LOGIC

Heng Ji

jih@rpi.eduFeb 19, 2016

Logic

Knowledge-based agents

• Knowledge base (KB) = set of sentences in a formal language• Declarative approach to building an agent (or other system):

• Tell it what it needs to know• Then it can ask itself what to do - answers should follow from the KB• Distinction between data and program• Fullest realization of this philosophy was in the field of expert systems

or knowledge-based systems in the 1970s and 1980s

Inference engine

Knowledge base

Domain-independent algorithms

Domain-specific content

What is logic?• Logic is a formal system for manipulating facts so that true conclusions may be drawn• “The tool for distinguishing between the true and the false”

– Averroes (12th cen.)• Syntax: rules for constructing valid sentences

• E.g., x + 2 y is a valid arithmetic sentence, x2y + is not• Semantics: “meaning” of sentences, or relationship between logical sentences and the real world• Specifically, semantics defines truth of sentences• E.g., x + 2 y is true in a world where x = 5 and y = 7

Overview• Propositional logic• Inference rules and theorem proving• First order logic

Propositional logic: Syntax• Atomic sentence:

• A proposition symbol representing a true or false statement• Negation:

• If P is a sentence, P is a sentence• Conjunction:

• If P and Q are sentences, P Q is a sentence• Disjunction:

• If P and Q are sentences, P Q is a sentence• Implication:

• If P and Q are sentences, P Q is a sentence• Biconditional:

• If P and Q are sentences, P Q is a sentence

• , , , , are called logical connectives

Propositional logic: Semantics• A model specifies the true/false status of each proposition

symbol in the knowledge base• E.g., P is true, Q is true, R is false• With three symbols, there are 8 possible models, and they can be

enumerated exhaustively

• Rules for evaluating truth with respect to a model:P is true iff P is false P Q is true iff P is true and Q is true P Q is true iff P is true or Q is true P Q is true iff P is false or Q is true P Q is true iff P Q is true and Q P is true

Truth tables• A truth table specifies the truth value of a composite sentence for each possible assignments of truth values to its atoms

• The truth value of a more complex sentence can be evaluated recursively or compositionally

Logical equivalence• Two sentences are logically equivalent iff they are true in

same models

Validity, satisfiabilityA sentence is valid if it is true in all models,e.g., True, A A, A A, (A (A B)) B

A sentence is satisfiable if it is true in some modele.g., AB, C

A sentence is unsatisfiable if it is true in no modelse.g., AA

Entailment• Entailment means that a sentence follows from the premises contained in the knowledge base:

KB ╞ α• Knowledge base KB entails sentence α if and only if α is true in all models where KB is true• E.g., x = 0 entails x * y = 0• Can α be true when KB is false?

• KB ╞ α iff (KB α) is valid• KB ╞ α iff (KB α) is unsatisfiable

Inference• Logical inference: a procedure for generating sentences that follow from a knowledge base KB

• An inference procedure is sound if whenever it derives a sentence α, KB╞ α• A sound inference procedure can derive only true

sentences• An inference procedure is complete if whenever KB╞ α, α can be derived by the procedure• A complete inference procedure can derive every

entailed sentence

Inference• How can we check whether a sentence α is entailed by KB?• How about we enumerate all possible models of the KB (truth

assignments of all its symbols), and check that α is true in every model in which KB is true?• Is this sound?• Is this complete?

• Problem: if KB contains n symbols, the truth table will be of size 2n

• Better idea: use inference rules, or sound procedures to generate new sentences or conclusions given the premises in the KB

Inference rules• Modus Ponens

• And-elimination ,

premises

conclusion

Inference rules• And-introduction

• Or-introduction

,

Inference rules• Double negative elimination

• Unit resolution

,

Resolution

• Example:: “The weather is dry”: “The weather is rainy”γ: “I carry an umbrella”

,

,

or

Resolution is complete

• To prove KB╞ α, assume KB α and derive a contradiction• Rewrite KB α as a conjunction of clauses,

or disjunctions of literals • Conjunctive normal form (CNF)

• Keep applying resolution to clauses that contain complementary literals and adding resulting clauses to the list• If there are no new clauses to be added, then KB does not entail α• If two clauses resolve to form an empty clause, we have a contradiction and KB╞ α

,

Complexity of inference• Propositional inference is co-NP-complete

• Complement of the SAT problem: α ╞ β if and only if the sentence α β is unsatisfiable

• Every known inference algorithm has worst-case exponential running time

• Efficient inference possible for restricted cases

Definite clauses• A definite clause is a disjunction with exactly one positive literal

• Equivalent to (P1 … Pn) Q

• Basis of logic programming (Prolog)• Efficient (linear-time) complete inference through forward chaining and backward chaining

premise or bodyconclusion

or head

Forward chaining• Idea: find any rule whose premises are satisfied in the KB, add its conclusion to the KB, and keep going until query is found

