Logical agents

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 1
 Outline
♦ Knowledge-based agents
♦ Wumpus world
♦ Logic in general—models and entailment
♦ Propositional (Boolean) logic
♦ Equivalence, validity, satisfiability
♦ Inference rules and theorem proving
– forward chaining
– backward chaining
– resolution

Chapter 7 2
 Knowledge bases
Inference engine domain−independent algorithms

Knowledge base domain−specific content

Knowledge base = 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
Agents can be viewed at the knowledge level
i.e., what they know, regardless of how implemented
Or at the implementation level
i.e., data structures in KB and algorithms that manipulate them

Chapter 7 3
 A simple knowledge-based agent

function KB-Agent( percept) returns an action

static: KB, a knowledge base
t, a counter, initially 0, indicating time
Tell(KB, Make-Percept-Sentence( percept, t))
action ← Ask(KB, Make-Action-Query(t))
Tell(KB, Make-Action-Sentence(action, t))
t←t + 1
return action

The agent must be able to:

Represent states, actions, etc.
Incorporate new percepts
Update internal representations of the world
Deduce hidden properties of the world
Deduce appropriate actions
e.g. Wumpus World
Chapter 7 4
 Wumpus World - The story
”Lurking somewhere in the cave is the terrible wumpus, a beast that eats
anyone who enters its room. The wumpus can be shot by an agent, but the
agent has only one arrow. Some rooms contain bottomless pits that will trap
anyone who wanders into these rooms (except for the wumpus, which is too
big to fall in). The only mitigating feature of this bleak environment is the
possibility of finding a heap of gold”

Chapter 7 5
 Wumpus World PEAS description
Performance measure
gold +1000, death -1000
-1 per step, -10 for using the arrow
The game ends either when the agent dies or when
the agent climbs out of the cave.
Environment
A 4 × 4 grid of rooms.
Breeze
The agent always starts in t[1,1], facing to the 4 Stench
PIT

right. Breeze
Breeze

The locations of the gold and the wumpus 3 Stench

Gold
PIT

are chosen randomly, with a uniform distribution, Stench Breeze

2
from the squares other than the start square.
Each square other than the start can be a pit, 1
Breeze
PIT
Breeze

with probability 0.2. START

1 2 3 4

Actuators Left turn, Right turn,

Chapter 7 6
 Forward, Grab, Release, Shoot, Climb
Sensors 5 sensors, each gives a single bit of information
In the square containing the wumpus and in the directly (not diagonally)
adjacent squares, the agent will perceive a Stench.
In the squares directly adjacent to a pit, the agent will perceive a Breeze.
In the square where the gold is, the agent will perceive a Glitter.
When an agent walks into a wall, it will perceive a Bump.
When the wumpus is killed, it emits a woeful Scream that can be perceived
anywhere in the cave.
[Stench, Breeze, None, None, None]

Chapter 7 7
 Wumpus world characterization
Observable??

Chapter 7 8
 Wumpus world characterization
Observable?? No—only local perception
Deterministic??

Chapter 7 9
 Wumpus world characterization
Observable?? No—only local perception
Deterministic?? Yes—outcomes exactly specified
Episodic??

Chapter 7 10
 Wumpus world characterization
Observable?? No—only local perception
Deterministic?? Yes—outcomes exactly specified
Episodic?? No—sequential at the level of actions
Static??

Chapter 7 11
 Wumpus world characterization
Observable?? No—only local perception
Deterministic?? Yes—outcomes exactly specified
Episodic?? No—sequential at the level of actions
Static?? Yes—Wumpus and Pits do not move
Discrete??

Chapter 7 12
 Wumpus world characterization
Observable?? No—only local perception
Deterministic?? Yes—outcomes exactly specified
Episodic?? No—sequential at the level of actions
Static?? Yes—Wumpus and Pits do not move
Discrete?? Yes
Single-agent??

Chapter 7 13
 Wumpus world characterization
Observable?? No—only local perception
Deterministic?? Yes—outcomes exactly specified
Episodic?? No—sequential at the level of actions
Static?? Yes—Wumpus and Pits do not move
Discrete?? Yes
Single-agent?? Yes—Wumpus is essentially a natural feature

Chapter 7 14
 Exploring a wumpus world

Stench Breeze
4 PIT

Breeze
Breeze
3 Stench PIT
Gold

Stench Breeze
2

Breeze Breeze
1 PIT
START

1 2 3 4

Chapter 7 15
Exploring a wumpus world

Chapter 7 16
 Stench Breeze
4 PIT

Breeze
Breeze
3 Stench PIT
Gold

Stench Breeze
2

Breeze Breeze
1 PIT
START

1 2 3 4

Chapter 7 17
 Other tight spots

P?

