet”
• Connectives: and, or, not, implies, iff (equivalent)

• Brackets, T (true) and F (false)

• Semantics (Classical AKA Boolean)
• Define how connectives affect truth
• “P and Q” is true if and only if P is true and Q is true
• Use truth tables to work out the truth of statements

20/02/2025 31
 Predicate Logic
• Propositional logic combines atoms
• An atom contains no propositional connectives
• Have no structure (today_is_wet, john_likes_apples)
• Predicates allow us to talk about objects
• Properties: is_wet(today)
• Relations: likes(john, apples)
• True or false
• In predicate logic each atom is a predicate
• e.g. first order logic, higher-order logic

20/02/2025 32
 First Order Logic
• More expressive logic than propositional
• Used in this course (Lecture 6 on representation in FOL)
• Constants are objects: john, apples
• Predicates are properties and relations:
• likes(john, apples)
• Functions transform objects:
• likes(john, fruit_of(apple_tree))
• Variables represent any object: likes(X, apples)
• Quantifiers qualify values of variables
• True for all objects (Universal): ∀X. likes(X, apples)
• Exists at least one object (Existential): ∃X. likes(X, apples)
20/02/2025 33
 Example: FOL Sentence
• “Every rose has a thorn”

• For all X
• if (X is a rose)
• then there exists Y
• (X has Y) and (Y is a thorn)

20/02/2025 34
 Example: FOL Sentence
• “On Mondays and Wednesdays I go to John’s house for dinner”

● Note the change from “and” to “or”

– Translating is problematic
20/02/2025 35
 Higher Order Logic
• More expressive than first order
• Functions and predicates are also objects
• Described by predicates: binary(addition)
• Transformed by functions: differentiate(square)
• Can quantify over both
• E.g. define red functions as having zero at 17

• Much harder to reason with

20/02/2025 36
 Beyond True and False
• Multi-valued logics
• More than two truth values
• e.g., true, false & unknown
• Fuzzy logic uses probabilities, truth value in [0,1]
• Modal logics
• Modal operators define mode for propositions
• Epistemic logics (belief)
• e.g. ⬜p (necessarily p), ◊p (possibly p), …
• Temporal logics (time)
• e.g. ⬜p (always p), ◊p (eventually p), …

20/02/2025 37
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge
representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning
over time
Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory
•20/02/2025 38
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge
representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning
over time
Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory
•20/02/2025 39
 Propositional logic
• Propositional logic consists of:
• The logical values true and false (T and F)
• Propositions: “Sentences,” which
• Are atomic (that is, they must be treated as indivisible units, with
no internal structure), and
• Have a single logical value, either true or false
• Operators, both unary and binary; when applied to logical values, yield
logical values
• The usual operators are and, or, not, and implies

40
20/02/2025
 Truth tables
• Logic, like arithmetic, has operators, which apply to one, two, or more
values (operands)
• A truth table lists the results for each possible arrangement of operands
• Order is important: x op y may or may not give the same result as y op x
• The rows in a truth table list all possible sequences of truth values for n
operands, and specify a result for each sequence
• Hence, there are 2n rows in a truth table for n operands

41
20/02/2025
 Unary operators
• There are four possible unary operators:
X Identity, (X)
X Constant true, (T) T T
T T F F
F T

X Negation, ¬X
X Constant false, (F)
T F
T F
F T
F F
• Only the last of these (negation) is widely used (and has a symbol,¬ ,for the operation
42
20/02/2025
Combined tables for unary operators

X Constant T Constant F Identity ¬X

T T F T F
F T F F T

43
 Binary operators
• There are sixteen possible binary operators:
X Y
T T T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F
T F T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F
F T T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F
F F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

• All these operators have names, but I haven’t tried to fit them in
• Only a few of these operators are normally used in logic
44
20/02/2025
 Useful binary operators
• Here are the binary operators that are traditionally used:
AND OR IMPLIES BICONDITIONAL
X Y X∧Y X∨Y X⇒Y X⇔Y
T T T T T T
T F F T F F
F T F T T F
F F F F T T

• Notice in particular that material implication (⇒) only approximately means the same as the English
word “implies”
• All20/02/2025
45the other operators can be constructed from a combination of these (along with unary not, ¬)
 Logical expressions
• All logical expressions can be computed with some combination of and (∧),
or (∨), and not (¬) operators
• For example, logical implication can be computed this way:
X Y ¬X ¬X ∨ Y X⇒Y
T T F T T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T
• Notice that ¬X ∨ Y is equivalent to X ⇒ Y

46
20/02/2025
 X Y X <=Y> = X <=Y> = X <=>Y =
X =>Y AND X =>Y AND X =>Y AND
Y => X Y => X Y => X

T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F F
F F T T T

20/02/2025 47
 Another example
• Exclusive or (xor) is true if exactly one of its operands is true

X Y ¬X ¬Y ¬X ∧ Y X ∧ ¬Y (¬X∧Y)∨(X∧¬Y) X xor Y
T T F F F F F F
T F F T F T T T
F T T F T F T T
F F T T F F F F

• Notice that (¬X∧Y)∨(X∧¬Y) is equivalent to X xor Y

48
20/02/2025
Given a propositional logic, check if it is valid
• ( X-> Y o (x v y)) X Y X->Y XvY X->Y
or
• Valid XvY
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 1
1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1

20/02/2025 49
 World
• A world is a collection of prepositions and logical expressions relating those
prepositions
• Example:
• Propositions: JohnLovesMary, MaryIsFemale, MaryIsRich
• Expressions:
MaryIsFemale ∧ MaryIsRich ⇒ JohnLovesMary
• A proposition “says something” about the world, but since it is atomic (you
can’t look inside it to see component parts), propositions tend to be very
specialized and inflexible

50
20/02/2025
 Models
A model is an assignment of a truth value to each proposition, for example:
• JohnLovesMary: T, MaryIsFemale: T, MaryIsRich: F
• An expression is satisfiable if there is a model for which the expression is true
• For example, the above model satisfies the expression
MaryIsFemale ∧ MaryIsRich ⇒ JohnLovesMary
• An expression is valid if it is satisfied by every model
• This expression is not valid:
MaryIsFemale ∧ MaryIsRich ⇒ JohnLovesMary
because it is not satisfied by this model:
JohnLovesMary: F, MaryIsFemale: T, MaryIsRich: T
• But this expression is valid:
MaryIsFemale ∧ MaryIsRich ⇒ MaryIsFemale
51
20/02/2025
 Inference rules in propositional logic
• Here are just a few of the rules you can apply when reasoning in propositional logic:

