CSCE 580 Artificial Intelligence The Resolution Refutation Proof Technique for First-Order Logic

1. CSCE 580Artificial IntelligenceThe Resolution Refutation Proof Technique for First-Order Logic Fall 2009 Marco Valtorta mgv@cse.sc.edu

2. Acknowledgment • The slides are based on the textbook [AIMA] and other sources, including other fine textbooks and the accompanying slide sets • The other textbooks I considered are: • David Poole, Alan Mackworth, and Randy Goebel. Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach. Oxford, 1998 • A second edition (by Poole and Mackworth) is under development. Dr. Poole allowed us to use a draft of it in this course • Ivan Bratko. Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 2001 • The fourth edition is under development • George F. Luger. Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving, Sixth Edition. Addison-Welsey, 2009

3. Outline • Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference • Unification • Generalized Modus Ponens • Forward chaining • Backward chaining • Resolution

4. Universal instantiation (UI) • Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is entailed by it: vαSubst({v/g}, α) for any variable v and ground term g • E.g., x King(x) Greedy(x)  Evil(x) yields: King(John) Greedy(John) Evil(John) King(Richard) Greedy(Richard) Evil(Richard) King(Father(John)) Greedy(Father(John)) Evil(Father(John)) . . .

5. Existential instantiation (EI) • For any sentence α, variable v, and constant symbol k that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base: vα Subst({v/k}, α) • E.g., xCrown(x) OnHead(x,John) yields: Crown(C1) OnHead(C1,John) provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called a Skolem constant • Logical equivalence is not preserved, because skolemization adds new constants to formulas; however, the new KB is satisfiable iff the old one is satisfiable (s-equivalence) • In general, skolemization adds Skolem function, as in x y Is_Father(y,x), which skolemizes to x Is_Father(Father(x),x)

6. Reduction to propositional inference Suppose the KB contains just the following: x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x) King(John) Greedy(John) Brother(Richard,John) • Instantiating the universal sentence in all possible ways, we have: King(John)  Greedy(John)  Evil(John) King(Richard)  Greedy(Richard)  Evil(Richard) King(John) Greedy(John) Brother(Richard,John) • The new KB is propositionalized: proposition symbols are King(John), Greedy(John), Evil(John), King(Richard), etc.

7. Reduction ctd. • Every FOL KB can be propositionalized so as to preserve entailment • (A ground sentence is entailed by new KB iff entailed by original KB) • Idea: propositionalize KB and query, apply resolution, return result • Problem: with function symbols, there are infinitely many ground terms, • e.g., Father(Father(Father(John)))

8. Reduction ctd. Theorem: Herbrand (1930). If a sentence αis entailed by an FOL KB, it is entailed by a finite subset of the propositionalized KB Note: Herbrand showed that no new constants have to be introduced (so, in the example, the only constants needed are John and Richard), except for one in case the KB contains no constants, in which case one constant must be introduced Idea: For n = 0 to ∞ do create a propositional KB by instantiating with depth-n terms see if α is entailed by this KB Problem: works if α is entailed, may loop forever if α is not entailed Theorem: Turing (1936), Church (1936) Entailment for FOL is semidecidable (algorithms exist that say yes to every entailed sentence, but no algorithm exists that also says no to every non-entailed sentence.)

9. Problems withpropositionalization • Propositionalization seems to generate lots of irrelevant sentences. • E.g., from: x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x) King(John) y Greedy(y) Brother(Richard,John) • it seems obvious that Evil(John), but propositionalization produces lots of facts such as Greedy(Richard) that are irrelevant • With p k-ary predicates and n constants, there are p·nk instantiations.

10. Unification • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y) θ = {x/John,y/John} works • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ p q θ Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ) • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

11. Unification • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y) θ = {x/John,y/John} works • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ p q θ Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane} Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ) • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

12. Unification • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y) θ = {x/John,y/John} works • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ p q θ Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}} Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}} Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ) • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

13. Unification • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y) θ = {x/John,y/John} works • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ p q θ Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}} Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}} Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) {y/John,x/Mother(John)}} Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ) • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

14. Unification • We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution θ such that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y) θ = {x/John,y/John} works • Unify(α,β) = θ if αθ = βθ p q θ Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}} Knows(John,x) Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}} Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) {y/John,x/Mother(John)}} Knows(John,x) Knows(x,OJ) {fail} • Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

15. Unification • To unify Knows(John,x) and Knows(y,z), θ = {y/John, x/z } or θ= {y/John, x/John, z/John} • The first unifier is more general than the second. • There is a single most general unifier (MGU) that is unique up to renaming of variables. MGU = { y/John, x/z }

16. The unification algorithm

17. The unification algorithm Occurs check: when unifying a variable x with a term T, check whether x occurs in T. Note that this should be done after the already found substitutions are applied. For example, unifying t(x,f(x)) and t(g(y),y) “occur checks” because after x\g(y) is applied, one obtains t(g(y),f(g(y))) and t(g(y),y). Unifying f(g(y)) with y leads to the attempted substitution y\g(y), which triggers the occurs check, leading to failure.

18. Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP) p1', p2', … , pn', ( p1 p2 …  pnq) qθ E.g., p1' is King(John) p1 is King(x) p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x) θ is {x/John,y/John} q is Evil(x) q θ is Evil(John) • GMP used with KB of definite clauses (exactly one positive literal) • All variables assumed universally quantified where pi'θ = piθ for all i

19. Soundness of GMP • Need to show that p1', …, pn', (p1 …  pn q) ╞ qθ provided that pi'θ = piθ for all I • Lemma: For any sentence p, we have p╞ pθ by UI • (p1 …  pn q) ╞ (p1 …  pn q)θ = (p1θ …  pnθ qθ) • p1', …, pn' ╞ p1'  …  pn' ╞ p1'θ …  pn'θ • From 1 and 2, qθ follows by ordinary Modus Ponens

20. Example knowledge base • The law says that it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. The country Nono, an enemy of America, has some missiles, and all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West, who is American. • Prove that Col. West is a criminal

21. Example knowledge base ctd. ... it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations: American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x) Nono … has some missiles, i.e., x Owns(Nono,x)  Missile(x): Owns(Nono,M1) and Missile(M1) … all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono) Missiles are weapons: Missile(x)  Weapon(x) An enemy of America counts as "hostile“: Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x) West, who is American … American(West) The country Nono, an enemy of America … Enemy(Nono,America) Note: This definite clause KB has no functions. It is therefore a Datalog KB

22. Forward chaining algorithm

23. Forward chaining proof

24. Forward chaining proof

25. Forward chaining proof

26. Properties of forward chaining • Sound and complete for first-order definite clauses • Datalog = first-order definite clauses + no functions • FC terminates for Datalog in finite number of iterations • May not terminate in general if α is not entailed • This is unavoidable: entailment with definite clauses is semidecidable

27. Efficiency of forward chaining Incremental forward chaining: no need to match a rule on iteration k if a premise wasn't added on iteration k-1  match each rule whose premise contains a newly added positive literal The rete algorithm builds a dataflow network to allow for reuse of matchings; it is used in production system languages such as OPS-5 Matching itself can be expensive: Database indexing allows O(1) retrieval of known facts • e.g., query Missile(x) retrieves Missile(M1) Forward chaining is widely used in deductive databases

28. Hard matching example Diff(wa,nt)  Diff(wa,sa)  Diff(nt,q)  Diff(nt,sa)  Diff(q,nsw)  Diff(q,sa) Diff(nsw,v)  Diff(nsw,sa) Diff(v,sa)  Colorable() Diff(Red,Blue) Diff (Red,Green) Diff(Green,Red) Diff(Green,Blue) Diff(Blue,Red) Diff(Blue,Green) • Colorable() is inferred iff the CSP has a solution • CSPs include 3SAT as a special case, hence matching is NP-hard

29. Backward chaining algorithm SUBST(COMPOSE(θ1, θ2), p) = SUBST(θ2, SUBST(θ1, p))

30. Backward chaining example

31. Backward chaining example

32. Backward chaining example

33. Backward chaining example

34. Backward chaining example

35. Backward chaining example

36. Backward chaining example

37. Backward chaining example

38. Properties of backward chaining • Depth-first recursive proof search: space is linear in size of proof • Incomplete due to infinite loops •  fix by checking current goal against every goal on stack • Inefficient due to repeated subgoals (both success and failure) •  fix using caching of previous results (extra space) • Widely used for logic programming

39. Logic programming: Prolog • Algorithm = Logic + Control • Basis: backward chaining with Horn clauses + bells & whistles Widely used in Europe, Japan (basis of 5th Generation project) Compilation techniques  60 million LIPS • Program = set of clauses = head :- literal1, … literaln. criminal(X) :- american(X), weapon(Y), sells(X,Y,Z), hostile(Z). • Depth-first, left-to-right backward chaining • Built-in predicates for arithmetic etc., e.g., X is Y*Z+3 • Built-in predicates that have side effects (e.g., input and output predicates, assert/retract predicates) • Closed-world assumption ("negation as failure") • e.g., given alive(X) :- not dead(X). • alive(joe) succeeds if dead(joe) fails

40. Prolog • Appending two lists to produce a third: append([],Y,Y). append([X|L],Y,[X|Z]) :- append(L,Y,Z). • query: ?-append(A,B,[1,2]) • answers: A=[] B=[1,2] A=[1] B=[2] A=[1,2] B=[]

