First-Order Logic in Artificial intelligence

In the topic of Propositional logic, we have seen that how to represent statements using
propositional logic. But unfortunately, in propositional logic, we can only represent the facts, which
are either true or false. PL is not sufficient to represent the complex sentences or natural language
statements. The propositional logic has very limited expressive power. Consider the following
sentence, which we cannot represent using PL logic.

o "Some humans are intelligent", or

o "Sachin likes cricket."

To represent the above statements, PL logic is not sufficient, so we required some more powerful
logic, such as first-order logic.

First-Order logic:

o First-order logic is another way of knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. It is an

extension to propositional logic.

o FOL is sufficiently expressive to represent the natural language statements in a concise way.

o First-order logic is also known as Predicate logic or First-order predicate logic. First-order
logic is a powerful language that develops information about the objects in a more easy way
and can also express the relationship between those objects.

o First-order logic (like natural language) does not only assume that the world contains facts
like propositional logic but also assumes the following things in the world:

o Objects: A, B, people, numbers, colors, wars, theories, squares, pits, wumpus, ......

o Relations: It can be unary relation such as: red, round, is adjacent, or n-any relation
such as: the sister of, brother of, has color, comes between

o Function: Father of, best friend, third inning of, end of, ......

o As a natural language, first-order logic also has two main parts:

o Syntax

o Semantics

Syntax of First-Order logic:

The syntax of FOL determines which collection of symbols is a logical expression in first-order logic.
The basic syntactic elements of first-order logic are symbols. We write statements in short-hand
notation in FOL.

Basic Elements of First-order logic:

Following are the basic elements of FOL syntax:

Constant++ 1, 2, A, John, Mumbai, cat,....

Variables x, y, z, a, b,....
 Predicates Brother, Father, >,....

Function sqrt, LeftLegOf, ....

Connectives ∧, ∨, ¬, ⇒, ⇔

Equality ==

Quantifier ∀, ∃

Atomic sentences:

o Atomic sentences are the most basic sentences of first-order logic. These sentences are
formed from a predicate symbol followed by a parenthesis with a sequence of terms.

o We can represent atomic sentences as Predicate (term1, term2, ......, term n).

Example: Ravi and Ajay are brothers: => Brothers(Ravi, Ajay).

Chinky is a cat: => cat (Chinky).

Complex Sentences:

o Complex sentences are made by combining atomic sentences using connectives.

First-order logic statements can be divided into two parts:

o Subject: Subject is the main part of the statement.

o Predicate: A predicate can be defined as a relation, which binds two atoms together in a
statement.

Consider the statement: "x is an integer.", it consists of two parts, the first part x is the subject of
the statement and second part "is an integer," is known as a predicate.

Quantifiers in First-order logic:

o A quantifier is a language element which generates quantification, and quantification

specifies the quantity of specimen in the universe of discourse.

o These are the symbols that permit to determine or identify the range and scope of the
variable in the logical expression. There are two types of quantifier:
 o Universal Quantifier, (for all, everyone, everything)

o Existential quantifier, (for some, at least one).

Universal Quantifier:

Universal quantifier is a symbol of logical representation, which specifies that the statement within
its range is true for everything or every instance of a particular thing.

The Universal quantifier is represented by a symbol ∀, which resembles an inverted A.

Note: In universal quantifier we use implication "→".

If x is a variable, then ∀x is read as:

o For all x

o For each x

o For every x.

Example:

All man drink coffee.

Let a variable x which refers to a cat so all x can be represented in UOD as below:

∀x man(x) → drink (x, coffee).

It will be read as: There are all x where x is a man who drink coffee.

Existential Quantifier:

Existential quantifiers are the type of quantifiers, which express that the statement within its scope is
true for at least one instance of something.
It is denoted by the logical operator ∃, which resembles as inverted E. When it is used with a
predicate variable then it is called as an existential quantifier.

Note: In Existential quantifier we always use AND or Conjunction symbol (∧).

If x is a variable, then existential quantifier will be ∃x or ∃(x). And it will be read as:

o There exists a 'x.'

o For some 'x.'

o For at least one 'x.'

Example:

Some boys are intelligent.

∃x: boys(x) ∧ intelligent(x)

It will be read as: There are some x where x is a boy who is intelligent.

Points to remember:

o The main connective for universal quantifier ∀ is implication →.

o The main connective for existential quantifier ∃ is and ∧.

Properties of Quantifiers:

o In universal quantifier, ∀x∀y is similar to ∀y∀x.

o In Existential quantifier, ∃x∃y is similar to ∃y∃x.

o ∃x∀y is not similar to ∀y∃x.

Some Examples of FOL using quantifier:

1. All birds fly.
In this question the predicate is "fly(bird)."

∀x bird(x) →fly(x).
And since there are all birds who fly so it will be represented as follows.