52
20/02/2025
 Implication elimination
• A particularly important rule allows you to get rid of
the implication operator, ⇒ :
• X ⇒ Y ≡ ¬X ∨ Y
• We will use this later on as a necessary tool for
simplifying logical expressions
• The symbol ≡ means “is logically equivalent to”

53
20/02/2025
 Conjunction elimination
• Another important rule for simplifying logical expressions
allows you to get rid of the conjunction (and) operator, ∧ :
• This rule simply says that if you have an and operator at the
top level of a fact (logical expression), you can break the
expression up into two separate facts:
• MaryIsFemale ∧ MaryIsRich
• becomes:
• MaryIsFemale
• MaryIsRich
54
20/02/2025
 Inference by computer
• To do inference (reasoning) by computer is basically a search process, taking logical expressions and applying
inference rules to them
• Which logical expressions to use?
• Which inference rules to apply?
• Usually you are trying to “prove” some particular statement
• Example:
• it_is_raining ∨ it_is_sunny
• it_is_sunny ⇒ I_stay_dry
• A => B = NOT A V B
• NOT(it_is_sunny) V I_stay_dry
• it_is_rainy ⇒ I_take_umbrella
• NOT(it_is_rainy) V I_take_umbrella
• I_take_umbrella ⇒ I_stay_dry
• NOT(I_take_umbrella) V I_stay_dry
20/02/2025
55• To prove: I_stay_dry
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge
representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning
over time
Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory
•20/02/2025 56
 Reasoning Patterns
• Inference in propositional logic is NP-complete!
• However, inference in propositional logic shows
monoticity:
• Adding more rules to a knowledge base does not
affect earlier inferences

20/02/2025 57
 Forward and backward reasoning
• Situation: You have a collection of logical expressions (premises), and
you are trying to prove some additional logical expression (the
conclusion)
• You can:
• Do forward reasoning: Start applying inference rules to the logical
expressions you have, and stop if one of your results is the
conclusion you want
• Do backward reasoning: Start from the conclusion you want, and
try to choose inference rules that will get you back to the logical
expressions you have
• With the tools we have discussed so far, neither is feasible
58
20/02/2025
 Example
• Given:
• it_is_raining ∨ it_is_sunny
• it_is_sunny ⇒ I_stay_dry
• it_is_raining ⇒ I_take_umbrella
• I_take_umbrella ⇒ I_stay_dry
• You can conclude:
• it_is_sunny ∨ it_is_raining
• I_take_umbrella ∨ it_is_sunny
• ¬I_stay_dry ⇒ I_take_umbrella
• Etc., etc. ... there are just too many things you can conclude!
59
20/02/2025
 Predicate calculus
• Predicate calculus is also known as “First Order Logic” (FOL)
• Predicate calculus includes:
• All of propositional logic
• Logical values true, false
• Variables x, y, a, b,...
• Connectives ¬, ⇒, ∧, ∨, ⇔
• Constants KingJohn, 2, Villanova,...
• Predicates Brother, >,...
• Functions Sqrt, MotherOf,...
• Quantifiers ∀, ∃
60
20/02/2025
 Constants, functions, and predicates
• A constant represents a “thing”--it has no truth value, and it
does not occur “bare” in a logical expression
• Examples: DavidMatuszek, 5, Earth, goodIdea
• Given zero or more arguments, a function produces a
constant as its value:
• Examples: motherOf(DavidMatuszek), add(2, 2),
thisPlanet()
• A predicate is like a function, but produces a truth value
• Examples: greatInstructor(DavidMatuszek),
61 isPlanet(Earth), greater(3, add(2, 2))
20/02/2025
 Universal quantification
• The universal quantifier, ∀, is read as “for each”
or “for every”
• Example: ∀x, x2 ≥ 0 (for all x, x2 is greater than or equal to zero)
• Typically, ⇒ is the main connective with ∀:
∀x, at(x,Villanova) ⇒ smart(x)
means “Everyone at Villanova is smart”
• Common mistake: using ∧ as the main connective with ∀:
∀x, at(x,Villanova) ∧ smart(x)
means “Everyone is at Villanova and everyone is smart”
• If there are no values satisfying the condition, the result is true
• Example: ∀x, isPersonFromMars(x) ⇒ smart(x) is true
62
20/02/2025
 Existential quantification
• The existential quantifier, ∃, is read “for some” or “there exists”
• Example: ∃x, x2 < 0 (there exists an x such that x2 is less than zero)
• Typically, ∧ is the main connective with ∃:
∃x, at(x,Villanova) ∧ smart(x)
means “There is someone who is at Villanova and is smart”
• Common mistake: using ⇒ as the main connective with ∃:
∃x, at(x,Villanova) ⇒ smart(x)
This is true if there is someone at Villanova who is smart...
...but it is also true if there is someone who is not at Villanova
By the rules of material implication, the result of F ⇒ T is T
63
20/02/2025
 Properties of quantifiers
• ∀x ∀y is the same as ∀y ∀x LOVES (X,Y)
• ∃x ∃y is the same as ∃y ∃x

• ∃x ∀y is not the same as ∀y ∃x

• ∃x ∀y Loves(x,y)
• “There is a person who loves everyone in the world”
• More exactly: ∃x ∀y (person(x) ∧ person(y) ⇒ Loves(x,y))
• ∀y ∃x Loves(x,y)
• “Everyone in the world is loved by at least one person”

• Quantifier duality: each can be expressed using the other

• ∀x Likes(x,IceCream) ¬∃x ¬Likes(x,IceCream)
• ∃x Likes(x,Broccoli) ¬∀x ¬Likes(x,Broccoli)

