Knowledge Representation

and Reasoning

KNOWLEDGE BASED
AGENTS
Logical Agents
 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
“Navy sedan with crimson hatches”
: ‫مشکالت وب موجود‬
Semantic Matching

Navy = Blue A Red Car with

Crimson = Red Blue Doors
Sedan = Car
Hatch = Door
A Navy Sedan with
Crimson Hatches

A blue Car AND a

Red Door

A car,
A Red Door,
A Blue chair
 Knowledge bases

• 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 next - 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
Knowledge Base Vs Database

More Rules Less Rules

Facts Less More Facts

Explicit Rules and Explicit Facts and

Facts Implicit Rules
Experts update Clerks update
Main Memory Based Disk Based
 Knowledge Based Systems
• Knowledge based systems are artificial intelligent tools
working in a narrow domain to provide intelligent decisions
with justification. Knowledge is acquired and represented
using various knowledge representation techniques: rules,
frames and scripts.
• Knowledge-based systems are systems based on the methods
and techniques of Artificial Intelligence. Their core
components are the knowledge base and the inference
mechanisms
 Knowledge Representation
• Knowledge representation and knowledge engineering are
central to AI research.
• Many of the problems machines are expected to solve will
require extensive knowledge about the world.
• Among the things that AI needs to represent are: objects,
properties, categories and relations between
objects; situations, events, states and time; causes and
effects; knowledge about knowledge (what we know about
what other people know); and many other, less well
researched domains.
Issues in Knowledge Representation

• How do people represent knowledge?

• What is the nature of knowledge and how do we
represent it?
• Should a representation scheme deal with a particular
domain or should it be general purpose?
• How expressive is a representation scheme or formal
language?
• Should the scheme be declarative or procedural?
A simple knowledge-based agent

• 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
Wumpus World PEAS description
• Performance measure
– gold +1000, death -1000
– -1 per step, -10 for using the arrow
• Environment
– 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

• Sensors: Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream

• Actuators: Left turn, Right turn, Forward, Grab, Release, Shoot
• Sensors: The agent has five sensors, each of which 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.
1. [None, None, None, None, None]
2. [None, Breeze, None, None, None].
3. [Stench, None, None, None, None]
4. [Stench, Breeze, Glitter, None, None].
 Wumpus world characterization
• Fully 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

Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
 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
 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
 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 iff M(KB)  M(α)

– E.g. KB = Giants won and Reds

won α = Giants won
 Entailment in the wumpus world

Situation after detecting nothing

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

Consider possible models for

KB assuming only pits

3 Boolean choices  8 possible

models
Wumpus models
 Wumpus models

• KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

 Wumpus models

• KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

• α1 = "[1,2] is safe", KB ╞ α1, proved by model checking
 Wumpus models

• KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

 Wumpus models

• KB = wumpus-world rules + observations

• α2 = "[2,2] is safe", KB ╞ α2
 Inference
• KB ├i α = sentence α can be derived from KB by procedure I

• Soundness: i is sound if whenever KB ├i α, it is also true that KB╞ α

• Soundness means that you cannot prove anything that's wrong.

• Completeness: i is complete if whenever KB╞ α, it is also true that KB ├i α

• Completeness means that you can prove anything that's right.

• Preview: we will define a logic (first-order logic) which is expressive

enough to say almost anything of interest, and for which there exists a
sound and complete inference procedure.

• That is, the procedure will answer any question whose answer follows from
what is known by the KB.
• The algorithm is sound because it implements directly the definition of
entailment, and complete because it works for any KB.
 Propositional logic: Syntax
• Propositional logic is the simplest logic – illustrates basic
ideas (Boolean Logic)

• 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/and)

– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (disjunction/or)

– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (implication/implies)

– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (biconditional-if and

only if)
Propositional logic: Semantics
Each model specifies true/false for each proposition symbol

E.g. P1,2 P2,2 P3,1

false true false

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 S1is 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 andS2S1 is true

Simple recursive process evaluates an arbitrary sentence, e.g.,

P1,2  (P2,2  P3,1) = true  (true  false) = true  true = true

BNF(Backus-Normal Form)
Formal grammar of propositional logic
Truth tables for connectives
 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"

B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)
B2,1  (P1,1  P2,2  P3,1)
Truth tables for inference
 Logical equivalence
• Two sentences are {logically equivalent} iff true in same
models: α ≡ ß iff α╞ β and β╞ α
 Validity and satisfiability
A sentence is valid if it is true in all models,
e.g., True, 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
If a sentence is Valid then it is tautology

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
 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 algorithm

• Typically require transformation of sentences into a normal form

– Model checking
• truth table enumeration (always exponential in n)

• improved backtracking, e.g., Davis--Putnam-Logemann-Loveland (DPLL)

• heuristic search in model space (sound but incomplete)

e.g., min-conflicts-like hill-climbing algorithms
 Resolution
Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF)
conjunction of disjunctions of literals
clauses
E.g., (A  B)  (B  C  D)

• Resolution inference rule (for CNF):

li …  lk, m1  …  mn

li  …  li-1  li+1  …  lk  m1  …  mj-1  mj+1 ...  mn

where li and mj are complementary literals.

E.g., P1,3  P2,2, P2,2

P1,3
Resolution is sound and complete for propositional logic
• Soundness means that you cannot prove anything that's wrong.
• Completeness means that you can prove anything that's right.
Rules for Inference for Propositional Logic
 Conversion to CNF
B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)β

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)

 Resolution algorithm
• Proof by contradiction, i.e., show KBα unsatisfiable
 Resolution example

• KB = (B1,1  (P1,2 P2,1))  B1,1 α = P1,2

• α ╞ β if and only if the sentence (α  β ) is

unsatisfiabile (refutation or proof by contradiction)
 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)

• Modus Ponens (for Horn Form): complete for Horn KBs

α1, … ,αn, α1  …  αn  β

• Can be used with forward chaining or backward chaining.

• These algorithms are very natural and run in linear time
 Forward chaining

• Idea: fire any rule whose premises are satisfied in the KB,
– add its conclusion to the KB, until query is found
 Forward chaining algorithm

• Forward chaining is sound and complete for Horn KB

Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
 Proof of completeness

• FC derives every atomic sentence that is entailed by

KB

1. FC reaches a fixed point where no new atomic sentences

are derived
2. Consider the final state as a model m, assigning true/false
to symbols
3. Every clause in the original KB is true in m
a1  …  a k  b

4. Hence m is a model of KB
5. If KB╞ q, q is true in every model of KB, including m
 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 sub-goal is already on the goal stack

Avoid repeated work: check if new sub-goal

1. has already been proved true, or

2. has already failed
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
• FC is data-driven, 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