07 Knowledge Based Agents and Propositional Logic

Knowledge Based Agents:
Logic Agents and Propositional Logic
Alfredo Milani
Knowledge-Based Agents
• KB = knowledge base
– A set of sentences or facts
– e.g., a set of statements in a logic language
• Inference
– Deriving new sentences from old
– e.g., using a set of logical statements to infer new ones
• A simple model for reasoning

– Agent is told or perceives new evidence
• E.g., A is true
– Agent then infers new facts to add to the KB
• E.g., KB = { A -> (B OR C) }, then given A and not C we can
infer that B is true
• B is now added to the KB even though it was not explicitly
asserted, i.e., the agent inferred B
Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

Wumpus World
• Wumpus can be shot, only 1 arrow

– Shoot: arrow goes forward
• Bottomless pits and pot of gold
• Agent can move forward, turn left or

turn right
• Sensors:
– Stench next to wumpus
– Breeze next to pit
– Glitter in square with gold
– Bump when agent moves into a wall
– Scream from wumpus when killed

Reasoning in the Wumpus World
• Agent has initial ignorance about the configuration

– Agent knows his/her initial location
– Agent knows the rules of the environment
• Goal is to explore environment, make inferences (reasoning) to

try to find the gold.
• Random instantiations of this problem used to test agent

reasoning and decision algorithms
(applications? “intelligent agents” in computer games)

Exploring the Wumpus World
[1,1] The KB initially contains the rules of the environment.
The first percept is [none, none,none,none,none],
move to safe cell e.g. 2,1

[2,1] = breeze
indicates that there is a pit in [2,2] or [3,1],
return to [1,1] to try next safe cell

[1,2] Stench in cell which means that wumpus is in [1,3] or [2,2]

YET … not in [1,1]
YET … not in [2,2] or stench would have been detected in [2,1]
(this is relatively sophisticated reasoning!)

[1,2] Stench in cell which means that wumpus is in [1,3] or [2,2]

YET … not in [1,1]
YET … not in [2,2] or stench would have been detected in [2,1]
(this is relatively sophisticated reasoning!)
THUS … wumpus is in [1,3]

THUS [2,2] is safe because of lack of breeze in [1,2]
THUS pit in [1,3] (again a clever inference)
move to next safe cell [2,2]

[2,2] move to [2,3]
[2,3] detect glitter , smell, breeze

THUS pick up gold
THUS pit in [3,3] or [2,4]

What our example has shown us
• Can represent general knowledge about an environment by a

set of rules and facts
• Can gather evidence and then infer new facts by combining

evidence with the rules
• The conclusions are guaranteed to be correct if

– The evidence is correct
– The rules are correct
– The inference procedure is correct
-> logical reasoning
• The inference may be quite complex

– E.g., evidence at different times, combined with different rules, etc

What is a Logic?
• A formal language
– KB = set of sentences
• Syntax
– what sentences are legal (well-formed)
– E.g., arithmetic
• X+2 >= y is a wf sentence, +x2y is not a wf sentence
• Semantics
– loose meaning: the interpretation of each sentence
– More precisely:
• Defines the truth of each sentence wrt to each possible world
– e.g,
• X+2 = y is true in a world where x=7 and y =9
• X+2 = y is false in a world where x=7 and y =1
– Note: standard logic – each sentence is T of F wrt eachworld

• Fuzzy logic – allows for degrees of truth.

Models and possible worlds
• Logicians typically think in terms of models, which are formally

structured worlds with respect to which truth can be
evaluated.
• m is a model of a sentence  if  is true in m
• M() is the set of all models of 
• Possible worlds ~ models

– Possible worlds: potentially real environments
– Models: mathematical abstractions that establish the truth or
falsity of every sentence
• Example:
– x + y = 4, where x = #men, y = #women
– Possible models = all possible assignments of integers to x and y

Entailment
• One sentence follows logically from another

 |= b
 entails sentence b if and only if b is true in all worlds where

 is true.
e.g., x+y=4 |= 4=x+y
• Entailment is a relationship between sentences that is based

on semantics.

Entailment in the wumpus world
• Consider possible models for KB assuming only pits and a reduced

Wumpus world
• Situation after detecting nothing in [1,1], moving right, detecting

breeze in [2,1]

Wumpus models
All possible models in this reduced Wumpus world.

Wumpus models
• KB = all possible wumpus-worlds consistent with the

observations and the “physics” of the Wumpus world.

Inferring conclusions
• Consider 2 possible conclusions given a KB

– α1 = "[1,2] is safe"
– α2 = "[2,2] is safe“
• One possible inference procedure

– Start with KB
– Model-checking
• Check if KB ╞  by checking if in all possible models where KB
is true that  is also true
• Comments:
– Model-checking enumerates all possible worlds
• Only works on finite domains, will suffer from exponential
growth of possible models

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

Wumpus models
α2 = "[2,2] is safe", KB ╞ α2
There are some models entailed by KB where 2 is false

Logical inference
• The notion of entailment can be used for logic inference.