64
20/02/2025
 Parentheses
• Parentheses are often used with quantifiers
• Unfortunately, everyone uses them differently, so don’t be upset at any
usage you see
• Examples:
• (∀x) person(x) ⇒ likes(x,iceCream)
• (∀x) (person(x) ⇒ likes(x,iceCream))
• (∀x) [ person(x) ⇒ likes(x,iceCream) ]
• ∀x, person(x) ⇒ likes(x,iceCream)
• ∀x (person(x) ⇒ likes(x,iceCream))
• I prefer parentheses that show the scope of the quantifier
• ∃x (x > 0) ∧ ∃x (x < 0)
65
20/02/2025
 More rules
• Now there are numerous additional rules we can apply!
• Here are two exceptionally important rules:
• ¬∀x, p(x) ⇒ ∃x, ¬p(x)
“If not every x satisfies p(x), then there exists a x that does not satisfy
p(x)”
• ¬∃x, p(x) ⇒ ∀x, ¬p(x)
“If there does not exist an x that satisfies p(x), then all x do not satisfy
p(x)”
• In any case, the search space is just too large to be feasible
• This was the case until 1970, when J. Robinson discovered resolution
66
20/02/2025
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge
representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning
over time
Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory
•20/02/2025 67
 Logic by computer was infeasible
• Why is logic so hard?
• You start with a large collection of facts (predicates)
• You start with a large collection of possible transformations (rules)
• Some of these rules apply to a single fact to yield a new fact
• Some of these rules apply to a pair of facts to yield a new fact
• So at every step you must:
• Choose some rule to apply
• Choose one or two facts to which you might be able to apply the rule
• If there are n facts
• There are n potential ways to apply a single-operand rule
• There are n * (n - 1) potential ways to apply a two-operand rule
• Add the new fact to your ever-expanding fact base
68
20/02/2025
• The search space is huge!
 The magic of resolution
• Here’s how resolution works:
• You transform each of your facts into a particular form, called a clause
(this is the tricky part)
• You apply a single rule, the resolution principle, to a pair of clauses
• Clauses are closed with respect to resolution--that is, when you
resolve two clauses, you get a new clause
• You add the new clause to your fact base
• So the number of facts you have grows linearly
• You still have to choose a pair of facts to resolve
• You never have to choose a rule, because there’s only one

69
20/02/2025
 The fact base
• A fact base is a collection of “facts,” expressed in predicate calculus, that are presumed to be true (valid)
• These facts are implicitly “anded” together
• Example fact base:
• seafood(X) ⇒ likes(John, X) (where X is a variable)
• seafood(shrimp)
• pasta(X) ⇒ ¬likes(Mary, X) (where X is a different variable)
• pasta(spaghetti)
• That is,
• (seafood(X) ⇒ likes(John, X)) ∧ seafood(shrimp) ∧
(pasta(Y) ⇒ ¬likes(Mary, Y)) ∧ pasta(spaghetti)
• Notice that we had to change some Xs to Ys
• The scope of a variable is the single fact in which it occurs

70
20/02/2025
 Clause form
• A clause is a disjunction ("or") of zero or more literals, some or all of
which may be negated
• Example:
sinks(X) ∨ dissolves(X, water) ∨ ¬denser(X, water)
• Notice that clauses use only “or” and “not”—they do not use “and,”
“implies,” or either of the quantifiers “for all” or “there exists”
• The impressive part is that any predicate calculus expression can be
put into clause form
• Existential quantifiers, ∃, are the trickiest ones

71
20/02/2025
 Unification
• From the pair of facts (not yet clauses, just facts):
• seafood(X) ⇒ likes(John, X) (where X is a variable)
• seafood(shrimp)
• We ought to be able to conclude
• likes(John, shrimp)
• We can do this by unifying the variable X with the constant shrimp
• This is the same “unification” as is done in Prolog
• This unification turns seafood(X) ⇒ likes(John, X) into
seafood(shrimp) ⇒ likes(John, shrimp)
• Together with the given fact seafood(shrimp), the final deductive
72
step is easy
20/02/2025
 The resolution principle
• Here it is:
• From X ∨ someLiterals
and ¬X ∨ someOtherLiterals
----------------------------------------------
conclude: someLiterals ∨ someOtherLiterals
• That’s all there is to it!
• Example:
• broke(Bob) ∨ well-fed(Bob)
¬broke(Bob) ∨ ¬hungry(Bob)
--------------------------------------
well-fed(Bob) ∨ ¬hungry(Bob)

73
20/02/2025
 A common error
• You can only do one resolution at a time
• Example:
• broke(Bob) ∨ well-fed(Bob) ∨ happy(Bob)
¬broke(Bob) ∨ ¬hungry(Bob) ∨ ¬happy(Bob)
• You can resolve on broke to get:
• well-fed(Bob) ∨ happy(Bob) ∨ ¬hungry(Bob) ∨ ¬happy(Bob) ≡ T
• Or you can resolve on happy to get:
• broke(Bob) ∨ well-fed(Bob) ∨ ¬broke(Bob) ∨ ¬hungry(Bob) ≡ T
• Note that both legal resolutions yield a tautology (a trivially true statement, containing X
∨ ¬X), which is correct but useless
• But you cannot resolve on both at once to get:
• well-fed(Bob) ∨ ¬hungry(Bob)

74
20/02/2025
 Contradiction
• A special case occurs when the result of a resolution (the resolvent) is
empty, or “NIL”
• Example:
• hungry(Bob)
¬hungry(Bob)
----------------
NIL
• In this case, the fact base is inconsistent
• This will turn out to be a very useful observation in doing resolution
theorem proving

75
20/02/2025
 A first example
• “Everywhere that John goes, Rover goes. John is at school.”
• at(John, X) ⇒ at(Rover, X) (not yet in clause form)
• at(John, school) (already in clause form)
• We use implication elimination to change the first of these into clause
form:
• ¬at(John, X) ∨ at(Rover, X)
• at(John, school)
• We can resolve these on at(-, -), but to do so we have to unify X
with school; this gives:
• at(Rover, school)

76
20/02/2025
 Refutation resolution
• The previous example was easy because it had very few clauses
• When we have a lot of clauses, we want to focus our search on the
thing we would like to prove
• We can do this as follows:
• Assume that our fact base is consistent (we can’t derive NIL)
• Add the negation of the thing we want to prove to the fact base
• Show that the fact base is now inconsistent
• Conclude the thing we want to prove

77
20/02/2025
 Example of refutation resolution
• “Everywhere that John goes, Rover goes. John is at school. Prove that Rover is at
school.”
1. ¬at(John, X) ∨ at(Rover, X)
2. at(John, school)
3. ¬at(Rover, school) (this is the added clause)
• Resolve #1 and #3:
4. ¬at(John, X)
• Resolve #2 and #4:
4. NIL
• Conclude the negation of the added clause: at(Rover, school)
• This seems a roundabout approach for such a simple example, but it works well
for larger problems
78
20/02/2025
 A second example
• Start with:
• it_is_raining ∨ it_is_sunny
• it_is_sunny ⇒ I_stay_dry
• it_is_raining ⇒ I_take_umbrella
• I_take_umbrella ⇒ I_stay_dry • Proof:
• Convert to clause form: 6. (5, 2) ¬it_is_sunny
1. it_is_raining ∨ it_is_sunny 7. (6, 1) it_is_raining
2. ¬it_is_sunny ∨ I_stay_dry 8. (5, 4) ¬I_take_umbrella
3. ¬it_is_raining ∨ I_take_umbrella 9. (8, 3) ¬it_is_raining
4. ¬I_take_umbrella ∨ I_stay_dry 10. (9, 7) NIL
• Prove that I stay dry: ▪ Therefore, ¬(¬I_stay_dry)
5. ¬I_stay_dry ▪ I_stay_dry

