Existential instantiation (EI)

For any sentence α, variable v, and constant symbol k

that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base:

Inference in first-order logic ∃v α

Subst({v/k}, α)
E.g., ∃ x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x, John) yields
Crown(C1) ∧ OnHead(C1, John)
Chapter 9
provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called a Skolem constant
Another example: from ∃ x d(xy )/dy = xy we obtain
d(ey )/dy = ey
provided e is a new constant symbol

Chapter 9 1 Chapter 9 4

Outline Existential instantiation contd.

♦ Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference UI can be applied several times to add new sentences;
the new KB is logically equivalent to the old
♦ Unification
EI can be applied once to replace the existential sentence;
♦ Generalized Modus Ponens the new KB is not equivalent to the old,
♦ Forward and backward chaining but is satisfiable iff the old KB was satisfiable

♦ Resolution

Chapter 9 2 Chapter 9 5

Universal instantiation (UI) Reduction to propositional inference

Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is entailed by it: Suppose the KB contains just the following:
∀v α ∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) ⇒ Evil(x)
Subst({v/g}, α) King(John)
Greedy(John)
for any variable v and ground term g
Brother(Richard, John)
E.g., ∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) ⇒ Evil(x) yields Instantiating the universal sentence in all possible ways, we have
King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) ⇒ Evil(John) King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) ⇒ Evil(John)
King(Richard) ∧ Greedy(Richard) ⇒ Evil(Richard) King(Richard) ∧ Greedy(Richard) ⇒ Evil(Richard)
King(F ather(John)) ∧ Greedy(F ather(John)) ⇒ Evil(F ather(John)) King(John)
..
Greedy(John)
Brother(Richard, John)
The new KB is propositionalized: proposition symbols are
King(John), Greedy(John), Evil(John), King(Richard) etc.

Chapter 9 3 Chapter 9 6
 Reduction contd. Unification
Claim: a ground sentence∗ is entailed by new KB iff entailed by original KB 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)
Claim: every FOL KB can be propositionalized so as to preserve entailment
θ = {x/John, y/John} works
Idea: propositionalize KB and query, apply resolution, return result
Unify(α, β) = θ if αθ = βθ
Problem: with function symbols, there are infinitely many ground terms,
e.g., F ather(F ather(F ather(John)))
Theorem: Herbrand (1930). If a sentence α is entailed by an FOL KB, p q θ
it is entailed by a finite subset of the propositional KB Knows(John, x) Knows(John, Jane) {x/Jane}
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, OJ)
Idea: For n = 0 to ∞ do Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M other(y))
create a propositional KB by instantiating with depth-n terms Knows(John, x) Knows(x, OJ)
see if α is entailed by this KB
Problem: works if α is entailed, loops if α is not entailed
Theorem: Turing (1936), Church (1936), entailment in FOL is semidecidable

Chapter 9 7 Chapter 9 10

Problems with propositionalization Unification

Propositionalization seems to generate lots of irrelevant sentences. We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ
E.g., from such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)
∀ x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) ⇒ Evil(x) θ = {x/John, y/John} works
King(John)
∀ y Greedy(y) Unify(α, β) = θ if αθ = βθ
Brother(Richard, John)
it seems obvious that Evil(John), but propositionalization produces lots of p q θ
facts such as Greedy(Richard) that are irrelevant Knows(John, x) Knows(John, Jane) {x/Jane}
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, OJ) {x/OJ, y/John}
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M other(y))
Knows(John, x) Knows(x, OJ)

Chapter 9 8 Chapter 9 11

Unification Unification
We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ 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) such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)
θ = {x/John, y/John} works θ = {x/John, y/John} works
Unify(α, β) = θ if αθ = βθ Unify(α, β) = θ if αθ = βθ

p q θ p q θ
Knows(John, x) Knows(John, Jane) Knows(John, x) Knows(John, Jane) {x/Jane}
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, OJ) Knows(John, x) Knows(y, OJ) {x/OJ, y/John}
Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M other(y)) Knows(John, x) Knows(y, M other(y)) {y/John, x/M other(John)}
Knows(John, x) Knows(x, OJ) Knows(John, x) Knows(x, OJ)

Chapter 9 9 Chapter 9 12
 Unification Example knowledge base contd.
We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ . . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
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, M other(y)) {y/John, x/M other(John)}
Knows(John, x) Knows(x, OJ) f ail
Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17, OJ)

Chapter 9 13 Chapter 9 16

Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP) Example knowledge base contd.

. . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
p1′, p2′, . . . , pn′, (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ . . . ∧ pn ⇒ q) American(x)∧W eapon(y)∧Sells(x, y, z)∧Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)
′
where pi θ = piθ for all i Nono . . . has some missiles
qθ

p1′ is King(John) p1 is King(x)

p2′ is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
θ is {x/John, y/John} q is Evil(x)
qθ is Evil(John)
GMP used with KB of definite clauses (exactly one positive literal)
All variables assumed universally quantified

Chapter 9 14 Chapter 9 17

Example knowledge base Example knowledge base contd.

The law says that it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile . . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
nations. The country Nono, an enemy of America, has some missiles, and American(x)∧W eapon(y)∧Sells(x, y, z)∧Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)
all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West, who is American. Nono . . . has some missiles, i.e., ∃ x Owns(N ono, x) ∧ M issile(x):
Owns(N ono, M1) and M issile(M1)
Prove that Col. West is a criminal . . . all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West

Chapter 9 15 Chapter 9 18
 Example knowledge base contd. Forward chaining algorithm
. . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
function FOL-FC-Ask(KB, α) returns a substitution or false
American(x)∧W eapon(y)∧Sells(x, y, z)∧Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)
repeat until new is empty
Nono . . . has some missiles, i.e., ∃ x Owns(N ono, x) ∧ M issile(x):
new ← { }
Owns(N ono, M1) and M issile(M1) for each sentence r in KB do
. . . all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West ( p 1 ∧ . . . ∧ p n ⇒ q) ← Standardize-Apart(r)
M issile(x) ∧ Owns(N ono, x) ⇒ Sells(W est, x, N ono) for each θ such that (p 1 ∧ . . . ∧ p n )θ = (p ′1 ∧ . . . ∧ p ′n )θ
Missiles are weapons: for some p ′1, . . . , p ′n in KB
q ′ ← Subst(θ, q )
if q ′ is not a renaming of a sentence already in KB or new then do
add q ′ to new
φ ← Unify(q ′, α)
if φ is not fail then return φ
add new to KB
return false

Chapter 9 19 Chapter 9 22

Example knowledge base contd. Forward chaining proof

. . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
American(x)∧W eapon(y)∧Sells(x, y, z)∧Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)
Nono . . . has some missiles, i.e., ∃ x Owns(N ono, x) ∧ M issile(x):
Owns(N ono, M1) and M issile(M1)
. . . all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West
M issile(x) ∧ Owns(N ono, x) ⇒ Sells(W est, x, N ono)
Missiles are weapons:
M issile(x) ⇒ W eapon(x)
An enemy of America counts as “hostile”:

American(West) Missile(M1) Owns(Nono,M1) Enemy(Nono,America)

Chapter 9 20 Chapter 9 23

Example knowledge base contd. Forward chaining proof

. . . it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
American(x)∧W eapon(y)∧Sells(x, y, z)∧Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)
Nono . . . has some missiles, i.e., ∃ x Owns(N ono, x) ∧ M issile(x):
Owns(N ono, M1) and M issile(M1)
. . . all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West
M issile(x) ∧ Owns(N ono, x) ⇒ Sells(W est, x, N ono) Weapon(M1) Sells(West,M1,Nono) Hostile(Nono)
Missiles are weapons:
M issile(x) ⇒ W eapon(x)
An enemy of America counts as “hostile”:
Enemy(x, America) ⇒ Hostile(x)
West, who is American . . . American(West) Missile(M1) Owns(Nono,M1) Enemy(Nono,America)
American(W est)
The country Nono, an enemy of America . . .
Enemy(N ono, America)