Forward chaining example

Forward chaining example

Forward chaining example

Forward chaining example

Forward chaining example

Forward chaining example

Forward chaining example

Forward chaining example

Backward chainingIdea: work backwards from the query q:

to prove q by BC,check if q is known already, orprove by BC all premises of some rule concluding q

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Forward vs. backward chaining• Forward chaining is data-driven, automatic processing• May do lots of work that is irrelevant to the goal

• Backward chaining is goal-driven, appropriate for problem-solving• Complexity can be much less than linear in size of KB

SummaryLogical agents apply inference to a knowledge base to derive new information and make decisions• Basic concepts of logic:• syntax: formal structure of sentences• semantics: truth of sentences wrt models• entailment: necessary truth of one sentence given another• inference: deriving sentences from other sentences• soundness: derivations produce only entailed sentences

• completeness: derivations can produce all entailed sentences• Resolution is complete for propositional logic• Forward, backward chaining are linear-time, complete for

definite clauses

FIRST-ORDER LOGICChapter 8

Outline• Why FOL?• Syntax and semantics of FOL• Using FOL• Wumpus world in FOL• Knowledge engineering in FOL

Pros and cons of propositional logic Propositional logic is declarative

Propositional logic allows partial/disjunctive/negated information(unlike most data structures and databases)

•• Propositional logic is compositional:

meaning of B1,1 P1,2 is derived from meaning of B1,1 and of P1,2

•• Meaning in propositional logic is context-independent

(unlike natural language, where meaning depends on context)•• Propositional logic has very limited expressive power

• (unlike natural language)• E.g., cannot say "pits cause breezes in adjacent squares“• except by writing one sentence for each square

•

First-order logic• Whereas propositional logic assumes the world contains

facts,• first-order logic (like natural language) assumes the world

contains•• Objects: people, houses, numbers, colors, baseball games, wars, …

•• Relations: red, round, prime, brother of, bigger than, part of, comes

between, …• Functions: father of, best friend, one more than, plus, …•

Syntax of FOL: Basic elements• Constants KingJohn, 2, NUS,... • Predicates Brother, >,...• Functions Sqrt, LeftLegOf,...• Variables x, y, a, b,...• Connectives , , , , • Equality = • Quantifiers ,

Atomic sentencesAtomic sentence = predicate (term1,...,termn)

or term1 = term2

Term = function (term1,...,termn) or constant or variable

• E.g., Brother(KingJohn,RichardTheLionheart) > (Length(LeftLegOf(Richard)), Length(LeftLegOf(KingJohn)))

Complex sentencesComplex sentences are made from atomic sentences using connectives•

S, S1 S2, S1 S2, S1 S2, S1 S2,

E.g. Sibling(KingJohn,Richard) Sibling(Richard,KingJohn)

>(1,2) ≤ (1,2)

>(1,2) >(1,2)

Truth in first-order logic• Sentences are true with respect to a model and an interpretation

Model contains objects (domain elements) and relations among them•

• Interpretation specifies referents for• constant symbols → objects

predicate symbols → relations

function symbols → functional relations

• An atomic sentence predicate(term1,...,termn) is trueiff the objects referred to by term1,...,termnare in the relation referred to by predicate

Models for FOL: Example

Universal quantification<variables> <sentence>•

Everyone at NUS is smart:x At(x,NUS) Smart(x)

x P is true in a model m iff P is true with x being each possible object in the model•

Roughly speaking, equivalent to the conjunction of instantiations of P•

At(KingJohn,NUS) Smart(KingJohn) At(Richard,NUS) Smart(Richard) At(NUS,NUS) Smart(NUS) ...

A common mistake to avoidTypically, is the main connective with •

• Common mistake: using as the main connective with :x At(x,NUS) Smart(x)means “Everyone is at NUS and everyone is smart”

Existential quantification• <variables> <sentence>

• Someone at NUS is smart:• x At(x,NUS) Smart(x)$•

x P is true in a model m iff P is true with x being some possible object in the model•

Roughly speaking, equivalent to the disjunction of instantiations of P•

At(KingJohn,NUS) Smart(KingJohn) At(Richard,NUS) Smart(Richard) At(NUS,NUS) Smart(NUS) ...

Another common mistake to avoid• Typically, is the main connective with

Common mistake: using as the main connective with :•

• x At(x,NUS) Smart(x)

is true if there is anyone who is not at NUS!

