UNIT IV

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(¬ W 11), 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 ¬S 11 → ¬ W11 ^ ¬ W12 ^ ¬
W21, and ¬S11 which will give the output ¬ W11 ^ W12 ^ W12.

o Apply And-Elimination Rule:

After applying And-elimination rule to ¬ W 11 ∧ ¬ 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 ¬S 21 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 W 13 ∨ 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].
Propositional logic in Artificial intelligence
Propositional logic (PL) is the simplest form of logic where all the
statements are made by propositions. A proposition is a declarative
statement which is either true or false. It is a technique of knowledge
representation in logical and mathematical form.

Example:

1. a) It is Sunday.
2. b) The Sun rises from West (False proposition)
3. c) 3+3= 7(False proposition)
4. d) 5 is a prime number.

Following are some basic facts about propositional logic:

o Propositional logic is also called Boolean logic as it works on 0 and

1.
o In propositional logic, we use symbolic variables to represent the
logic, and we can use any symbol for a representing a proposition,
such A, B, C, P, Q, R, etc.
o Propositions can be either true or false, but it cannot be both.
o Propositional logic consists of an object, relations or function,
and logical connectives.
o These connectives are also called logical operators.
o The propositions and connectives are the basic elements of the
propositional logic.
o Connectives can be said as a logical operator which connects two
sentences.
o A proposition formula which is always true is called tautology, and
it is also called a valid sentence.
o A proposition formula which is always false is called Contradiction.
o A proposition formula which has both true and false values is called
o Statements which are questions, commands, or opinions are not
propositions such as "Where is Rohini", "How are you", "What is
your name", are not propositions.

Syntax of propositional logic:

The syntax of propositional logic defines the allowable sentences for the
knowledge representation. There are two types of Propositions:

a. Atomic Propositions

b. Compound propositions

o Atomic Proposition: Atomic propositions are the simple

propositions. It consists of a single proposition symbol. These are
the sentences which must be either true or false.

Example:

1. a) 2+2 is 4, it is an atomic proposition as it is a true fact.

2. b) "The Sun is cold" is also a proposition as it is a false fact.

o Compound proposition: Compound propositions are constructed

by combining simpler or atomic propositions, using parenthesis and
logical connectives.

Example:

1. a) "It is raining today, and street is wet."

2. b) "Ankit is a doctor, and his clinic is in Mumbai."

Logical Connectives:
Logical connectives are used to connect two simpler propositions or
representing a sentence logically. We can create compound propositions
with the help of logical connectives. There are mainly five connectives,
which are given as follows:

1. Negation: A sentence such as ¬ P is called negation of P. A literal

can be either Positive literal or negative literal.
2. Conjunction: A sentence which has ∧ connective such as, P ∧ Q is
called a conjunction.
Example: Rohan is intelligent and hardworking. It can be written as,
P= Rohan is intelligent,
Q= Rohan is hardworking. → P∧ Q.
3. Disjunction: A sentence which has ∨ connective, such as P ∨ Q. is
called disjunction, where P and Q are the propositions.
 Example: "Ritika is a doctor or Engineer",
Here P= Ritika is Doctor. Q= Ritika is Doctor, so we can write it as P
∨ Q.
4. Implication: A sentence such as P → Q, is called an implication.
Implications are also known as if-then rules. It can be represented
as
If it is raining, then the street is wet.
Let P= It is raining, and Q= Street is wet, so it is represented
as P → Q
5. Biconditional: A sentence such as P⇔ Q is a Biconditional
sentence, example If I am breathing, then I am alive
P= I am breathing, Q= I am alive, it can be represented as P
⇔ Q.

Following is the summarized table for Propositional Logic

Connectives:

Truth Table:
In propositional logic, we need to know the truth values of propositions in
all possible scenarios. We can combine all the possible combination with
logical connectives, and the representation of these combinations in a
tabular format is called Truth table. Following are the truth table for all
logical connectives:
Truth table with three propositions:
We can build a proposition composing three propositions P, Q, and R. This
truth table is made-up of 8n Tuples as we have taken three proposition
symbols.
Precedence of connectives:
Just like arithmetic operators, there is a precedence order for propositional
connectors or logical operators. This order should be followed while
evaluating a propositional problem. Following is the list of the precedence
order for operators:

Precedence Operators

First Precedence Parenthesis

Second Precedence Negation

Third Precedence Conjunction(AND)

Fourth Precedence Disjunction(OR)

Fifth Precedence Implication

Six Precedence Biconditional

interpretations. Such as ¬R∨ Q, It can be interpreted as (¬R) ∨ Q.