79
20/02/2025
 Converting sentences to CNF
1. 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
80
20/02/2025
 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) ⇒ (∀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) ⇒ (∀x)loves(x,f(x))
In this case, f(x) specifies the person that x loves
81
20/02/2025
 Converting sentences to clausal form

6. 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” part
Ex: (∀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 clauses
9. Standardize variables so each clause contains only variable names that do
not occur in any other clause
82
20/02/2025
 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)))))
83
20/02/2025
 Example
7. 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 clauses
¬P(x) ∨ ¬P(y) ∨ P(f(x,y))
¬P(x) ∨ Q(x,g(x))
¬P(x) ∨ ¬P(g(x))
9. Standardize variables
¬P(x) ∨ ¬P(y) ∨ P(f(x,y))
¬P(z) ∨ Q(z,g(z))
¬P(w) ∨ ¬P(g(w))
84
20/02/2025
 Resolution
• Resolution is a sound and complete inference procedure for FOL
• Reminder: Resolution rule for propositional logic:
• P1 ∨ P2 ∨ ... ∨ Pn
• ¬P1 ∨ Q2 ∨ ... ∨ Qm
• Resolvent: P2 ∨ ... ∨ Pn ∨ Q2 ∨ ... ∨ Qm
• Examples
• P and ¬ P ∨ Q : derive Q (Modus Ponens)
• (¬ P ∨ Q) and (¬ Q ∨ R) : derive ¬ P ∨ R
• P and ¬ P : derive False [contradiction!]
• (P ∨ Q) and (¬ P ∨ ¬ Q) : derive True
85
20/02/2025
 Resolution in first-order logic
• Given sentences
P1 ∨ ... ∨ Pn
Q1 ∨ ... ∨ Qm
• in conjunctive normal form:
• each Pi and Qi is a literal, i.e., a positive or negated predicate symbol with its
terms,
• if Pj and ¬Qk unify with substitution list θ, then derive the resolvent sentence:
subst(θ, P1 ∨... ∨ Pj-1 ∨ Pj+1 ... Pn ∨ Q1 ∨ …Qk-1 ∨ Qk+1 ∨... ∨ Qm)
• Example
• from clause P(x, f(a)) ∨ P(x, f(y)) ∨ Q(y)
• and clause ¬P(z, f(a)) ∨ ¬Q(z)
• derive resolvent P(z, f(y)) ∨ Q(y) ∨ ¬Q(z)
86 • using
20/02/2025 θ = {x/z}
 Resolution refutation
• Given a consistent set of axioms KB and goal sentence Q, show that KB |=
Q
• Proof by contradiction: Add ¬Q to KB and try to prove false.
i.e., (KB |- Q) ↔ (KB ∨ ¬Q |- False)
• Resolution is refutation complete: it can establish that a given sentence Q
is entailed by KB, but can’t (in general) be used to generate all logical
consequences of a set of sentences
• Also, it cannot be used to prove that Q is not entailed by KB.
• Resolution won’t always give an answer since entailment is only
semidecidable
• And you can’t just run two proofs in parallel, one trying to prove Q and the other
trying to prove ¬Q, since KB might not entail either one
88
20/02/2025
 Refutation resolution proof tree
¬allergies(w) v ¬cat(y) v ¬allergic-to-cats(z) ∨
sneeze(w) allergies(z)
w/
z
¬cat(y) v sneeze(z) ∨ ¬allergic-to- cat(Feli
cats(z) x)
y/
Felix
sneeze(z) v ¬allergic-to- allergic-to-
cats(z) cats(Lise)
z/
Lise
sneeze(Lis ¬sneeze(Lis
e) e)

fals
e
negated query
89
20/02/2025
We need answers to the following questions

• How to convert FOL sentences to conjunctive normal form (a.k.a. CNF,

clause form): normalization and skolemization
• How to unify two argument lists, i.e., how to find their most general
unifier (mgu) θ: unification
• How to determine which two clauses in KB should be resolved next
(among all resolvable pairs of clauses) : resolution (search) strategy

90
20/02/2025
 Unification
• Unification is a “pattern-matching” procedure
• Takes two atomic sentences, called literals, as input
• Returns “Failure” if they do not match and a substitution list, θ, if they do
• That is, unify(p,q) = θ means subst(θ, p) = subst(θ, q) for two atomic
sentences, p and q
• θ is called the most general unifier (mgu)
• All variables in the given two literals are implicitly universally
quantified
• To make literals match, replace (universally quantified) variables by
terms
91
20/02/2025
 Unification algorithm
procedure unify(p, q, θ)
Scan p and q left-to-right and find the first corresponding
terms where p and q “disagree” (i.e., p and q not equal)
If there is no disagreement, return θ (success!)
Let r and s be the terms in p and q, respectively,
where disagreement first occurs
If variable(r) then {
Let θ = union(θ, {r/s})
Return unify(subst(θ, p), subst(θ, q), θ)
} else if variable(s) then {
Let θ = union(θ, {s/r})
Return unify(subst(θ, p), subst(θ, q), θ)
} else return “Failure”
92 end
20/02/2025
 Unification: Remarks
• Unify is a linear-time algorithm that returns the most
general unifier (mgu), i.e., the shortest-length substitution
list that makes the two literals match.
• In general, there is not a unique minimum-length
substitution list, but unify returns one of minimum length
• A variable can never be replaced by a term containing that
variable
Example: x/f(x) is illegal.
• This “occurs check” should be done in the above pseudo-
code before making the recursive calls
93
20/02/2025
 Unification examples
• Example:
• parents(x, father(x), mother(Bill))
• parents(Bill, father(Bill), y)
• {x/Bill, y/mother(Bill)}
• Example:
• parents(x, father(x), mother(Bill))
• parents(Bill, father(y), z)
• {x/Bill, y/Bill, z/mother(Bill)}
• Example:
• parents(x, father(x), mother(Jane))
• parents(Bill, father(y), mother(y))
94 • Failure
20/02/2025
 Resolution example
Practice 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) GOAL
G. Kills(Curiosity, Tuna)

20/02/2025
95
 • Convert to clause form
D is a skolem constant
A1. (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))