Chapter 9 21 Chapter 9 24
 Forward chaining proof Backward chaining example

Criminal(West) Criminal(West)

Weapon(M1) Sells(West,M1,Nono) Hostile(Nono)

American(West) Missile(M1) Owns(Nono,M1) Enemy(Nono,America)

Chapter 9 25 Chapter 9 28

Properties of forward chaining Backward chaining example

Sound and complete for first-order definite clauses Criminal(West) {x/West}
(proof similar to propositional proof)
Datalog = first-order definite clauses + no functions (e.g., crime KB)
FC terminates for Datalog in poly iterations: at most p · nk literals
May not terminate in general (with functions) if α is not entailed American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z)

This is unavoidable: entailment with definite clauses is semidecidable

Chapter 9 26 Chapter 9 29

Backward chaining algorithm Backward chaining example

function FOL-BC-Ask(KB, goals, θ) returns a set of substitutions Criminal(West) {x/West}

inputs: KB, a knowledge base
goals, a list of conjuncts forming a query (θ already applied)
θ, the current substitution, initially the empty substitution { }
local variables: answers, a set of substitutions, initially empty
if goals is empty then return {θ} American(West) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z)
q ′ ← Subst(θ, First(goals)) {}
for each sentence r in KB
where Standardize-Apart(r) = ( p 1 ∧ . . . ∧ p n ⇒ q)
and θ′ ← Unify(q, q ′) succeeds
new goals ← [ p 1, . . . , p n |Rest(goals)]
answers ← FOL-BC-Ask(KB, new goals, Compose(θ′ , θ)) ∪ answers
return answers

Chapter 9 27 Chapter 9 30
 Backward chaining example Backward chaining example

Criminal(West) {x/West} Criminal(West) {x/West, y/M1, z/Nono}

American(West) Weapon(y) Sells(West,M1,z)

Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(Nono)
Hostile(z) American(West) Weapon(y) Sells(West,M1,z) Hostile(Nono)
{} {} { z/Nono }

Missile(y) Missile(y) Missile(M1) Owns(Nono,M1) Enemy(Nono,America)

{ y/M1 } {} {} {}

Chapter 9 31 Chapter 9 34

Backward chaining example Properties of backward chaining

Criminal(West) {x/West, y/M1} 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)
American(West) Weapon(y) Sells(West,M1,z)
Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(Nono)
Hostile(z) ⇒ fix using caching of previous results (extra space!)
{}
Widely used (without improvements!) for logic programming

Missile(y)
{ y/M1 }

Chapter 9 32 Chapter 9 35

Backward chaining example Logic programming

Criminal(West) {x/West, y/M1, z/Nono} Sound bite: computation as inference on logical KBs
Logic programming Ordinary programming
1. Identify problem Identify problem
2. Assemble information Assemble information
3. Tea break Figure out solution
American(West) Weapon(y) Sells(West,M1,z) Hostile(z) 4. Encode information in KB Program solution
{} { z/Nono } 5. Encode problem instance as facts Encode problem instance as data
6. Ask queries Apply program to data
7. Find false facts Debug procedural errors
Missile(y) Missile(M1) Owns(Nono,M1)
Should be easier to debug Capital(N ewY ork, U S) than x := x + 2 !
{ y/M1 }