– Model checking (see wumpus example): enumerate all possible
models and check whether  is true.
• If an algorithm only derives entailed sentences it is called

sound or truth preserving.
– Otherwise it just makes things up.
i is sound if whenever KB |-i  it is also true that KB|= 
– E.g., model-checking is sound
• Completeness : the algorithm can derive any sentence that is

entailed.
i is complete if whenever KB |=  it is also true that KB|-i 

Schematic perspective
If KB is true in the real world, then any sentence  derived

from KB by a sound inference procedure is also true in the
real world.

Propositional logic: Syntax
• Propositional logic is the simplest logic – illustrates basic ideas
• Atomic sentences = single proposition symbols

– E.g., P, Q, R
– Special cases: True = always true, False = always false
• Complex sentences:
– If S is a sentence, S is a sentence (negation)
– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (conjunction)
– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (disjunction)
– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (implication)
– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (biconditional)

Propositional logic: Semantics
Each model/world specifies true or false for each proposition symbol

E.g. P1,2 P2,2 P3,1
false true false
With these symbols, 8 possible models, can be enumerated automatically.
Rules for evaluating truth with respect to a model m:

S is true iff S is false
S1  S2 is true iff S1 is true and S2 is true
S1  S2 is true iff S1is true or S2 is true
S1  S2 is true iff S1 is false or S2 is true

i.e., is false iff S1 is true and S2 is false
S1  S2 is true iff S1S2 is true andS2S1 is true
Simple recursive process evaluates an arbitrary sentence, e.g.,
P1,2  (P2,2  P3,1) = true  (true  false) = true  true = true

Truth tables for connectives

Truth tables for connectives
Implication is always true

when the premise is false
Why? P=>Q means “if P is true then I am claiming that Q is true,

otherwise no claim”
Only way for this to be false is if P is true and Q is false

Wumpus world sentences
Let Pi,j be true if there is a pit in [i, j].

Let Bi,j be true if there is a breeze in [i, j].
start:  P1,1
 B1,1
B2,1
• "Pits cause breezes in adjacent squares"

B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)
B2,1  (P1,1  P2,2  P3,1)
• KB can be expressed as the conjunction of all of these

sentences
• Note that these sentences are rather long-winded!

– E.g., breese “rule” must be stated explicitly for each square
– First-order logic will allow us to define more general relations
(later)

Truth tables for the Wumpus KB

Inference by enumeration
• We want to see if  is entailed by KB
• Enumeration of all models is sound and complete.
• But…for n symbols, time complexity is O(2n)...
• We need a more efficient way to do inference

– But worst-case complexity will remain exponential for propositional
logic

Logical equivalence
• To manipulate logical sentences we need some rewrite rules.

• Two sentences are logically equivalent iff they are true in same models: α ≡ ß
iff α╞ β and β╞ α

Validity and satisfiability
A sentence is valid if it is true in all models,

e.g., True, A A, A  A, (A  (A  B))  B
(tautologies)
Validity is connected to inference via the Deduction Theorem:

KB ╞ α if and only if (KB  α) is valid
A sentence is satisfiable if it is true in some model

e.g., A B, C
(determining satisfiability of sentences is NP-complete)
A sentence is unsatisfiable if it is false in all models

e.g., AA
Satisfiability is connected to inference via the following:

KB ╞ α if and only if (KB α) is unsatisfiable
(there is no model for which KB=true and  is false)
(aka proof by contradiction: assume  to be false and this leads to
contraditions in KB)

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 want to prove: KB | 
equivalent to : KB   unsatifiable
We first rewrite KB   into conjunctive normal form (CNF).
literals
A “conjunction of disjunctions”
(A  B)  (B  C  D)
Clause Clause
• Any KB can be converted into CNF

• k-CNF: exactly k literals per clause

Example: Conversion to CNF
B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)
1. Eliminate , replacing α  β with (α  β)(β  α).

(B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1))  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1)
2. Eliminate , replacing α  β with α β.

(B1,1  P1,2  P2,1)  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1)
3. Move  inwards using de Morgan's rules and double-negation:

(B1,1  P1,2  P2,1)  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1)
4. Apply distributive law ( over ) and flatten:

(B1,1  P1,2  P2,1)  (P1,2  B1,1)  (P2,1  B1,1)

Resolution Inference Rule for CNF
(A  B  C )
( A ) “If A or B or C is true, but not A, then B or C
 must be true.”
 (B  C )
(A  B  C ) “If A is false then B or C must be true,

( A  D  E ) 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.”
 (B  C  D  E )
(A  B )
( A  B )
 Simplification
 (B  B )  B

Resolution Algorithm
• The resolution algorithm tries to prove: KB |  equivalent to

KB   unsatisfiable
• Generate all new sentences from KB and the query.