96
20/02/2025
 • 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

97
20/02/2025
 • The proof tree
¬G D
{}
R1: K(J,T) C
{a/J,b/T}
R2: ¬AL(J) ∨ ¬A(T) B
{x/J}
R3: ¬D(y) ∨ ¬O(J,y) ∨ ¬A(T) A1
{y/D}
R4: ¬O(J,D), ¬A(T) A2
{}
R5: ¬A(T) F

{z/T}
R6: ¬C(T) A
{}
R7: FALSE
98
20/02/2025
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution
• Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning
over time
•20/02/2025
Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory 99
 Production Rules
• Condition-Action Pairs
• IF this condition (or premise or antecedent)
occurs,
THEN some action (or result, or conclusion,
or consequence) will (or should) occur
• IF the traffic light is red AND you have
stopped, THEN a right turn is OK

20/02/2025 100
 Production Rules
• Each production rule in a knowledge base represents
an autonomous chunk of expertise
• When combined and fed to the inference engine, the
set of rules behaves synergistically
• Rules can be viewed as a simulation of the cognitive
behaviour of human experts
• Rules represent a model of actual human behaviour
• Predominant technique used in expert systems, often in
conjunction with frames

20/02/2025 101
 Forms of Rules
• IF premise, THEN conclusion
• IF your income is high, THEN your chance of
being audited by the Inland Revenue is high
• Conclusion, IF premise
• Your chance of being audited is high, IF your
income is high

20/02/2025 102
 Forms of Rules
• Inclusion of ELSE
• IF your income is high, OR your deductions are unusual,
THEN your chance of being audited is high, OR ELSE
your chance of being audited is low
• More complex rules
• IF credit rating is high AND salary is more than £30,000,
OR assets are more than £75,000, AND pay history is not
"poor,"
THEN approve a loan up to £10,000, and list the loan in
category "B.”
• Action part may have more information: THEN "approve the
loan"
20/02/2025 and "refer to an agent" 103
 Characteristics of Rules
First Part Second Part
Names Premise Conclusion
Antecedent Consequence
Situation Action
IF THEN
Nature Conditions, similar to declarative Resolutions, similar to procedural
knowledge knowledge
Size Can have many IFs Usually only one conclusion

Statement AND statements All conditions must be true for a

conclusion to be true
OR statements If any condition is true, the conclusion is
true

104
 Rule-based Inference
• Production rules are typically used as part of a
production system
• Production systems provide pattern-directed control of
the reasoning process
• Production systems have:
• Productions: set of production rules
• Working Memory (WM): description of current state
of the world
• Recognise-act cycle

20/02/2025 105
 Production Systems
Production
Rules

C1→A1 Working
C2→A2 Environment
Memory
C3→A3
…
Cn→An

Conflict Conflict
Set Resolution

20/02/2025 106
 Recognise-Act Cycle
• Patterns in WM matched against production rule
conditions
• Matching (activated) rules form the conflict set
• One of the matching rules is selected (conflict
resolution) and fired
• Action of rule is performed
• Contents of WM updated
• Cycle repeats with updated WM

20/02/2025 107
 Conflict Resolution
• Reasoning in a production system can be viewed as a
type of search
• Selection strategy for rules from the conflict set
controls search
• Production system maintains the conflict set as an
agenda
• Ordered list of activated rules (those with their
conditions satisfied) which have not yet been executed
• Conflict resolution strategy determines where a newly-
activated rule is inserted

20/02/2025 108
 Salience
• Rules may be given a precedence order by assigning a
salience value
• Newly activated rules are placed in the agenda above all
rules of lower salience, and below all rules with higher
salience
• Rule with higher salience are executed first
• Conflict resolution strategy applies between rules of the
same salience
• If salience and the conflict resolution strategy can’t
determine which rule is to be executed next, a rule is
chosen at random from the most highly ranked rules
20/02/2025 109
 Conflict Resolution Strategies
• Depth-first: newly activated rules placed above other rules in the
agenda
• Breadth-first: newly activated rules placed below other rules
• Specificity: rules ordered by the number of conditions in the LHS
(simple-first or complex-first)
• Least recently fired: fire the rule that was last fired the longest time
ago
• Refraction: don’t fire a rule unless the WM patterns that match its
conditions have been modified
• Recency: rules ordered by the timestamps on the facts that match
their conditions

20/02/2025 110
 Salience
• Salience facilitates the modularization of expert
systems in which modules work at different levels of
abstraction
• Over-use of salience can complicate a system
• Explicit ordering to rule execution
• Makes behaviour of modified systems less
predictable
• Rule of thumb: if two rules have the same salience, are
in the same module, and are activated concurrently,
then the order in which they are executed should not
matter
20/02/2025 111
 Common Types of Rules
• Knowledge rules, or declarative rules, state all the
facts and relationships about a problem
• Inference rules, or procedural rules, advise on how to
solve a problem, given that certain facts are known
• Inference rules contain rules about rules (metarules)
• Knowledge rules are stored in the knowledge base
• Inference rules become part of the inference engine

20/02/2025 112
 Major Advantages of Rules
• Easy to understand (natural form of knowledge)
• Easy to derive inference and explanations
• Easy to modify and maintain
• Easy to combine with uncertainty
• Rules are frequently independent

20/02/2025 113
 Major Limitations of Rules
• Complex knowledge requires many rules
• Search limitations in systems with many
rules

20/02/2025 114
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution
• Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning
over time
•20/02/2025
Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory 115
 Semantic Networks
• A semantic network is a structure for
representing knowledge as a pattern of
interconnected nodes and arcs
• Nodes in the net represent concepts of entities,
attributes, events, values
• Arcs in the network represent relationships that
hold between the concepts

20/02/2025 116
 Semantic Networks
• Semantic networks can show inheritance
• Relationship types – is-a, has-a
• Semantic Nets - visual representation of
relationships
• Can be combined with other representation
methods

20/02/2025 117
 Semantic Networks
Bird
is- is- Canary
Can fly
a a Can sing
Has wings
Is yellow
Has feathers

Animal Ostrich
Can breathe is- Runs fast
Can eat a Cannot fly
Has skin Is tall

Fish Salmon
is- Can swim is- Swims upstream
a Has fins a Is pink
Has gills Is edible

20/02/2025 118
 Semantic Networks
move
s ANIMA is
L a
breath DO is works
es G a sheep
is
a SHEEPDO
G
track HOUN has
s D bark tail is
s a
is size:
a medium
BEAGL COLLI
E E
instanc
size: e FICTIONAL
small instanc CHARACTE instanc
instanc e
e R e
SNOOP instanc
Y e LASSI
E
friend
20/02/2025 of CHARLIE 119
BROWN
 Semantic Networks
What does or should a node represent?
• A class of objects?
• An instance of an class?
• The canonical instance of a class?
• The set of all instances of a class?