Chapter 9 33 Chapter 9 36
 Prolog systems Conversion to CNF
Basis: backward chaining with Horn clauses + bells & whistles Everyone who loves all animals is loved by someone:
Widely used in Europe, Japan (basis of 5th Generation project) ∀ x [∀ y Animal(y) ⇒ Loves(x, y)] ⇒ [∃ y Loves(y, x)]
Compilation techniques ⇒ approaching a billion LIPS
1. Eliminate biconditionals and implications
Program = set of clauses = head :- literal1, . . . literaln.
∀ x [¬∀ y ¬Animal(y) ∨ Loves(x, y)] ∨ [∃ y Loves(y, x)]
criminal(X) :- american(X), weapon(Y), sells(X,Y,Z), hostile(Z).
2. Move ¬ inwards: ¬∀ x, p ≡ ∃ x ¬p, ¬∃ x, p ≡ ∀ x ¬p:
Depth-first, left-to-right backward chaining
Built-in predicates for arithmetic etc., e.g., X is Y*Z+3 ∀ x [∃ y ¬(¬Animal(y) ∨ Loves(x, y))] ∨ [∃ y Loves(y, x)]
Closed-world assumption (“negation as failure”) ∀ x [∃ y ¬¬Animal(y) ∧ ¬Loves(x, y)] ∨ [∃ y Loves(y, x)]
e.g., given alive(X) :- not dead(X). ∀ x [∃ y Animal(y) ∧ ¬Loves(x, y)] ∨ [∃ y Loves(y, x)]
alive(joe) succeeds if dead(joe) fails

Chapter 9 37 Chapter 9 40

Prolog examples Conversion to CNF contd.

Depth-first search from a start state X: 3. Standardize variables: each quantifier should use a different one

dfs(X) :- goal(X). ∀ x [∃ y Animal(y) ∧ ¬Loves(x, y)] ∨ [∃ z Loves(z, x)]

dfs(X) :- successor(X,S),dfs(S).
4. Skolemize: a more general form of existential instantiation.
No need to loop over S: successor succeeds for each Each existential variable is replaced by a Skolem function
of the enclosing universally quantified variables:
Appending two lists to produce a third:
∀ x [Animal(F (x)) ∧ ¬Loves(x, F (x))] ∨ Loves(G(x), x)
append([],Y,Y).
append([X|L],Y,[X|Z]) :- append(L,Y,Z). 5. Drop universal quantifiers:
[Animal(F (x)) ∧ ¬Loves(x, F (x))] ∨ Loves(G(x), x)
query: append(A,B,[1,2]) ?
answers: A=[] B=[1,2] 6. Distribute ∧ over ∨:
A=[1] B=[2]
A=[1,2] B=[] [Animal(F (x)) ∨ Loves(G(x), x)] ∧ [¬Loves(x, F (x)) ∨ Loves(G(x), x)]

Chapter 9 38 Chapter 9 41

Resolution: brief summary Resolution proof: definite clauses

Full first-order version: American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z) Criminal(x) Criminal(West)
>

>

>

>
L

ℓ1 ∨ · · · ∨ ℓk , m1 ∨ · · · ∨ mn
American(West) American(West) Weapon(y) Sells(West,y,z) Hostile(z)
>

>

>
L

(ℓ1 ∨ · · · ∨ ℓi−1 ∨ ℓi+1 ∨ · · · ∨ ℓk ∨ m1 ∨ · · · ∨ mj−1 ∨ mj+1 ∨ · · · ∨ mn )θ

Missile(x) Weapon(x) Weapon(y) Sells(West,y,z) Hostile(z)
>

>

>
L

where Unify(ℓi, ¬mj ) = θ.

Missile(M1) Missile(y) Sells(West,y,z) Hostile(z)
>

>
L

For example,
¬Rich(x) ∨ U nhappy(x) Missile(x) Owns(Nono,x) Sells(West,x,Nono) Sells(West,M1,z) Hostile(z)
>

>

>
L

Rich(Ken)
Missile(M1) Missile(M1) Owns(Nono,M1) Hostile(Nono)
>

>
L

U nhappy(Ken)
Owns(Nono,M1) Owns(Nono,M1) Hostile(Nono)
>
L

with θ = {x/Ken}
Enemy(x,America) Hostile(x) Hostile(Nono)
Apply resolution steps to CN F (KB ∧ ¬α); complete for FOL
>
L

Enemy(Nono,America) Enemy(Nono,America)

Chapter 9 39 Chapter 9 42