Breeze in (1,2) and (2,1)

B OK P? ⇒ no safe actions
P?
A

OK B OK
Assuming pits uniformly distributed,
A A
P? (2,2) has pit with prob ?????

S
A Smell in (1,1)
⇒ cannot move

Chapter 7 18
 Other tight spots

P?

Breeze in (1,2) and (2,1)

B OK P? ⇒ no safe actions
P?
A

OK B OK
Assuming pits uniformly distributed,
A A
P? (2,2) has pit w/ prob ????

Smell in (1,1)
⇒ cannot move
Can use a strategy of coercion:
shoot straight ahead
S wumpus was there ⇒ dead ⇒ safe
A wumpus wasn’t there ⇒ safe

Chapter 7 19
 Logic in general
Logics are formal languages for representing information
such that conclusions can be drawn
Syntax defines the sentences in the language
Semantics define the “meaning” of sentences;
i.e., define truth of a sentence in a world
E.g., the language of arithmetic
x + 2 ≥ y is a sentence; x2 + y > is not a sentence
x + 2 ≥ y is true iff the number x + 2 is no less than the number y
x + 2 ≥ y is true in a world where x = 7, y = 1
x + 2 ≥ y is false in a world where x = 0, y = 6

Chapter 7 20
 Entailment
Entailment means that one thing follows from another:
KB |= α
Knowledge base KB entails sentence α
if and only if
α is true in all worlds where KB is true
E.g., the KB containing “the Giants won” and “the Reds won”
entails “Either the Giants won or the Reds won”
E.g., x + y = 4 entails 4 = x + y
Entailment is a relationship between sentences (i.e., syntax)
that is based on semantics

Chapter 7 21
 Models
Logicians typically think in terms of models, which are formally
structured worlds with respect to which truth can be evaluated
We say m is a model of a sentence α if α is true in m
M (α) is the set of all models of α
Then KB |= α if and only if M (KB) ⊆ M (α)
x
x x x
E.g. KB = Giants won and Reds won x
x
x x
x

M( ) x
α = Giants won x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x x
x x
x x x x
xx x xx
x
x x
x x x

M(KB) x
x x x
x x
x

Chapter 7 22
 Entailment in the wumpus world

Situation after detecting nothing in [1,1],

moving right, breeze in [2,1]
? ?
B

Consider possible models for ?s

assuming only pits
A A
?
3 Boolean choices ⇒ 8 possible models

Chapter 7 23
 Wumpus models

2 PIT
2

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3

2 PIT
2 PIT
2
Breeze
Breeze
1 PIT
1
Breeze
1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

2 PIT PIT
2 PIT

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
2 PIT PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
Breeze
1 PIT

1 2 3

Chapter 7 24
 Wumpus models

2 PIT
2

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
KB

2 PIT
2 PIT
2
Breeze
Breeze
1 PIT
1
Breeze
1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

2 PIT PIT
2 PIT

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
2 PIT PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
Breeze
1 PIT

1 2 3

KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

Chapter 7 25
 Wumpus models

2 PIT
2

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
KB
1
2 PIT
2 PIT
2
Breeze
Breeze
1 PIT
1
Breeze
1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

2 PIT PIT
2 PIT

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
2 PIT PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
Breeze
1 PIT

1 2 3

KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

α1 = “[1,2] is safe”, KB |= α1, proved by model checking
Chapter 7 26
 Wumpus models

2 PIT
2

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
KB

2 PIT
2 PIT
2
Breeze
Breeze
1 PIT
1
Breeze
1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

2 PIT PIT
2 PIT

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
2 PIT PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
Breeze
1 PIT

1 2 3

KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

Chapter 7 27
 Wumpus models

2 PIT
2

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
2
1 2 3
1 2 3
KB

2 PIT
2 PIT
2
Breeze
Breeze
1 PIT
1
Breeze
1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

2 PIT PIT
2 PIT

Breeze
1
Breeze
1 PIT
2 PIT PIT
1 2 3
1 2 3
Breeze
1 PIT

1 2 3

KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

α2 = “[2,2] is safe”, KB 6|= α2

Chapter 7 28
 Inference
KB ⊢i α = sentence α can be derived from KB by procedure i
Consequences of KB are a haystack; α is a needle.
Entailment = needle in haystack; inference = finding it
Soundness: i is sound if
whenever KB ⊢i α, it is also true that KB |= α
Completeness: i is complete if
whenever KB |= α, it is also true that KB ⊢i α

