Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 7
Knowledge Bases
Knowledge base:
set of sentences in a formal language.
Declarative approach to building an agent: Tell it what it needs to know. Ask it what to do answers should follow from the KB.
Environment
Squares adjacent to wumpus are smelly Squares adjacent to pit are breezy Glitter iff gold is in the same square Shooting kills wumpus if you are facing it Shooting uses up the only arrow Grabbing picks up gold if in same square Releasing drops the gold in same square
Sensors: Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream Actuators: Left turn, Right turn, Forward, Grab, Release, Shoot
Logic
We used logical reasoning to find the gold. Logics are formal languages for representing information such that conclusions can be drawn Syntax defines the sentences in the language Semantics define the "meaning" of sentences;
i.e., define truth of a sentence in a world
Entailment
Entailment means that one thing follows from another: KB Knowledge base KB entails sentence if and only if is true in all worlds where KB is true
E.g., the KB containing the Giants won and the Reds won entails The Giants won. E.g., x+y = 4 entails 4 = x+y
Models
Logicians typically think in terms of models, which are formally structured worlds with respect to which truth can be evaluated We say m is a model of a sentence if is true in m M() is the set of all models of Then KB iff M(KB) M()
E.g. KB = Giants won and Reds won = Giants won
Think of KB and as collections of constraints and of models m as possible states. M(KB) are the solutions to KB and M() the solutions to . Then, KB when all solutions to KB are also solutions to .
Consider possible models for KB assuming only pits and a reduced Wumpus world Situation after detecting nothing in [1,1], moving right, breeze in [2,1]
Wumpus models
Wumpus models
KB = all possible wumpus-worlds consistent with the observations and the physics of the Wumpus world.
Wumpus models
Wumpus models
2 = "[2,2] is safe", KB 2
Inference Procedures
KB i = sentence can be derived from KB by procedure i Soundness: i is sound if whenever KB i , it is also true that KB (no wrong inferences, but maybe not all inferences) Completeness: i is complete if whenever KB , it is also true that KB i (all inferences can be made, but maybe some wrong extra ones as well)
Rules for evaluating truth with respect to a model m: S is true iff S is false S1 S2 is true iff S1 is true and S2 is true S1 S2 is true iff S1is true or S2 is true S1 S2 is true iff S1 is false or S2 is true i.e., is false iff S1 is true and S2 is false S1 S2 is true iff S1S2 is true andS2S1 is true Simple recursive process evaluates an arbitrary sentence, e.g., P1,2 (P2,2 P3,1) = true (true false) = true true = true
OR: P or Q is true or both are true. XOR: P or Q is true but not both.
Inference by enumeration
Enumeration of all models is sound and complete. For n symbols, time complexity is O(2n)... We need a smarter way to do inference! In particular, we are going to infer new logical sentences from the data-base and see if they match a query.
Logical equivalence
To manipulate logical sentences we need some rewrite rules. Two sentences are logically equivalent iff they are true in same models: iff and
You need to know these !
A sentence is unsatisfiable if it is false in all models Satisfiability is connected to inference via the following:
KB if and only if (KB ) is unsatisfiable (there is no model for which KB=true and is false)
Proof methods
Proof methods divide into (roughly) two kinds:
Application of inference rules:
Legitimate (sound) generation of new sentences from old. Resolution Forward & Backward chaining
Model checking
Searching through truth assignments. Improved backtracking: Davis--Putnam-Logemann-Loveland (DPLL) Heuristic search in model space: Walksat.
Normal Form
We like to prove:
We first rewrite
literals
Any KB can be converted into CNF. In fact, any KB can be converted into CNF-3 using clauses with at most 3 literals.
2. Eliminate , replacing with . 3. Move inwards using de Morgan's rules and doublenegation:
(B1,1 P1,2 P2,1) ((P1,2 P2,1) B1,1)
Resolution
Resolution: inference rule for CNF: sound and complete!
If A or B or C is true, but not A, then B or C must be true.
If A is false then B or C must be true, or if A is true then D or E must be true, hence since A is either true or false, B or C or D or E must be true.
Simplification
Resolution Algorithm
The resolution algorithm tries to prove: Generate all new sentences from KB and the query. One of two things can happen: which is unsatisfiable. I.e. we can entail the query.
1. We find
2. We find no contradiction: there is a model that satisfies the sentence (non-trivial) and hence we cannot entail the query.
Resolution example
KB = (B1,1 (P1,2 P2,1)) B1,1 = P1,2
True!
Horn Clauses
Resolution can be exponential in space and time. If we can reduce all clauses to Horn clauses resolution is linear in space and time
A clause with at most 1 positive literal. e.g. Every Horn clause can be rewritten as an implication with a conjunction of positive literals in the premises and a single positive literal as a conclusion. e.g. 1 positive literal: definite clause 0 positive literals: Fact or integrity constraint: e.g. Forward Chaining and Backward chaining are sound and complete with Horn clauses and run linear in space and time.
Try it Yourselves
7.9 page 238: (Adapted from Barwise and Etchemendy (1993).) If the unicorn is mythical, then it is immortal, but if it is not mythical, then it is a mortal mammal. If the unicorn is either immortal or a mammal, then it is horned. The unicorn is magical if it is horned. Derive the KB in normal form. Prove: Horned, Prove: Magical.
Forward chaining
Idea: fire any rule whose premises are satisfied in the KB,
add its conclusion to the KB, until query is found
AND gate
OR gate
OR Gate
AND gate
Backward chaining
Idea: work backwards from the query q
check if q is known already, or prove by BC all premises of some rule concluding q Hence BC maintains a stack of sub-goals that need to be proved to get to q.
Avoid loops: check if new sub-goal is already on the goal stack Avoid repeated work: check if new sub-goal 1. has already been proved true, or 2. has already failed
May do lots of work that is irrelevant to the goal BC is goal-driven, appropriate for problem-solving,
e.g., Where are my keys? How do I get into a PhD program?
Model Checking
Two families of efficient algorithms: Complete backtracking search algorithms: DPLL algorithm Incomplete local search algorithms
WalkSAT algorithm
2.
Rapid proliferation of clauses. First order logic is designed to deal with this through the introduction of variables.
Summary
Logical agents apply inference to a knowledge base to derive new information and make decisions Basic concepts of logic:
syntax: formal structure of sentences semantics: truth of sentences wrt models entailment: necessary truth of one sentence given another inference: deriving sentences from other sentences soundness: derivations produce only entailed sentences completeness: derivations can produce all entailed sentences
Wumpus world requires the ability to represent partial and negated information, reason by cases, etc. Resolution is complete for propositional logic Forward, backward chaining are linear-time, complete for Horn clauses Propositional logic lacks expressive power