2. Every man respects his parent.

Since there is every man so will use ∀, and it will be represented as follows:
In this question, the predicate is "respect(x, y)," where x=man, and y= parent.

∀x man(x) → respects (x, parent).

3. Some boys play cricket.

so we will use ∃, and it will be represented as:

In this question, the predicate is "play(x, y)," where x= boys, and y= game. Since there are some boys

∃x boys(x) → play(x, cricket).

4. Not all students like both Mathematics and Science.

Since there are not all students, so we will use ∀ with negation, so following representation for this:
In this question, the predicate is "like(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.

¬∀ (x) [ student(x) → like(x, Mathematics) ∧ like(x, Science)].

5. Only one student failed in Mathematics.

In this question, the predicate is "failed(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.
Since there is only one student who failed in Mathematics, so we will use following representation

∃(x) [ student(x) → failed (x, Mathematics) ∧∀ (y) [¬(x==y) ∧ student(y) → ¬failed (x,
for this:

Mathematics)].

Free and Bound Variables:

The quantifiers interact with variables which appear in a suitable way. There are two types of
variables in First-order logic which are given below:

Free Variable: A variable is said to be a free variable in a formula if it occurs outside the scope of the
quantifier.

Example: ∀x ∃(y)[P (x, y, z)], where z is a free variable.

Bound Variable: A variable is said to be a bound variable in a formula if it occurs within the scope of
the quantifier.

Example: ∀x [A (x) B( y)], here x and y are the bound variables.

Knowledge Engineering in First-order logic

What is knowledge-engineering?

The process of constructing a knowledge-base in first-order logic is called as knowledge- engineering.

In knowledge-engineering, someone who investigates a particular domain, learns important concept
of that domain, and generates a formal representation of the objects, is known as knowledge
engineer.

In this topic, we will understand the Knowledge engineering process in an electronic circuit domain,
which is already familiar. This approach is mainly suitable for creating special-purpose knowledge
base.
The knowledge-engineering process:

Following are some main steps of the knowledge-engineering process. Using these steps, we will
develop a knowledge base which will allow us to reason about digital circuit (One-bit full adder)
which is given below

1. Identify the task:

The first step of the process is to identify the task, and for the digital circuit, there are various
reasoning tasks.

At the first level or highest level, we will examine the functionality of the circuit:

o Does the circuit add properly?

o What will be the output of gate A2, if all the inputs are high?

At the second level, we will examine the circuit structure details such as:

o Which gate is connected to the first input terminal?

o Does the circuit have feedback loops?

2. Assemble the relevant knowledge:

In the second step, we will assemble the relevant knowledge which is required for digital circuits. So
for digital circuits, we have the following required knowledge:

o Logic circuits are made up of wires and gates.

o Signal flows through wires to the input terminal of the gate, and each gate produces the
corresponding output which flows further.

o In this logic circuit, there are four types of gates used: AND, OR, XOR, and NOT.

o All these gates have one output terminal and two input terminals (except NOT gate, it has
one input terminal).

3. Decide on vocabulary:
The next step of the process is to select functions, predicate, and constants to represent the circuits,
terminals, signals, and gates. Firstly we will distinguish the gates from each other and from other
objects. Each gate is represented as an object which is named by a constant, such as, Gate(X1). The
functionality of each gate is determined by its type, which is taken as constants such as AND, OR,
XOR, or NOT. Circuits will be identified by a predicate: Circuit (C1).

For the terminal, we will use predicate: Terminal(x).

For gate input, we will use the function In(1, X1) for denoting the first input terminal of the gate, and
for output terminal we will use Out (1, X1).

The function Arity(c, i, j) is used to denote that circuit c has i input, j output.

The connectivity between gates can be represented by predicate Connect(Out(1, X1), In(1, X1)).

We use a unary predicate On (t), which is true if the signal at a terminal is on.

4. Encode general knowledge about the domain:

To encode the general knowledge about the logic circuit, we need some following rules:

o If two terminals are connected then they have the same input signal, it can be represented
as:

1. ∀ t1, t2 Terminal (t1) ∧ Terminal (t2) ∧ Connect (t1, t2) → Signal (t1) = Signal (2).

o Signal at every terminal will have either value 0 or 1, it will be represented as:

1. ∀ t Terminal (t) →Signal (t) = 1 ∨Signal (t) = 0.

o Connect predicates are commutative:

1. ∀ t1, t2 Connect(t1, t2) → Connect (t2, t1).

o Representation of types of gates:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r = Type(g) → r = OR ∨r = AND ∨r = XOR ∨r = NOT.

o Output of AND gate will be zero if and only if any of its input is zero.