Chapter 7 29
 Propositional logic: Syntax
Propositional logic is the simplest logic—illustrates basic ideas
The proposition symbols P1, P2 etc are sentences
If S is a sentence, ¬S is a sentence (negation)
If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1 ∧ S2 is a sentence (conjunction)
If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1 ∨ S2 is a sentence (disjunction)
If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1 ⇒ S2 is a sentence (implication)
If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1 ⇔ S2 is a sentence (biconditional)

Chapter 7 30
 Propositional logic: Semantics
Each model specifies true/false for each proposition symbol
E.g. P1,2 P2,2 P3,1
true true f alse
(With these symbols, 8 possible models, can be enumerated automatically.)
Rules for evaluating truth with respect to a model m:
¬S is true iff S is false
S1 ∧ S2 is true iff S1 is true and S2 is true
S1 ∨ S2 is true iff S1 is true or S2 is true
S1 ⇒ S2 is true iff S1 is false or S2 is true
i.e., is false iff S1 is true and S2 is false
S1 ⇔ S2 is true iff S1 ⇒ S2 is true and S2 ⇒ S1 is true
Simple recursive process evaluates an arbitrary sentence, e.g.,
¬P1,2 ∧ (P2,2 ∨ P3,1) = true ∧ (f alse ∨ true) = true ∧ true = true

Chapter 7 31
 Truth tables for connectives
P Q ¬P P ∧Q P ∨Q P ⇒Q P ⇔Q
false false true false false true true
false true true false true true false
true false false false true false false
true true false true true true true

Chapter 7 32
 Wumpus world sentences
Let Pi,j be true if there is a pit in [i, j].
Let Bi,j be true if there is a breeze in [i, j].
¬P1,1
¬B1,1
B2,1
“Pits cause breezes in adjacent squares”

Chapter 7 33
 Wumpus world sentences
Let Pi,j be true if there is a pit in [i, j].
Let Bi,j be true if there is a breeze in [i, j].
R1 : ¬P1,1
R2 : ¬B1,1
R3 : B2,1
“Pits cause breezes in adjacent squares”
R4 : B1,1 ⇔ (P1,2 ∨ P2,1)
R5 : B2,1 ⇔ (P1,1 ∨ P2,2 ∨ P3,1)
“A square is breezy if and only if there is an adjacent pit”

Chapter 7 34
 Truth tables for inference
B1,1 B2,1 P1,1 P1,2 P2,1 P2,2 P3,1 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 KB
false false false false false false false true true true true false false
false false false false false false true true true false true false false
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
false true false false false false false true true false true true false
false true false false false false true true true true true true true
false true false false false true false true true true true true true
false true false false false true true true true true true true true
false true false false true false false true false false true true false
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
true true true true true true true false true true false true false

Enumerate rows: if KB is true in row, check that α is too

R1 : ¬P1,1
R2 : B1,1 ⇔ (P1,2 ∨ P2,1)
R3 : B2,1 ⇔ (P1,1 ∨ P2,2 ∨ P3,1)
R4 : ¬B1,1
R5 : B2,1 α = P1,2
Chapter 7 35
 Inference by enumeration
Depth-first enumeration of all models is sound and complete

function TT-Entails?(KB, α) returns true or false

inputs: KB, the knowledge base, a sentence in propositional logic
α, the query, a sentence in propositional logic
symbols ← a list of the proposition symbols in KB and α
return TT-Check-All(KB, α, symbols, [ ])

function TT-Check-All(KB, α, symbols, model) returns true or false

if Empty?(symbols) then
if PL-True?(KB, model) then return PL-True?(α, model)
else return true
else do
P ← First(symbols); rest ← Rest(symbols)
return TT-Check-All(KB, α, rest, Extend(P , true, model)) and
TT-Check-All(KB, α, rest, Extend(P , false, model))

Chapter 7 36
 Logical equivalence
Two sentences are logically equivalent iff true in same models:
α ≡ β if and only if α |= β and β |= α