20/02/2025 120
 Semantic Networks
• Semantics of links that define new objects and links
that relate existing objects, particularly those dealing
with ‘intrinsic’ characteristics of a given object
• How does one deal with the problems of comparison
between objects (or classes of objects) through their
attributes?
• Essentially the problem of comparing object
instances
• What mechanisms are there are to handle
quantification in semantic network formalisms?
20/02/2025 121
 Transitive inference, but…
• Clyde is an elephant, an elephant is a mammal: Clyde is
a mammal.

• The US President is elected every 4 years, Bush is US

President: Bush is elected every 4 years
• My car is a Ford, Ford is a car company: my car is a car
company

20/02/2025 122
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution
• Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time-Probabilistic reasoning
over time
•20/02/2025
Other uncertain techniques-Data mining-Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory 123
 Frames
• A frame is a knowledge representation formalism based on the
idea of a frame of reference.
• A frame is a data structure that includes all the knowledge about
a particular object
• Frames organised in a hierarchy Form of object-oriented
programming for AI and ES.
• Each frame describes one object
• Special terminology

M. Minsky (1974) A Framework for Representing Knowledge,

MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306

20/02/2025 124
 Frames
• There are two types of frame:
• Class Frame
• Individual or Instance Frame
• A frame carries with it a set of slots that can
represent objects that are normally associated
with a subject of the frame.

20/02/2025 125
 Frames
• The slots can then point to other slots or frames.
That gives frame systems the ability to carry out
inheritance and simple kinds of data
manipulation.
• The use of procedures - also called demons in
the literature - helps in the incorporation of
substantial amounts of procedural knowledge
into a particular frame-oriented knowledge base

20/02/2025 126
 Frame-based model of semantic
memory
• Knowledge is organised in a data structure
• Slots in structure are instantiated with particular
values for a given instance of data
• ...translation to OO terminology:
• frames == classes or objects
• slots == variables/methods

20/02/2025 127
 General Knowledge as Frames

DOG COLLIE
Fixed Fixed
legs: 4 breed of: DOG
type: sheepdog
Default
diet: carnivorous Default
sound: bark size: 65cm

Variable Variable
size: colour:
colour:

20/02/2025 128
 General Knowledge as Frames
MAMMAL:
subclass: ANIMAL
has_part: head

ELEPHANT
subclass: MAMMAL
colour: grey
size: large

Nellie
instance: ELEPHANT
likes: apples

20/02/2025 129
 Logic underlies Frames
• ∀x mammal(x) ⇒ has_part(x, head)
• ∀x elephant(x) ⇒ mammal(x)

∴
• elephant(clyde)

mammal(clyde)
has_part(clyde, head)

20/02/2025 130
 Logic underlies Frames
MAMMAL:
subclass: ANIMAL
has_part: head
*furry: yes

ELEPHANT
subclass: MAMMAL
has_trunk: yes
*colour: grey
*size: large
*furry: no

Clyde
instance: ELEPHANT
colour: pink
owner: Fred

Nellie
instance: ELEPHANT
20/02/2025 size: small 131
 Frames (Contd.)
• Can represent subclass and instance relationships
(both sometimes called ISA or “is a”)
• Properties (e.g. colour and size) can be referred to as
slots and slot values (e.g. grey, large) as slot fillers
• Objects can inherit all properties of parent class
(therefore Nellie is grey and large)
• But can inherit properties which are only typical
(usually called default, here starred), and can be
overridden
• For example, mammal is typically furry, but this is not
so for an elephant
20/02/2025 132
 Frames (Contd.)
• Provide a concise, structural representation of
knowledge in a natural manner
• Frame encompasses complex objects, entire situations
or a management problem as a single entity
• Frame knowledge is partitioned into slots
• Slot can describe declarative knowledge or procedural
knowledge
• Hierarchy of Frames: Inheritance

20/02/2025 133
 Capabilities of Frames
• Ability to clearly document information about a domain
model; for example, a plant's machines and their
associated attributes
• Related ability to constrain allowable values of an
attribute
• Modularity of information, permitting ease of system
expansion and maintenance
• More readable and consistent syntax for referencing
domain objects in the rules

20/02/2025 134
 Capabilities of Frames
• Platform for building graphic interface with object
graphics
• Mechanism to restrict the scope of facts considered
during forward or backward chaining
• Access to a mechanism that supports the inheritance of
information down a class hierarchy
• Used as underlying model in standards for accessing
KBs (Open Knowledge Base Connectivity - OKBC)

20/02/2025 135
 Summary
• Frames have been used in conjunction with other, less
well-grounded, representation formalisms, like
production systems, when used to build to pre-
operational or operational expert systems
• Frames cannot be used efficiently to organise ‘a whole
computation

20/02/2025 136
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge
representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time
• Other uncertain techniques-Data mining- Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory
20/02/2025 137
 Types of Inference

• Deduction
• Induction
• Abduction

20/02/2025 138
 Deduction

• Deriving a conclusion from given axioms and facts

• Also called logical inference or truth preservation
Axiom – All kids are naughty
Fact/Premise – Riya is a kid
Conclusion – Riya is naughty

20/02/2025 139
 Induction

• Deriving general rule or axiom from background knowledge and

observations
• Riya is a kid
• Riya is naughty
General axiom which is derived is:
Kids are naughty

20/02/2025 140
 Abduction

• A premise is derived from a known axiom and some observations

• All kids are naughty
• Riya is naughty
Inference
Riya is a kid

20/02/2025 141
 Knowledge and Reasoning
Table of Contents
• Knowledge and reasoning-Approaches and issues of knowledge reasoning-
Knowledge base agents
• Logic Basics-Logic-Propositional logic-syntax ,semantics and inferences-
Propositional logic- Reasoning patterns
• Unification and Resolution-Knowledge representation using rules-Knowledge
representation using semantic nets
• Knowledge representation using frames-Inferences-
• Uncertain Knowledge and reasoning-Methods-Bayesian probability and belief
network
• Probabilistic reasoning-Probabilistic reasoning over time
• Other uncertain techniques-Data mining- Fuzzy logic-Dempster -shafer theory
20/02/2025 142
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

• In real life, it is not always possible to determine the state of the environment as it might not be clear. Due to
partially observable or non-deterministic environments, agents may need to handle uncertainty and deal with it.
• Uncertain data: Data that is missing, unreliable, inconsistent or noisy
• Uncertain knowledge: When the available knowledge has multiple causes leading to multiple effects or
incomplete knowledge of causality in the domain
• Uncertain knowledge representation: The representations which provides a restricted model of the real system,
or has limited expressiveness
• Inference: In case of incomplete or default reasoning methods, conclusions drawn might not be completely
accurate. Let’s understand this better with the help of an example.
• IF primary infection is bacteria cea
• AND site of infection is sterile
• AND entry point is gastrointestinal tract
• THEN organism is bacteriod (0.7).
• In such uncertain situations, the agent does not guarantee a solution but acts on its own assumptions
and probabilities and gives some degree of belief that it will reach the required solution.