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = AND →Signal (Out(1, g))= 0 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 0.

o Output of OR gate is 1 if and only if any of its input is 1:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = OR → Signal (Out(1, g))= 1 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 1

o Output of XOR gate is 1 if and only if its inputs are different:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = XOR → Signal (Out(1, g)) = 1 ⇔ Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (In(2, g)).

o Output of NOT gate is invert of its input:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (Out(1, g)).

o All the gates in the above circuit have two inputs and one output (except NOT gate).

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Arity(g, 1, 1)

2. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r =Type(g) ∧ (r= AND ∨r= OR ∨r= XOR) → Arity (g, 2, 1).
 o All gates are logic circuits:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) → Circuit (g).

5. Encode a description of the problem instance:

Now we encode problem of circuit C1, firstly we categorize the circuit and its gate components. This
step is easy if ontology about the problem is already thought. This step involves the writing simple
atomics sentences of instances of concepts, which is known as ontology.

For the given circuit C1, we can encode the problem instance in atomic sentences as below:

Since in the circuit there are two XOR, two AND, and one OR gate so atomic sentences for these gates
will be:

1. For XOR gate: Type(x1)= XOR, Type(X2) = XOR

2. For AND gate: Type(A1) = AND, Type(A2)= AND

3. For OR gate: Type (O1) = OR.

And then represent the connections between all the gates.

Note: Ontology defines a particular theory of the nature of existence.

6. Pose queries to the inference procedure and get answers:

In this step, we will find all the possible set of values of all the terminal for the adder circuit. The first
query will be:

What should be the combination of input which would generate the first output of circuit C1, as 0
and a second output to be 1?

1. ∃ i1, i2, i3 Signal (In(1, C1))=i1 ∧ Signal (In(2, C1))=i2 ∧ Signal (In(3, C1))= i3

2. ∧ Signal (Out(1, C1)) =0 ∧ Signal (Out(2, C1))=1

7. Debug the knowledge base:

Now we will debug the knowledge base, and this is the last step of the complete process. In this step,
we will try to debug the issues of knowledge base.

In the knowledge base, we may have omitted assertions like 1 ≠ 0.

Inference in First-Order Logic

Inference in First-Order Logic is used to deduce new facts or sentences from existing sentences.
Before understanding the FOL inference rule, let's understand some basic terminologies used in FOL.

Substitution:

Substitution is a fundamental operation performed on terms and formulas. It occurs in all inference
systems in first-order logic. The substitution is complex in the presence of quantifiers in FOL. If we
write F[a/x], so it refers to substitute a constant "a" in place of variable "x".

Note: First-order logic is capable of expressing facts about some or all objects in the universe.

Equality:
First-Order logic does not only use predicate and terms for making atomic sentences but also uses
another way, which is equality in FOL. For this, we can use equality symbols which specify that the
two terms refer to the same object.

Example: Brother (John) = Smith.

As in the above example, the object referred by the Brother (John) is similar to the object referred
by Smith. The equality symbol can also be used with negation to represent that two terms are not
the same objects.

Example: ￢(x=y) which is equivalent to x ≠y.

FOL inference rules for quantifier:

As propositional logic we also have inference rules in first-order logic, so following are some basic
inference rules in FOL:

o Universal Generalization

o Universal Instantiation

o Existential Instantiation

o Existential introduction

1. Universal Generalization:

any arbitrary element c in the universe of discourse, then we can have a conclusion as ∀ x
o Universal generalization is a valid inference rule which states that if premise P(c) is true for

P(x).

o It can be represented as: .

o This rule can be used if we want to show that every element has a similar property.

o In this rule, x must not appear as a free variable.

Example: Let's represent, P(c): "A byte contains 8 bits", so for ∀ x P(x) "All bytes contain 8 bits.", it
will also be true.

2. Universal Instantiation:

o Universal instantiation is also called as universal elimination or UI is a valid inference rule. It

can be applied multiple times to add new sentences.

o The new KB is logically equivalent to the previous KB.

o As per UI, we can infer any sentence obtained by substituting a ground term for the
variable.

constant within domain x) from ∀ x P(x) for any object in the universe of discourse.
o The UI rule state that we can infer any sentence P(c) by substituting a ground term c (a

o It can be represented as: .

Example:1.

IF "Every person like ice-cream"=> ∀x P(x) so we can infer that

"John likes ice-cream" => P(c)

Example: 2.

Let's take a famous example,

"All kings who are greedy are Evil." So let our knowledge base contains this detail as in the form of
FOL:

∀x king(x) ∧ greedy (x) → Evil (x),

So from this information, we can infer any of the following statements using Universal Instantiation:

o King(John) ∧ Greedy (John) → Evil (John),

o King(Richard) ∧ Greedy (Richard) → Evil (Richard),

o King(Father(John)) ∧ Greedy (Father(John)) → Evil (Father(John)),

3. Existential Instantiation:

o Existential instantiation is also called as Existential Elimination, which is a valid inference rule
in first-order logic.

o It can be applied only once to replace the existential sentence.

o The new KB is not logically equivalent to old KB, but it will be satisfiable if old KB was
satisfiable.

o This rule states that one can infer P(c) from the formula given in the form of ∃x P(x) for a
new constant symbol c.

o The restriction with this rule is that c used in the rule must be a new term for which P(c ) is
true.

o It can be represented as:

Example:

From the given sentence: ∃x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x, John),

So we can infer: Crown(K) ∧ OnHead( K, John), as long as K does not appear in the knowledge base.

o The above used K is a constant symbol, which is called Skolem constant.

o The Existential instantiation is a special case of Skolemization process.