(α ∧ β) ≡ (β ∧ α) commutativity of ∧
(α ∨ β) ≡ (β ∨ α) commutativity of ∨
((α ∧ β) ∧ γ) ≡ (α ∧ (β ∧ γ)) associativity of ∧
((α ∨ β) ∨ γ) ≡ (α ∨ (β ∨ γ)) associativity of ∨
¬(¬α) ≡ α double-negation elimination
(α ⇒ β) ≡ (¬β ⇒ ¬α) contraposition
(α ⇒ β) ≡ (¬α ∨ β) implication elimination
(α ⇔ β) ≡ ((α ⇒ β) ∧ (β ⇒ α)) biconditional elimination
¬(α ∧ β) ≡ (¬α ∨ ¬β) De Morgan
¬(α ∨ β) ≡ (¬α ∧ ¬β) De Morgan
(α ∧ (β ∨ γ)) ≡ ((α ∧ β) ∨ (α ∧ γ)) distributivity of ∧ over ∨
(α ∨ (β ∧ γ)) ≡ ((α ∨ β) ∧ (α ∨ γ)) distributivity of ∨ over ∧

Chapter 7 37
 Validity and satisfiability
A sentence is valid if it is true in all models,
e.g., T rue, A ∨ ¬A, A ⇒ A, (A ∧ (A ⇒ B)) ⇒ B
Validity is connected to inference via the Deduction Theorem:
KB |= α if and only if (KB ⇒ α) is valid
A sentence is satisfiable if it is true in some model
e.g., A ∨ B, C
A sentence is unsatisfiable if it is true in no models
e.g., A ∧ ¬A
Satisfiability is connected to inference via the following:
KB |= α if and only if (KB ∧ ¬α) is unsatisfiable
i.e., prove α by reductio ad absurdum

Chapter 7 38
 Proof methods
Proof methods divide into (roughly) two kinds:

Application of inference rules

– Legitimate (sound) generation of new sentences from old
– Proof = a sequence of inference rule applications
Can use inference rules as operators in a standard search alg.
– Typically require translation of sentences into a normal form
Model checking
truth table enumeration (always exponential in n)
improved backtracking, e.g., Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland
heuristic search in model space (sound but incomplete)
e.g., min-conflicts-like hill-climbing algorithms

Chapter 7 39
 Forward and backward chaining
Horn Form (restricted)
KB = conjunction of Horn clauses
Horn clause =
♦ proposition symbol; or
♦ (conjunction of symbols) ⇒ symbol
E.g., C ∧ (B ⇒ A) ∧ (C ∧ D ⇒ B)
Horn clause - disjunction of literals of which at most one is positive
E.g., ¬L11 ∨ ¬Breeze ∨ ¬B11
Modus Ponens (for Horn Form): complete for Horn KBs
α1, . . . , αn, α1 ∧ · · · ∧ αn ⇒ β
β
Can be used with forward chaining or backward chaining.
These algorithms are very natural and run in linear time

Chapter 7 40
 Forward chaining
Idea: fire any rule whose premises are satisfied in the KB,
add its conclusion to the KB, until query is found
Q
P ⇒ Q
L∧M ⇒ P P
B∧L ⇒ M
A∧P ⇒ L M

A∧B ⇒ L L
A
B
A B

Chapter 7 41
 Forward chaining algorithm

function PL-FC-Entails?(KB, q) returns true or false

inputs: KB, the knowledge base, a set of propositional Horn clauses
q, the query, a proposition symbol
local variables: count, a table, indexed by clause, initially the number of premises
inferred, a table, indexed by symbol, each entry initially false
agenda, a list of symbols, initially the symbols known in KB
while agenda is not empty do
p ← Pop(agenda)
unless inferred[p] do
inferred[p] ← true
for each Horn clause c in whose premise p appears do
decrement count[c]
if count[c] = 0 then do
if Head[c] = q then return true
Push(Head[c], agenda)
return false

Chapter 7 42
Forward chaining example

1
P
2
M
2
L

2 2

A B

Chapter 7 43
Forward chaining example

1
P
2
M
2
L

1 1

A B

Chapter 7 44
Forward chaining example

1
P
2
M
1
L

1 0

A B

Chapter 7 45
Forward chaining example

1
P
1
M
0
L

1 0

A B

Chapter 7 46
Forward chaining example

1
P
0
M
0
L

1 0

A B

Chapter 7 47
Forward chaining example

0
P
0
M
0
L

0 0

A B

Chapter 7 48
Forward chaining example

0
P
0
M
0
L

0 0

A B

Chapter 7 49
Forward chaining example

0
P
0
M
0
L

0 0

A B

Chapter 7 50
 Backward chaining
Idea: work backwards from the query q:
to prove q by BC,
check if q is known already, or
prove by BC all premises of some rule concluding q
Avoid loops: check if new subgoal is already on the goal stack
Avoid repeated work: check if new subgoal
1) has already been proved true, or
2) has already failed