20/02/2025 143
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

• For example, In case of Medical diagnosis consider the rule Toothache = Cavity. This is
not complete as not all patients having toothache have cavities. So we can write a
more generalized rule Toothache = Cavity V Gum problems V Abscess… To make this
rule complete, we will have to list all the possible causes of toothache. But this is not
feasible due to the following rules:
• Laziness- It will require a lot of effort to list the complete set of antecedents and
consequents to make the rules complete.
• Theoretical ignorance- Medical science does not have complete theory for the domain
• Practical ignorance- It might not be practical that all tests have been or can be
conducted for the patients.
• Such uncertain situations can be dealt with using
Probability theory
Truth Maintenance systems
Fuzzy logic.
20/02/2025 144
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

Probability
• Probability is the degree of likeliness that an event will occur. It provides a certain degree of belief in case
of uncertain situations. It is defined over a set of events U and assigns value P(e) i.e. probability of
occurrence of event e in the range [0,1]. Here each sentence is labeled with a real number in the range of
0 to 1, 0 means the sentence is false and 1 means it is true.
• Conditional Probability or Posterior Probability is the probability of event A given that B has already
occurred.
• P(A|B) = (P(B|A) * P(A)) / P(B)
• For example, P(It will rain tomorrow| It is raining today) represents conditional probability of it raining
tomorrow as it is raining today.
• P(A|B) + P(NOT(A)|B) = 1
• Joint probability is the probability of 2 independent events happening simultaneously like rolling two dice
or tossing two coins together. For example, Probability of getting 2 on one dice and 6 on the other is
equal to 1/36. Joint probability has a wide use in various fields such as physics, astronomy, and comes
into play when there are two independent events. The full joint probability distribution specifies the
probability of each complete assignment of values to random variables.
20/02/2025 145
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

Bayes Theorem
• It is based on the principle that every pair of features being
classified is independent of each other. It calculates probability
P(A|B) where A is class of possible outcomes and B is given
instance which has to be classified.
• P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
• P(A|B) = Probability that A is happening, given that B has
occurred (posterior probability)
• P(A) = prior probability of class
• P(B) = prior probability of predictor
P(B|A) = likelihood
•20/02/2025 146
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

Consider the following data.

Depending on the weather
(sunny, rainy or overcast), the
children will play(Y) or not
play(N).
Here, the total number of
observations = 14
Probability that children will
play given that weather is
sunny :
P( Yes| Sunny) = P(Sunny | Yes)
* P(Yes) / P(Sunny)
= 0.33 * 0.64 / 0.36
= 0.59
20/02/2025 147
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

It is a probabilistic graphical model for

representing uncertain domain and to
reason under uncertainty. It consists of
nodes representing variables, arcs
representing direct connections between
them, called causal correlations. It
represents conditional dependencies
between random variables through a
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). A belief
network consist of:
1. A DAG with nodes labeled with variable
names,
2. Domain for each random variable,
3. Set of conditional probability tables for
each variable given its parents, including
prior probability for nodes with no
parents.

20/02/2025 148
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

• Let’s have a look at the steps followed.

1. Identify nodes which are the random variables and the possible
values they can have from the probability domain. The nodes can be
boolean (True/ False), have ordered values or integral values.
2. Structure- It is used to represent causal relationships between the
variables. Two nodes are connected if one affects or causes the other
and the arc points towards the effect. For instance, if it is windy or
cloudy, it rains. There is a direct link from Windy/Cloudy to Rains.
Similarly, from Rains to Wet grass and Leave, i.e., if it rains, grass will
be wet and leave is taken from work.

20/02/2025 149
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

3. Probability- Quantifying relationship between nodes. Conditional

Probability:
• P(B|A) = P(A|B) * P(B) / P(A)
• Joint probability:
4. Markov property- Bayesian Belied Networks require assumption of
Markov property, i.e., all direct dependencies are shown by using
arcs. Here there is no direct connection between it being Cloudy and
Taking a leave. But there is one via Rains. Belief Networks which have
Markov property are also called independence maps.

20/02/2025 150
 Uncertain knowledge and reasoning

Inference in Belief Networks

• Bayesian Networks provide various types of representations of probability distribution over their
variables. They can be conditioned over any subset of their variables, using any direction of
reasoning.
• For example, one can perform diagnostic reasoning, i.e. when it Rains, one can update his belief
about the grass being wet or if leave is taken from work. In this case reasoning occurs in the
opposite direction to the network arcs. Or one can perform predictive reasoning, i.e., reasoning
from new information about causes to new beliefs about effects, following direction of the arcs.
For example, if the grass is already wet, then the user knows that it has rained and it might have
been cloudy or windy. Another form of reasoning involves reasoning about mutual causes of a
common effect. This is called inter causal reasoning.
• There are two possible causes of an effect, represented in the form of a ‘V’. For example, the
common effect ‘Rains’ can be caused by two reasons ‘Windy’ and ‘Cloudy.’ Initially, the two
causes are independent of each other but if it rains, it will increase the probability of both the
causes. Assume that we know it was windy. This information explains the reasons for the rainfall
and lowers probability that it was cloudy.
20/02/2025 151
 Bayesian probability and belief network

Explanation of Bayesian network:

• Let's understand the Bayesian network through an example by creating a
directed acyclic graph:
Example: Harry installed a new burglar alarm at his home to detect burglary.
The alarm reliably responds at detecting a burglary but also responds for
minor earthquakes. Harry has two neighbors David and Sophia, who have
taken a responsibility to inform Harry at work when they hear the alarm.
David always calls Harry when he hears the alarm, but sometimes he got
confused with the phone ringing and calls at that time too. On the other
hand, Sophia likes to listen to high music, so sometimes she misses to hear
the alarm. Here we would like to compute the probability of Burglary Alarm.