4. Existential introduction

o An existential introduction is also known as an existential generalization, which is a valid

inference rule in first-order logic.
 o This rule states that if there is some element c in the universe of discourse which has a
property P, then we can infer that there exists something in the universe which has the
property P.

o It can be represented as:

o Example: Let's say that,

"Priyanka got good marks in English."
"Therefore, someone got good marks in English."

Generalized Modus Ponens Rule:

For the inference process in FOL, we have a single inference rule which is called Generalized Modus
Ponens. It is lifted version of Modus ponens.

Generalized Modus Ponens can be summarized as, " P implies Q and P is asserted to be true,
therefore Q must be True."

According to Modus Ponens, for atomic sentences pi, pi', q. Where there is a substitution θ such that
SUBST (θ, pi',) = SUBST(θ, pi), it can be represented as:

Example:

We will use this rule for Kings are evil, so we will find some x such that x is king, and x is greedy so
we can infer that x is evil.

1. Here let say, p1' is king(John) p1 is king(x)

2. p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)

3. θ is {x/John, y/John} q is evil(x)

4. SUBST(θ,q).

What is Unification?

o Unification is a process of making two different logical atomic expressions identical by finding
a substitution. Unification depends on the substitution process.

o It takes two literals as input and makes them identical using substitution.

o Let Ψ1 and Ψ2 be two atomic sentences and ? be a unifier such that, Ψ1? = Ψ2?, then it can be
expressed as UNIFY(Ψ1, Ψ2).

o Example: Find the MGU for Unify{King(x), King(John)}

Let Ψ1 = King(x), Ψ2 = King(John),

Substitution θ = {John/x} is a unifier for these atoms and applying this substitution, and both
expressions will be identical.
 o The UNIFY algorithm is used for unification, which takes two atomic sentences and returns a
unifier for those sentences (If any exist).

o Unification is a key component of all first-order inference algorithms.

o It returns fail if the expressions do not match with each other.

o The substitution variables are called Most General Unifier or MGU.

E.g. Let's say there are two different expressions, P(x, y), and P(a, f(z)).

In this example, we need to make both above statements identical to each other. For this, we will
perform the substitution.

P(x, y)......... (i)

P(a, f(z))......... (ii)

o Substitute x with a, and y with f(z) in the first expression, and it will be represented
as a/x and f(z)/y.

o With both the substitutions, the first expression will be identical to the second expression
and the substitution set will be: [a/x, f(z)/y].

Conditions for Unification:

Following are some basic conditions for unification:

o Predicate symbol must be same, atoms or expression with different predicate symbol can
never be unified.

o Number of Arguments in both expressions must be identical.

o Unification will fail if there are two similar variables present in the same expression.

Unification Algorithm:

Algorithm: Unify(Ψ1, Ψ2)

Step. 1: If Ψ1 or Ψ2 is a variable or constant, then:

a) If Ψ1 or Ψ2 are identical, then return NIL.

b) Else if Ψ1is a variable,

a. then if Ψ1 occurs in Ψ2, then return FAILURE

b. Else return { (Ψ2/ Ψ1)}.

c) Else if Ψ2 is a variable,

a. If Ψ2 occurs in Ψ1 then return FAILURE,

b. Else return {( Ψ1/ Ψ2)}.

d) Else return FAILURE.

Step.2: If the initial Predicate symbol in Ψ1 and Ψ2 are not same, then return FAILURE.

Step. 3: IF Ψ1 and Ψ2 have a different number of arguments, then return FAILURE.

Step. 4: Set Substitution set(SUBST) to NIL.

Step. 5: For i=1 to the number of elements in Ψ1.

a) Call Unify function with the ith element of Ψ1 and ith element of Ψ2, and put the result into S.

b) If S = failure then returns Failure

c) If S ≠ NIL then do,

a. Apply S to the remainder of both L1 and L2.

b. SUBST= APPEND(S, SUBST).

Step.6: Return SUBST.

Implementation of the Algorithm

Step.1: Initialize the substitution set to be empty.

Step.2: Recursively unify atomic sentences:

1. Check for Identical expression match.

2. If one expression is a variable vi, and the other is a term ti which does not contain variable vi,
then:

1. Substitute ti / vi in the existing substitutions

2. Add ti /vi to the substitution setlist.

3. If both the expressions are functions, then function name must be similar, and the
number of arguments must be the same in both the expression.