Note: For better understanding use parenthesis to make sure of the correct

Logical equivalence:
Logical equivalence is one of the features of propositional logic. Two
propositions are said to be logically equivalent if and only if the columns
in the truth table are identical to each other.

ADVERTISEMENT

Let's take two propositions A and B, so for logical equivalence, we can

write it as A⇔B. In below truth table we can see that column for ¬A∨ B
and A→B, are identical hence A is Equivalent to B
Properties of Operators:

o Commutativity:
o P∧ Q= Q ∧ P, or
o P ∨ Q = Q ∨ P.
o Associativity:
o (P ∧ Q) ∧ R= P ∧ (Q ∧ R),
o (P ∨ Q) ∨ R= P ∨ (Q ∨ R)
o Identity element:
o P ∧ True = P,
o P ∨ True= True.
o Distributive:
o P∧ (Q ∨ R) = (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R).
o P ∨ (Q ∧ R) = (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R).
o DE Morgan's Law:
o ¬ (P ∧ Q) = (¬P) ∨ (¬Q)
o ¬ (P ∨ Q) = (¬ P) ∧ (¬Q).
o Double-negation elimination:
o ¬ (¬P) = P.

Limitations of Propositional logic:

o We cannot represent relations like ALL, some, or none with

propositional logic. Example:

a. All the girls are intelligent.

b. Some apples are sweet.

o Propositional logic has limited expressive power.

 o In propositional logic, we cannot describe statements in terms of
their properties or logical relationships.

Rules of Inference in Artificial intelligence

Inference:
In artificial intelligence, we need intelligent computers which can create
new logic from old logic or by evidence, so generating the conclusions
from evidence and facts is termed as Inference.

Inference rules:
Inference rules are the templates for generating valid arguments.
Inference rules are applied to derive proofs in artificial intelligence, and
the proof is a sequence of the conclusion that leads to the desired goal.

In inference rules, the implication among all the connectives plays an

important role. Following are some terminologies related to inference
rules:

o Implication: It is one of the logical connectives which can be

represented as P → Q. It is a Boolean expression.
o Converse: The converse of implication, which means the right-hand
side proposition goes to the left-hand side and vice-versa. It can be
written as Q → P.
o Contrapositive: The negation of converse is termed as
contrapositive, and it can be represented as ¬ Q → ¬ P.
o Inverse: The negation of implication is called inverse. It can be
represented as ¬ P → ¬ Q.

From the above term some of the compound statements are equivalent to
each other, which we can prove using truth table:

ADVERTISEMENT
Hence from the above truth table, we can prove that P → Q is equivalent
to ¬ Q → ¬ P, and Q→ P is equivalent to ¬ P → ¬ Q.

Types of Inference rules:

1. Modus Ponens:
The Modus Ponens rule is one of the most important rules of inference,
and it states that if P and P → Q is true, then we can infer that Q will be
true. It can be represented as:

Example:

Statement-1: "If I am sleepy then I go to bed" ==> P→ Q

Statement-2: "I am sleepy" ==> P
Conclusion: "I go to bed." ==> Q.
Hence, we can say that, if P→ Q is true and P is true then Q will be true.

Proof by Truth table:

2. Modus Tollens:
The Modus Tollens rule state that if P→ Q is true and ¬ Q is true, then ¬
P will also true. It can be represented as:

Statement-1: "If I am sleepy then I go to bed" ==> P→ Q

Statement-2: "I do not go to the bed."==> ~Q
Statement-3: Which infers that "I am not sleepy" => ~P

Proof by Truth table:

3. Hypothetical Syllogism:
The Hypothetical Syllogism rule state that if P→R is true whenever P→Q is
true, and Q→R is true. It can be represented as the following notation:

Example:

Statement-1: If you have my home key then you can unlock my

home. P→Q
Statement-2: If you can unlock my home then you can take my
money. Q→R
Conclusion: If you have my home key then you can take my money. P→R

Proof by truth table:

4. Disjunctive Syllogism:
The Disjunctive syllogism rule state that if P∨Q is true, and ¬P is true,
then Q will be true. It can be represented as:

Example:

Statement-1: Today is Sunday or Monday. ==>P∨Q

Statement-2: Today is not Sunday. ==> ¬P
Conclusion: Today is Monday. ==> Q

Proof by truth-table:

ADVERTISEMENT
5. Addition:
The Addition rule is one the common inference rule, and it states that If P
is true, then P∨Q will be true.