Properties of quantifiersx y is the same as y x•• 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”

•• 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)•

Equalityterm1 = term2 is true under a given interpretation if and only if term1 and term2 refer to the same object•

E.g., definition of Sibling in terms of Parent:•

x,y Sibling(x,y) [(x = y) m,f (m = f) Parent(m,x) Parent(f,x) Parent(m,y) Parent(f,y)]

Using FOLThe kinship domain:

Brothers are siblings•• x,y Brother(x,y) Sibling(x,y)

One's mother is one's female parent•• m,c Mother(c) = m (Female(m) Parent(m,c))

“Sibling” is symmetric•• x,y Sibling(x,y) Sibling(y,x)

Using FOLThe set domain:

s Set(s) (s = {} ) (x,s2 Set(s2) s = {x|s2})•• x,s {x|s} = {}•• x,s x s s = {x|s}•• x,s x s [ y,s2} (s = {y|s2} (x = y x s2))]•• s1,s2 s1 s2 (x x s1 x s2)• s1,s2 (s1 = s2) (s1 s2 s2 s1)•• x,s1,s2 x (s1 s2) (x s1 x s2)•• x,s1,s2 x (s1 s2) (x s1 x s2)

Interacting with FOL KBs• Suppose a wumpus-world agent is using an FOL KB and perceives a smell and a breeze

(but no glitter) at t=5:•

Tell(KB,Percept([Smell,Breeze,None],5))Ask(KB,a BestAction(a,5))

I.e., does the KB entail some best action at t=5?•

• Answer: Yes, {a/Shoot} ← substitution (binding list)•

• Given a sentence S and a substitution σ,• Sσ denotes the result of plugging σ into S; e.g.,

S = Smarter(x,y)σ = {x/Hillary,y/Bill}Sσ = Smarter(Hillary,Bill)

Ask(KB,S) returns some/all σ such that KB╞ σ •

Knowledge base for the wumpus world

• Perception• t,s,b Percept([s,b,Glitter],t) Glitter(t)

•

• Reflex• t Glitter(t) BestAction(Grab,t)

Deducing hidden properties• x,y,a,b Adjacent([x,y],[a,b]) • [a,b] {[x+1,y], [x-1,y],[x,y+1],[x,y-1]}

Properties of squares:• s,t At(Agent,s,t) Breeze(t) Breezy(s)•

Squares are breezy near a pit:

• Diagnostic rule---infer cause from effect• s Breezy(s) \Exi{r} Adjacent(r,s) Pit(r)$

• Causal rule---infer effect from cause• r Pit(r) [s Adjacent(r,s) Breezy(s)$ ]

Knowledge engineering in FOLIdentify the task1.2. Assemble the relevant knowledge3.4. Decide on a vocabulary of predicates, functions, and constants5.6. Encode general knowledge about the domain7.8. Encode a description of the specific problem instance9.10. Pose queries to the inference procedure and get answers11.12. Debug the knowledge base13.

The electronic circuits domainOne-bit full adder

The electronic circuits domainIdentify the task1.2. Does the circuit actually add properly? (circuit verification)

•• Assemble the relevant knowledge

3.4. Composed of wires and gates; Types of gates (AND, OR, XOR, NOT)

•• Irrelevant: size, shape, color, cost of gates•• Decide on a vocabulary

5.6. Alternatives:

•• Type(X1) = XOR

Type(X1, XOR)XOR(X1)

The electronic circuits domainEncode general knowledge of the domain4.

• t1,t2 Connected(t1, t2) Signal(t1) = Signal(t2)• t Signal(t) = 1 Signal(t) = 0•• 1 ≠ 0•• t1,t2 Connected(t1, t2) Connected(t2, t1)•• g Type(g) = OR Signal(Out(1,g)) = 1 n Signal(In(n,g)) = 1•• g Type(g) = AND Signal(Out(1,g)) = 0 n Signal(In(n,g)) = 0•• g Type(g) = XOR Signal(Out(1,g)) = 1 Signal(In(1,g)) ≠

Signal(In(2,g))•• g Type(g) = NOT Signal(Out(1,g)) ≠ Signal(In(1,g))•

The electronic circuits domainEncode the specific problem instance5.

Type(X1) = XOR Type(X2) = XORType(A1) = AND Type(A2) = ANDType(O1) = OR

Connected(Out(1,X1),In(1,X2)) Connected(In(1,C1),In(1,X1))Connected(Out(1,X1),In(2,A2)) Connected(In(1,C1),In(1,A1))Connected(Out(1,A2),In(1,O1)) Connected(In(2,C1),In(2,X1))Connected(Out(1,A1),In(2,O1)) Connected(In(2,C1),In(2,A1))Connected(Out(1,X2),Out(1,C1)) Connected(In(3,C1),In(2,X2))Connected(Out(1,O1),Out(2,C1)) Connected(In(3,C1),In(1,A2))

The electronic circuits domainPose queries to the inference procedure6.7. What are the possible sets of values of all the terminals for the adder

circuit?

i1,i2,i3,o1,o2 Signal(In(1,C_1)) = i1 Signal(In(2,C1)) = i2 Signal(In(3,C1)) = i3 Signal(Out(1,C1)) = o1 Signal(Out(2,C1)) = o2

Debug the knowledge base7.8. May have omitted assertions like 1 ≠ 0

SummaryFirst-order logic:•

• objects and relations are semantic primitives• syntax: constants, functions, predicates, equality, quantifiers•

Increased expressive power: sufficient to define wumpus world •