For each pair of the following atomic sentences find the most general unifier (If exist).

1. Find the MGU of {p(f(a), g(Y)) and p(X, X)}

Sol: S0 => Here, Ψ1 = p(f(a), g(Y)), and Ψ2 = p(X, X)

SUBST θ= {f(a) / X}
S1 => Ψ1 = p(f(a), g(Y)), and Ψ2 = p(f(a), f(a))
SUBST θ= {f(a) / g(y)}, Unification failed.

Unification is not possible for these expressions.

2. Find the MGU of {p(b, X, f(g(Z))) and p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}

Here, Ψ1 = p(b, X, f(g(Z))) , and Ψ2 = p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))

S0 => { p(b, X, f(g(Z))); p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}
SUBST θ={b/Z}

S1 => { p(b, X, f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}

SUBST θ={f(Y) /X}

S2 => { p(b, f(Y), f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}

SUBST θ= {g(b) /Y}
S2 => { p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b)); p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b))} Unified Successfully.
And Unifier = { b/Z, f(Y) /X , g(b) /Y}.

3. Find the MGU of {p (X, X), and p (Z, f(Z))}

Here, Ψ1 = {p (X, X), and Ψ2 = p (Z, f(Z))

S0 => {p (X, X), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST θ= {X/Z}
S1 => {p (Z, Z), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST θ= {f(Z) / Z}, Unification Failed.

Hence, unification is not possible for these expressions.

4. Find the MGU of UNIFY(prime (11), prime(y))

Here, Ψ1 = {prime(11) , and Ψ2 = prime(y)}

S0 => {prime(11) , prime(y)}
SUBST θ= {11/y}

S1 => {prime(11) , prime(11)} , Successfully unified.

Unifier: {11/y}.

5. Find the MGU of Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)), Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}

Here, Ψ1 = Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)), and Ψ2 = Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)

S0 => {Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}
SUBST θ= {f(b)/x}
S1 => {Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}

SUBST θ= {b/y}
S1 => {Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}, Successfully Unified.

Unifier: [a/a, f(b)/x, b/y].

6. UNIFY(knows(Richard, x), knows(Richard, John))

Here, Ψ1 = knows(Richard, x), and Ψ2 = knows(Richard, John)

S0 => { knows(Richard, x); knows(Richard, John)}
SUBST θ= {John/x}
S1 => { knows(Richard, John); knows(Richard, John)}, Successfully Unified.
Unifier: {John/x}.

Resolution in FOL

Resolution

Resolution is a theorem proving technique that proceeds by building refutation proofs, i.e., proofs by
contradictions. It was invented by a Mathematician John Alan Robinson in the year 1965.

Resolution is used, if there are various statements are given, and we need to prove a conclusion of
those statements. Unification is a key concept in proofs by resolutions. Resolution is a single
inference rule which can efficiently operate on the conjunctive normal form or clausal form.

Clause: Disjunction of literals (an atomic sentence) is called a clause. It is also known as a unit clause.
Conjunctive Normal Form: A sentence represented as a conjunction of clauses is said to
be conjunctive normal form or CNF.

Note: To better understand this topic, firstly learns the FOL in AI.

The resolution inference rule:

The resolution rule for first-order logic is simply a lifted version of the propositional rule. Resolution
can resolve two clauses if they contain complementary literals, which are assumed to be
standardized apart so that they share no variables.

Where li and mj are complementary literals.

This rule is also called the binary resolution rule because it only resolves exactly two literals.

Example:

We can resolve two clauses which are given below:

[Animal (g(x) V Loves (f(x), x)] and [￢ Loves(a, b) V ￢Kills(a, b)]

Where two complimentary literals are: Loves (f(x), x) and ￢ Loves (a, b)

These literals can be unified with unifier θ= [a/f(x), and b/x] , and it will generate a resolvent clause:

[Animal (g(x) V ￢ Kills(f(x), x)].

Steps for Resolution:

1. Conversion of facts into first-order logic.

2. Convert FOL statements into CNF

3. Negate the statement which needs to prove (proof by contradiction)

4. Draw resolution graph (unification).

To better understand all the above steps, we will take an example in which we will apply resolution.

Example:

1. John likes all kind of food.

2. Apple and vegetable are food

3. Anything anyone eats and not killed is food.

4. Anil eats peanuts and still alive

5. Harry eats everything that Anil eats.

Prove by resolution that:

6. John likes peanuts.

Step-1: Conversion of Facts into FOL

In the first step we will convert all the given statements into its first order logic.