41. Backward chaining is incomplete • Goal trees are built by backward chaining • C is true, as shown in the following (natural deduction) proof by cases (split on D) • It is impossible to prove C by backward chaining • Two additions make backward chaining complete: • addition of contrapositives (ex: ~C -> ~D) • ancestor checking

42. PTTP: A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover • Prolog is not a full theorem prover for three main reasons: • It uses an unsound unification algorithm without the occurs check • Its inference system is complete for Horn clauses, but not for more general formulas, as shown in the previous slide • Its unbounded depth-first search strategy is incomplete. Also, it cannot display the proofs it finds • The Prolog Technology Theorem Prover (PTTP) overcomes these limitations by • transforming clauses so that head literals have no repeated variables and unification without the occurs check is valid; remaining unification is done using complete unification with the occurs check in the body • adding contrapositives of clauses (so that any literal, not just a distinguished head literal, can be resolved on) and the model- elimination procedure reduction rule that matches goals with the negations of their ancestor goals • using a sequence of bounded depth-first searches to prove a theorem; • retaining information on what formulas are used for each inference so that the proof can be printed • Proof of soundness and completeness follows from the soundness and completeness of resolution refutation

43. Resolution: brief summary • Full first-order version: l1···lk, m1···mn (l1···li-1li+1 ···lkm1···mj-1mj+1···mn)θ where Unify(li, mj) = θ. • The two clauses are assumed to be standardized apart so that they share no variables. • For example, Rich(x) Unhappy(x) Rich(Ken) Unhappy(Ken) with θ = {x/Ken} • Apply resolution steps to CNF(KB α); complete for FOL • Full disclosure: For completeness, one needs either • general (non-binary) resolution, in which subsets of literals that are unifiable are resolved, or • Factoring, which replaces unifiable atoms literals in a clause with a single atom

44. Conversion to CNF • Everyone who loves all animals is loved by someone: x [y Animal(y) Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)] 1. Eliminate biconditionals and implications x [y Animal(y) Loves(x,y)]  [yLoves(y,x)] 2. Move  inwards: x p ≡x p,  x p ≡x p x [y (Animal(y) Loves(x,y))]  [y Loves(y,x)] x [y Animal(y) Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)] x [y Animal(y) Loves(x,y)]  [y Loves(y,x)]

45. Conversion to CNF contd. • Standardize variables: each quantifier should use a different one x [y Animal(y) Loves(x,y)]  [z Loves(z,x)] • Skolemize: a more general form of existential instantiation. Each existential variable is replaced by a Skolem function of the enclosing universally quantified variables: x [Animal(F(x)) Loves(x,F(x))] Loves(G(x),x) • Drop universal quantifiers: [Animal(F(x)) Loves(x,F(x))] Loves(G(x),x) • Distribute  over  : [Animal(F(x)) Loves(G(x),x)]  [Loves(x,F(x)) Loves(G(x),x)]

46. Completeness of Resolution • Resolution is refutation-complete: if S is an unsatisfiable set of clauses, then the application of a finite number of resolution steps to S will yield a contradiction

47. Resolution proof: definite clauses • This is an input resolution proof

48. Resolution proof: general case • Curiosity killed the cat: pp.298-300 [AIMA-2] • Not a unit resolution proof; not an input resolution proof

49. Resolution Strategies • Breadth-First Strategy (complete) • Set-of-Support Strategy (complete) • At least one parent of each resolvent is selected from among the clauses resulting from the negation of the goal or from their descendants (the set of support) • Unit-Preference Strategy (complete) • Unit Resolution (complete for Horn clauses: forward chaining) • Each resolvent has a parent that is a unit clause • Linear-Input Form Strategy (not complete) • Each resolvent has at least one parent belonging to the base set (i.e. the set of clauses given as input) • Complete for Horn clauses • Called “input resolution” in [AIMA] • Ancestry-Filtered Form Strategy (complete) • Each resolvent has a parent that is either in the base set or an ancestor of the other parent • Called “linear resolution” in [AIMA]

50. Example KB [Nilsson, 1980] • Whoever can read is literate • (1) ~R(x)  L(x) • Dolphins are not literate • (2) ~D(x)  ~L(x) • Some dolphins are intelligent • (3a) D(A) • (3b) I(A) • Goal: Some who are intelligent cannot read • (4’) ~I(z) R(z) • Whoever can read is literate • x[R(x) L(x)] • Dolphins are not literate • x[D(x) ~L(x)] • Some dolphins are intelligent • x[D(x)  I(x)] • Goal: Some who are intelligent cannot read • x[I(x)  ~R(x)]