Example:

Statement: I have a vanilla ice-cream. ==> P

Statement-2: I have Chocolate ice-cream.
Conclusion: I have vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. ==> (P∨Q)

Proof by Truth-Table:

6. Simplification:
The simplification rule state that if P∧ Q is true, then Q or P will also be
true. It can be represented as:

Proof by Truth-Table:
7. Resolution:
The Resolution rule state that if P∨Q and ¬ P∧R is true, then Q∨R will also
be true. It can be represented as

Proof by Truth-Table:

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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:

a. Syntax

b. 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:

a. Universal Quantifier, (for all, everyone, everything)

b. 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.

In this question, the predicate is "respect(x, y)," where x=man, and

Since there is every man so will use ∀, and it will be represented as

y= parent.
 ∀x man(x) → respects (x, parent).
follows:

3. Some boys play cricket.

game. Since there are some boys so we will use ∃, and it will be
In this question, the predicate is "play(x, y)," where x= boys, and y=

∃x boys(x) → play(x, cricket).

represented as:

4. Not all students like both Mathematics and Science.

In this question, the predicate is "like(x, y)," where x= student, and

Since there are not all students, so we will use ∀ with negation,
y= subject.

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

so following representation for this:

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

∃(x) [ student(x) → failed (x, Mathematics) ∧∀ (y)

following representation for this:

[¬(x==y) ∧ student(y) → ¬failed (x, 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 (I

n(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 (I

n(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:

PauseNext
Unmute

Current Time 0:17

Duration 18:10
Loaded: 6.24%
Â
Fullscreen
ADVERTISEMENT

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:

o Universal generalization is a valid inference rule which states that if

premise P(c) is true for any arbitrary element c in the universe of
discourse, then we can have a conclusion as ∀ x 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.
The UI rule state that we can infer any sentence P(c) by substituting
a ground term c (a constant within domain x) from ∀ x P(x) for any
o

object in the universe of discourse.

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.
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

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?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
 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.
Let Ψ1 and Ψ2 be two atomic sentences and 𝜎 be a unifier such
that, Ψ1𝜎 = Ψ2𝜎, then it can be expressed as UNIFY(Ψ1, Ψ2).
o

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.

Backward Skip 10sPlay VideoForward Skip 10s

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:

a. Check for Identical expression match.

b. If one expression is a variable v i, and the other is a term ti which

does not contain variable vi, then:

a. Substitute ti / vi in the existing substitutions

b. Add ti /vi to the substitution setlist.

 c. 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 Ψ 2 = 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:

a. John likes all kind of food.

b. Apple and vegetable are food

 c. Anything anyone eats and not killed is food.

d. Anil eats peanuts and still alive

e. Harry eats everything that Anil eats.

Prove by resolution that:

f. 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

a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

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

d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
 f. ∀x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x)

g. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)

h. likes(John, Peanuts).

o Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite

a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

c. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)

d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)

f. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)

g. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)

h. likes(John, Peanuts).

o Rename variables or standardize variables

a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)

c. ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)

d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

e. ∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)

f. ∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)

g. ∀k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)

h. likes(John, Peanuts).
 Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination.
In this step, we will eliminate existential quantifier ∃, and this
o

process is known 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.

a. ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

b. food(Apple)

c. food(vegetables)

d. ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)

e. eats (Anil, Peanuts)

f. alive(Anil)

g. ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)

h. killed(g) V alive(g)

i. ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)

j. 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:

a. Forward chaining

b. 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.

Backward Skip 10sPlay VideoForward Skip 10s

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 variables)
American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) →
Criminal(p) ...(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)
All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.
?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A)
o
......(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.