Step-2: Conversion of FOL into CNF

In First order logic resolution, it is required to convert the FOL into CNF as CNF form makes easier for
resolution proofs.

o Eliminate all implication (→) and rewrite

o ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

o food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

o ∀x ∀y ¬ [eats(x, y) Λ ¬ killed(x)] V food(y)

o eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

o ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)

o ∀x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x)

o ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)

o likes(John, Peanuts).

o Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite

o ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

o food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

o ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)

o eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

o ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)

o ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)

o ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)

o likes(John, Peanuts).
 o Rename variables or standardize variables

o ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

o food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

o ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)

o eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

o ∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)

o ∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)

o ∀k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)

o likes(John, Peanuts).

In this step, we will eliminate existential quantifier ∃, and this process is known
o Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination.

as Skolemization. But in this example problem since there is no existential quantifier so all
the statements will remain same in this step.

o Drop Universal quantifiers.

In this step we will drop all universal quantifier since all the statements are not implicitly
quantified so we don't need it.

o ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

o food(Apple)

o food(vegetables)

o ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)

o eats (Anil, Peanuts)

o alive(Anil)

o ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)

o killed(g) V alive(g)

o ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)

o likes(John, Peanuts).

Note: Statements "food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)" and "eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)" can be
written in two separate statements.

o Distribute conjunction ∧ over disjunction ¬.

This step will not make any change in this problem.

Step-3: Negate the statement to be proved

In this statement, we will apply negation to the conclusion statements, which will be written as
¬likes(John, Peanuts)
Step-4: Draw Resolution graph:

Now in this step, we will solve the problem by resolution tree using substitution. For the above
problem, it will be given as follows:

Hence the negation of the conclusion has been proved as a complete contradiction with the given set
of statements.

Explanation of Resolution graph:

o In the first step of resolution graph, ¬likes(John, Peanuts) , and likes(John, x) get
resolved(canceled) by substitution of {Peanuts/x}, and we are left with ¬ food(Peanuts)

o In the second step of the resolution graph, ¬ food(Peanuts) , and food(z) get resolved
(canceled) by substitution of { Peanuts/z}, and we are left with ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) V
killed(y) .

o In the third step of the resolution graph, ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) and eats (Anil, Peanuts) get
resolved by substitution {Anil/y}, and we are left with Killed(Anil) .

o In the fourth step of the resolution graph, Killed(Anil) and ¬ killed(k) get resolve by
substitution {Anil/k}, and we are left with ¬ alive(Anil) .

o In the last step of the resolution graph ¬ alive(Anil) and alive(Anil) get resolved.

Forward Chaining and backward chaining in AI

In artificial intelligence, forward and backward chaining is one of the important topics, but before
understanding forward and backward chaining lets first understand that from where these two terms
came.

Inference engine:
The inference engine is the component of the intelligent system in artificial intelligence, which
applies logical rules to the knowledge base to infer new information from known facts. The first
inference engine was part of the expert system. Inference engine commonly proceeds in two modes,
which are:

1. Forward chaining

2. Backward chaining

Horn Clause and Definite clause:

Horn clause and definite clause are the forms of sentences, which enables knowledge base to use a
more restricted and efficient inference algorithm. Logical inference algorithms use forward and
backward chaining approaches, which require KB in the form of the first-order definite clause.

Definite clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with exactly one positive literal is known as
a definite clause or strict horn clause.

Horn clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with at most one positive literal is known as
horn clause. Hence all the definite clauses are horn clauses.

Example: (¬ p V ¬ q V k). It has only one positive literal k.

It is equivalent to p ∧ q → k.

A. Forward Chaining

Forward chaining is also known as a forward deduction or forward reasoning method when using an
inference engine. Forward chaining is a form of reasoning which start with atomic sentences in the
knowledge base and applies inference rules (Modus Ponens) in the forward direction to extract more
data until a goal is reached.

The Forward-chaining algorithm starts from known facts, triggers all rules whose premises are
satisfied, and add their conclusion to the known facts. This process repeats until the problem is
solved.

Properties of Forward-Chaining:

o It is a down-up approach, as it moves from bottom to top.

o It is a process of making a conclusion based on known facts or data, by starting from the
initial state and reaches the goal state.

o Forward-chaining approach is also called as data-driven as we reach to the goal using

available data.

o Forward -chaining approach is commonly used in the expert system, such as CLIPS, business,
and production rule systems.

Consider the following famous example which we will use in both approaches:

Example:

"As per the law, it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. Country A, an
enemy of America, has some missiles, and all the missiles were sold to it by Robert, who is an
American citizen."
Prove that "Robert is criminal."

To solve the above problem, first, we will convert all the above facts into first-order definite clauses,
and then we will use a forward-chaining algorithm to reach the goal.

Facts Conversion into FOL:

o It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. (Let's say p, q, and r are

American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p)

variables)
...(1)

o Country A has some missiles. ?p Owns(A, p) ∧ Missile(p). It can be written in two definite
clauses by using Existential Instantiation, introducing new Constant T1.
Owns(A, T1) ......(2)
Missile(T1) .......(3)

?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A)

o All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.
......(4)

o Missiles are weapons.

Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)

o Enemy of America is known as hostile.

Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)

o Country A is an enemy of America.

Enemy (A, America) .........(7)

o Robert is American
American(Robert). ..........(8)

Forward chaining proof:

Step-1:

In the first step we will start with the known facts and will choose the sentences which do not have
implications, such as: American(Robert), Enemy(A, America), Owns(A, T1), and Missile(T1). All
these facts will be represented as below.

Step-2:

At the second step, we will see those facts which infer from available facts and with satisfied
premises.

Rule-(1) does not satisfy premises, so it will not be added in the first iteration.

Rule-(2) and (3) are already added.

Rule-(4) satisfy with the substitution {p/T1}, so Sells (Robert, T1, A) is added, which infers from the
conjunction of Rule (2) and (3).

Rule-(6) is satisfied with the substitution(p/A), so Hostile(A) is added and which infers from Rule-(7).
Step-3:

At step-3, as we can check Rule-(1) is satisfied with the substitution {p/Robert, q/T1, r/A}, so we can
add Criminal(Robert) which infers all the available facts. And hence we reached our goal statement.

Hence it is proved that Robert is Criminal using forward chaining approach.

B. Backward Chaining:

Backward-chaining is also known as a backward deduction or backward reasoning method when

using an inference engine. A backward chaining algorithm is a form of reasoning, which starts with
the goal and works backward, chaining through rules to find known facts that support the goal.

Properties of backward chaining:

o It is known as a top-down approach.

o Backward-chaining is based on modus ponens inference rule.

o In backward chaining, the goal is broken into sub-goal or sub-goals to prove the facts true.

o It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals decides which rules are selected and
used.

o Backward -chaining algorithm is used in game theory, automated theorem proving tools,
inference engines, proof assistants, and various AI applications.

o The backward-chaining method mostly used a depth-first search strategy for proof.
Example:

In backward-chaining, we will use the same above example, and will rewrite all the rules.

o American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p) ...(1)

Owns(A, T1) ........(2)

o Missile(T1)

o ?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)

o Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)

o Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)

o Enemy (A, America) .........(7)

o American(Robert). ..........(8)

Backward-Chaining proof:

In Backward chaining, we will start with our goal predicate, which is Criminal(Robert), and then infer
further rules.

Step-1:

At the first step, we will take the goal fact. And from the goal fact, we will infer other facts, and at
last, we will prove those facts true. So our goal fact is "Robert is Criminal," so following is the
predicate of it.

Step-2:

At the second step, we will infer other facts form goal fact which satisfies the rules. So as we can see
in Rule-1, the goal predicate Criminal (Robert) is present with substitution {Robert/P}. So we will add
all the conjunctive facts below the first level and will replace p with Robert.

Here we can see American (Robert) is a fact, so it is proved here.

Step-3:t At step-3, we will extract further fact Missile(q) which infer from Weapon(q), as it satisfies
Rule-(5). Weapon (q) is also true with the substitution of a constant T1 at q.

Step-4:

At step-4, we can infer facts Missile(T1) and Owns(A, T1) form Sells(Robert, T1, r) which satisfies
the Rule- 4, with the substitution of A in place of r. So these two statements are proved here.
Step-5:

At step-5, we can infer the fact Enemy(A, America) from Hostile(A) which satisfies Rule- 6. And
hence all the statements are proved true using backward chaining.

Difference between backward chaining and forward chaining

Following is the difference between the forward chaining and backward chaining:
 o Forward chaining as the name suggests, start from the known facts and move forward by
applying inference rules to extract more data, and it continues until it reaches to the goal,
whereas backward chaining starts from the goal, move backward by using inference rules to
determine the facts that satisfy the goal.

o Forward chaining is called a data-driven inference technique, whereas backward chaining is

called a goal-driven inference technique.

o Forward chaining is known as the down-up approach, whereas backward chaining is known
as a top-down approach.

o Forward chaining uses breadth-first search strategy, whereas backward chaining uses depth-
first search strategy.

o Forward and backward chaining both applies Modus ponens inference rule.

o Forward chaining can be used for tasks such as planning, design process monitoring,
diagnosis, and classification, whereas backward chaining can be used for classification and
diagnosis tasks.

o Forward chaining can be like an exhaustive search, whereas backward chaining tries to avoid
the unnecessary path of reasoning.

o In forward-chaining there can be various ASK questions from the knowledge base, whereas
in backward chaining there can be fewer ASK questions.

o Forward chaining is slow as it checks for all the rules, whereas backward chaining is fast as it
checks few required rules only.

S. No. Forward Chaining Backward Chaining

Forward chaining starts from known

Backward chaining starts from the goal and
facts and applies inference rule to
1. works backward through inference rules to
extract more data unit it reaches to the
find the required facts that support the goal.
goal.