30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 152

 Bayesian probability and belief network

Problem:
• Calculate the probability that alarm has sounded, but there is neither a burglary, nor an earthquake
occurred, and David and Sophia both called the Harry.
Solution:
• The Bayesian network for the above problem is given below. The network structure is showing that
burglary and earthquake is the parent node of the alarm and directly affecting the probability of alarm's
going off, but David and Sophia's calls depend on alarm probability.
• The network is representing that our assumptions do not directly perceive the burglary and also do not
notice the minor earthquake, and they also not confer before calling.
• The conditional distributions for each node are given as conditional probabilities table or CPT.
• Each row in the CPT must be sum to 1 because all the entries in the table represent an exhaustive set of
cases for the variable.
• In CPT, a boolean variable with k boolean parents contains 2K probabilities. Hence, if there are two
parents, then CPT will contain 4 probability values
30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 153
 Bayesian probability and belief network
List of all events occurring in this network:
• Burglary (B)
• Earthquake(E)
• Alarm(A)
• David Calls(D)
• Sophia calls(S)
We can write the events of problem statement in the form of probability: P[D, S, A, B, E], can rewrite
the above probability statement using joint probability distribution:
• P[D, S, A, B, E]= P[D | S, A, B, E]. P[S, A, B, E]
=P[D | S, A, B, E]. P[S | A, B, E]. P[A, B, E]
= P [D| A]. P [ S| A, B, E]. P[ A, B, E]
= P[D | A]. P[ S | A]. P[A| B, E]. P[B, E]
= P[D | A ]. P[S | A]. P[A| B, E]. P[B |E]. P[E]
30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 154
 Bayesian probability and belief network
Let's take the observed probability for
the Burglary and earthquake
component:
P(B= True) = 0.002, which is the
probability of burglary.
P(B= False)= 0.998, which is the
probability of no burglary.
P(E= True)= 0.001, which is the
probability of a minor earthquake
P(E= False)= 0.999, Which is the
probability that an earthquake not
occurred.

30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 155

 Bayesian probability and belief network
We can provide the
conditional probabilities as B E P(A= True) P(A= False)

per the below tables: True True 0.94 0.06

Conditional probability table
for Alarm A: True False 0.95 0.04

The Conditional probability of False True 0.31 0.69

Alarm A depends on Burglar False False 0.001 0.999

and earthquake:

30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 156

 Bayesian probability and belief network
Conditional probability table
for David Calls: A P(D= True) P(D= False)

The Conditional probability of

David that he will call True 0.91 0.09
depends on the probability of
Alarm. False 0.05 0.95

30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 157

 Bayesian probability and belief network
Conditional probability
table for Sophia Calls: A P(S= True) P(S= False)

The Conditional
probability of Sophia that True 0.75 0.25
she calls is depending on
its Parent Node "Alarm."
False 0.02 0.98

AP(S= True)P(S=
False)True0.750.25False0.020.98 AP(S=
30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3
True)P(S=
 Bayesian probability and belief network
• From the formula of joint distribution, we can write the problem
statement in the form of probability distribution:
• P(S, D, A, ¬B, ¬E) = P (S|A) *P (D|A)*P (A|¬B ^ ¬E) *P (¬B) *P (¬E).
= 0.75* 0.91* 0.001* 0.998*0.999
= 0.00068045.
Hence, a Bayesian network can answer any query about the domain by
using Joint distribution.
• The semantics of Bayesian Network:
• There are two ways to understand the semantics of the Bayesian network,
which is given below:
1. To understand the network as the representation of the Joint probability
distribution.
• It is helpful to understand how to construct the network.
2. To understand the network as an encoding of a collection of conditional
independence statements.
• It is helpful in designing inference procedure.
30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 159
 Bayes' theorem in Artificial intelligence

Bayes' theorem:
• Bayes' theorem is also known as Bayes' rule, Bayes' law, or Bayesian
reasoning, which determines the probability of an event with uncertain
knowledge.
• In probability theory, it relates the conditional probability and marginal
probabilities of two random events.
• Bayes' theorem was named after the British mathematician Thomas Bayes.
The Bayesian inference is an application of Bayes' theorem, which is
fundamental to Bayesian statistics.
• It is a way to calculate the value of P(B|A) with the knowledge of P(A|B).
• Bayes' theorem allows updating the probability prediction of an event by
observing new information of the real world.
30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 160
 Bayes' theorem in Artificial intelligence

The Bayes’ theorem is expressed in the following formula:

Where:

•P(A|B) – the probability of event A occurring, given event B has occurred

•P(B|A) – the probability of event B occurring, given event A has occurred
•P(A) – the probability of event A
•P(B) – the probability of event B

30-03-2021 161
Applying Bayes'
Applying rule: in Artificial intelligence
Bayes' theorem

• Bayes' rule allows us to compute the single term P(B|A) in terms of P(A|B), P(B), and P(A). This is very useful in cases
where we have a good probability of these three terms and want to determine the fourth one. Suppose we want to
perceive the effect of some unknown cause, and want to compute that cause, then the Bayes' rule becomes:
Example-1:
Question: what is the probability that a patient has diseases meningitis with a stiff neck?
• Given Data:
A doctor is aware that disease meningitis causes a patient to have a stiff neck, and it occurs 80% of the time. He
is also aware of some more facts, which are given as follows:
The Known probability that a patient has meningitis disease is 1/30,000.
The Known probability that a patient has a stiff neck is 2%.
Let a be the proposition that patient has stiff neck and b be the proposition that patient has meningitis. , so we can calculate
the following as:
P(a|b) = 0.8
P(b) = 1/30000= 3.3*10-5
P(a)= .02
P(b/a) = (P(a/b) * P(b))/P(a)= 1.33 * 10-4 = 0.00133
• Hence, we can assume that 1 patient out of 750 patients
30-03-2021 has meningitis disease with a
18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 stiff neck. 162
 Applying Bayes' theorem in Artificial
intelligence
Example-2:
Question: From a standard deck of playing cards, a single card is drawn. The probability that the card is
king is 4/52, then calculate posterior probability P(King|Face), which means the drawn face card is a
king card.
Solution:

P(king): probability that the card is King= 4/52= 1/13

P(face): probability that a card is a face card= 3/13
P(Face|King): probability of face card when we assume it is a king = 1
Putting all values in equation (i) we will get:

30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 163

 Application of Bayes' theorem in
Artificial intelligence:
Following are some applications of Bayes' theorem:
• It is used to calculate the next step of the robot when the already
executed step is given.
• Bayes' theorem is helpful in weather forecasting.

30-03-2021 18CSC305J_AI_UNIT3 164

 Thank you

20/02/2025 165