Chapter 7 51
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 52
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 53
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 54
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 55
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 56
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 57
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 58
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 59
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 60
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 61
Backward chaining example

A B

Chapter 7 62
 Forward vs. backward chaining
FC is data-driven, cf. automatic, unconscious processing,
e.g., object recognition, routine decisions
May do lots of work that is irrelevant to the goal
BC is goal-driven, appropriate for problem-solving,
e.g., Where are my keys? How do I get into a PhD program?
Complexity of BC can be much less than linear in size of KB

Chapter 7 63
 Resolution
Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF—universal)
conjunction of disjunctions
| {z
of literals}
clauses
E.g., (A ∨ ¬B) ∧ (B ∨ ¬C ∨ ¬D)
Resolution inference rule (for CNF): complete for propositional logic
ℓ1 ∨ · · · ∨ ℓk , m1 ∨ · · · ∨ mn
ℓ1 ∨ · · · ∨ ℓi−1 ∨ ℓi+1 ∨ · · · ∨ ℓk ∨ m1 ∨ · · · ∨ mj−1 ∨ mj+1 ∨ · · · ∨ mn
where ℓi and mj are complementary literals. E.g.,
P?

P1,3 ∨ P2,2, ¬P2,2 P

B OK P?

P1,3 A A
OK

OK S OK

Resolution is sound and complete for propositional logic A A W

Chapter 7 64
 Conversion to CNF
B1,1 ⇔ (P1,2 ∨ P2,1)
1. Eliminate ⇔, replacing α ⇔ β with (α ⇒ β) ∧ (β ⇒ α).
(B1,1 ⇒ (P1,2 ∨ P2,1)) ∧ ((P1,2 ∨ P2,1) ⇒ B1,1)
2. Eliminate ⇒, replacing α ⇒ β with ¬α ∨ β.
(¬B1,1 ∨ P1,2 ∨ P2,1) ∧ (¬(P1,2 ∨ P2,1) ∨ B1,1)
3. Move ¬ inwards using de Morgan’s rules and double-negation:
(¬B1,1 ∨ P1,2 ∨ P2,1) ∧ ((¬P1,2 ∧ ¬P2,1) ∨ B1,1)
4. Apply distributivity law (∨ over ∧) and flatten:
(¬B1,1 ∨ P1,2 ∨ P2,1) ∧ (¬P1,2 ∨ B1,1) ∧ (¬P2,1 ∨ B1,1)

Chapter 7 65
 Resolution algorithm
Proof by contradiction, i.e., show KB ∧ ¬α unsatisfiable

function PL-Resolution(KB, α) returns true or false

inputs: KB, the knowledge base, a sentence in propositional logic
α, the query, a sentence in propositional logic
clauses ← the set of clauses in the CNF representation of KB ∧ ¬α
new ← { }
loop do
for each Ci, Cj in clauses do
resolvents ← PL-Resolve(Ci, Cj )
if resolvents contains the empty clause then return true
new ← new ∪ resolvents
if new ⊆ clauses then return false
clauses ← clauses ∪ new

Chapter 7 66
 Resolution example
KB = (B1,1 ⇔ (P1,2 ∨ P2,1)) ∧ ¬B1,1 α = ¬P1,2

(¬B1,1 ∨ P1,2 ∨ P2,1) ∧ (¬P1,2 ∨ B1,1) ∧ (¬P2,1 ∨ B1,1) ∨ ¬B1,1 ∨ P1,2

P2,1 B1,1 B1,1 P1,2 P2,1 P1,2 B1,1 B1,1 P1,2

B1,1 P1,2 B1,1 P P P1,2 B1,1 P2,1 B1,1 P P P2,1 P2,1 P1,2
1,2 2,1 1,2 2,1

Chapter 7 67
 Summary
Logical 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
– soundess: derivations produce only entailed sentences
– completeness: derivations can produce all entailed sentences
Wumpus world requires the ability to represent partial and negated informa-
tion, reason by cases, etc.
Forward, backward chaining are linear-time, complete for Horn clauses
Resolution is complete for propositional logic
Propositional logic lacks expressive power

Chapter 7 68