2. It is a bottom-up approach It is a top-down approach

Forward chaining is known as data- Backward chaining is known as goal-driven

3. driven inference technique as we reach technique as we start from the goal and divide
to the goal using the available data. into sub-goal to extract the facts.

Forward chaining reasoning applies a Backward chaining reasoning applies a depth-

4.
breadth-first search strategy. first search strategy.

Forward chaining tests for all the Backward chaining only tests for few required
5.
available rules rules.
 Forward chaining is suitable for the
Backward chaining is suitable for diagnostic,
6. planning, monitoring, control, and
prescription, and debugging application.
interpretation application.

Forward chaining can generate an Backward chaining generates a finite number

7.
infinite number of possible conclusions. of possible conclusions.

8. It operates in the forward direction. It operates in the backward direction.

Forward chaining is aimed for any Backward chaining is only aimed for the
9.
conclusion. required data.

Knowledge-base for Wumpus world

As in the previous topic we have learned about the wumpus world and how a knowledge-based
agent evolves the world. Now in this topic, we will create a knowledge base for the wumpus world,
and will derive some proves for the Wumpus-world using propositional logic.

The agent starts visiting from first square [1, 1], and we already know that this room is safe for the
agent. To build a knowledge base for wumpus world, we will use some rules and atomic propositions.
We need symbol [i, j] for each location in the wumpus world, where i is for the location of rows, and j
for column location.
Atomic proposition variable for Wumpus world:

o Let Pi,j be true if there is a Pit in the room [i, j].

o Let Bi,j be true if agent perceives breeze in [i, j], (dead or alive).

o Let Wi,j be true if there is wumpus in the square[i, j].

o Let Si,j be true if agent perceives stench in the square [i, j].

o Let Vi,j be true if that square[i, j] is visited.

o Let Gi,j be true if there is gold (and glitter) in the square [i, j].

o Let OKi,j be true if the room is safe.

Note: For a 4 * 4 square board, there will be 7*4*4= 122 propositional variables.

Some Propositional Rules for the wumpus world:

Note: lack of variables gives us similar rules for each cell.

Representation of Knowledgebase for Wumpus world:

Following is the Simple KB for wumpus world when an agent moves from room [1, 1], to room [2,1]:
Here in the first row, we have mentioned propositional variables for room[1,1], which is showing that
room does not have wumpus(¬ W11), no stench (¬S11), no Pit(¬P11), no breeze(¬B11), no gold (¬G11),
visited (V11), and the room is Safe(OK11).

In the second row, we have mentioned propositional variables for room [1,2], which is showing that
there is no wumpus, stench and breeze are unknown as an agent has not visited room [1,2], no Pit,
not visited yet, and the room is safe.

In the third row we have mentioned propositional variable for room[2,1], which is showing that there
is no wumpus(¬ W21), no stench (¬S21), no Pit (¬P21), Perceives breeze(B21), no glitter(¬G21), visited
(V21), and room is safe (OK21).

Prove that Wumpus is in the room (1, 3)

We can prove that wumpus is in the room (1, 3) using propositional rules which we have derived for
the wumpus world and using inference rule.

o Apply Modus Ponens with ¬S11 and R1:

We will firstly apply MP rule with R1 which is ¬S11 → ¬ W11 ^ ¬ W12 ^ ¬ W21, and ¬S11 which will give
the output ¬ W11 ^ W12 ^ W12.

o Apply And-Elimination Rule:

After applying And-elimination rule to ¬ W11 ∧ ¬ W12 ∧ ¬ W21, we will get three statements:
¬ W11, ¬ W12, and ¬W21.

o Apply Modus Ponens to ¬S21, and R2:

Now we will apply Modus Ponens to ¬S21 and R2 which is ¬S21 → ¬ W21 ∧¬ W22 ∧ ¬ W31, which will
give the Output as ¬ W21 ∧ ¬ W22 ∧¬ W31
 o Apply And -Elimination rule:

Now again apply And-elimination rule to ¬ W21 ∧ ¬ W22 ∧¬ W31, We will get three statements:
¬ W21, ¬ W22, and ¬ W31.

o Apply MP to S12 and R4:

Apply Modus Ponens to S12 and R4 which is S12 → W13 ∨. W12 ∨. W22 ∨.W11, we will get the output
as W13∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨.W11.

o Apply Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨W11 and ¬ W11 :

After applying Unit resolution formula on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨W11 and ¬ W11 we will get W13 ∨ W12 ∨
W22.

o Apply Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 and ¬ W22 :

After applying Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22, and ¬W22, we will get W13 ∨ W12 as output.

o Apply Unit Resolution on W13 ∨ W12 and ¬ W12 :

After Applying Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 and ¬ W12, we will get W13 as an output, hence it is
proved that the Wumpus is in the room [1, 3].