• One of two things can happen:
1. We find P  P which is unsatisfiable,

i.e. we can entail the query.
2. We find no contradiction: there is a model that satisfies the

Sentence (non-trivial) and hence we cannot entail the query.
KB  

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

• α = P1,2
KB  
True
False in
all worlds

Horn Clauses
• Resolution in general 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. A  B  C
• 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. B  C  A
• 1 positive literal: definite clause
• 0 positive literals: Fact or integrity constraint:

e.g. (A  B )  (A  B  False )

Forward-chaining pseudocode

Forward chaining: graph representation
• 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
• Forward chaining is sound and complete for Horn KB

Forward chaining example
“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
Like FC, is linear and is also sound and complete (for Horn KB)

Backward chaining example



we need P to prove
L and L to prove P.







Forward vs. backward chaining
• FC is data-driven, automatic, unconscious processing,

– e.g., object recognition, routine decisions
• May do lots of work that is irrelevant to the goal
• BC is goal-driven, appropriate for problem-solving,

– e.g., Where are my keys? How do I get into a PhD program?
• Complexity of BC can be much less than linear in size of KB

Model Checking
Two families of efficient algorithms:
• Complete backtracking search algorithms: DPLL algorithm
• Incomplete local search algorithms

– WalkSAT algorithm

Satisfiability problems
• Consider a CNF sentence, e.g.,

(D  B  C)  (B  A  C)  (C  B  E)  (E  D  B)
 (B  E  C)
Satisfiability: Is there a model consistent with this sentence?

The WalkSAT algorithm
• Incomplete, local search algorithm

– Begin with a random assignment of values to symbols
– Each iteration: pick an unsatisfied clause
• Flip the symbol that maximizes number of satisfied clauses, OR
• Flip a symbol in the clause randomly
• Trades-off greediness and randomness
• Many variations of this idea
• If it returns failure (after some number of tries) we cannot tell

whether the sentence is unsatisfiable or whether we have not
searched long enough
– If max-flips = infinity, and sentence is unsatisfiable, algorithm
never terminates!
• Typically most useful when we expect a solution to exist

Pseudocode for WalkSAT

Hard satisfiability problems
• Consider random 3-CNF sentences. e.g.,

(D  B  C)  (B  A  C)  (C  B  E)  (E  D  B)
 (B  E  C)
m = number of clauses (5)

n = number of symbols (5)
– Underconstrained problems:
• Relatively few clauses constraining the variables
• Tend to be easy
• 16 of 32 possible assignments above are solutions
– (so 2 random guesses will work on average)

Hard satisfiability problems
• What makes a problem hard?

– Increase the number of clauses while keeping the number of
symbols fixed
– Problem is more constrained, fewer solutions
– Investigate experimentally….

P(satisfiable) for random 3-CNF sentences, n = 50

Run-time for DPLL and WalkSAT
• Median runtime for 100 satisfiable random 3-CNF sentences, n = 50

Inference-based agents in the wumpus world
A wumpus-world agent using propositional logic:
P1,1 (no pit in square [1,1])

W1,1 (no Wumpus in square [1,1])
Bx,y  (Px,y+1  Px,y-1  Px+1,y  Px-1,y) (Breeze next to Pit)
Sx,y  (Wx,y+1  Wx,y-1  Wx+1,y  Wx-1,y) (stench next to Wumpus)
W1,1  W1,2  …  W4,4 (at least 1 Wumpus)
W1,1  W1,2 (at most 1 Wumpus)
W1,1  W8,9
…
 64 distinct proposition symbols, 155 sentences

Limited expressiveness of propositional logic
• KB contains "physics" sentences for every single square
• For every time t and every location [x,y],

Lx,y  FacingRightt  Forwardt  Lx+1,y
• 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
• Resolution is complete for propositional logic
• Forward, backward chaining are linear-time, complete

for Horn clauses
• Propositional logic lacks expressive power

07 Knowledge Based Agents and Propositional Logic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 Knowledge Based Agents and Propositional Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge Based Agents:

Logic Agents and Propositional Logic

• A simple model for reasoning

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• Wumpus can be shot, only 1 arrow

• Bottomless pits and pot of gold

• Agent can move forward, turn left or

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• Agent has initial ignorance about the configuration

• Goal is to explore environment, make inferences (reasoning) to

• Random instantiations of this problem used to test agent

(applications? “intelligent agents” in computer games)

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

[1,1] The KB initially contains the rules of the environment.

The first percept is [none, none,none,none,none],

move to safe cell e.g. 2,1

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

indicates that there is a pit in [2,2] or [3,1],

return to [1,1] to try next safe cell

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

[1,2] Stench in cell which means that wumpus is in [1,3] or [2,2]

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

[1,2] Stench in cell which means that wumpus is in [1,3] or [2,2]

THUS … wumpus is in [1,3]

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

[2,2] move to [2,3]

[2,3] detect glitter , smell, breeze

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• Can represent general knowledge about an environment by a

• Can gather evidence and then infer new facts by combining

• The conclusions are guaranteed to be correct if

• The inference may be quite complex

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

– Note: standard logic – each sentence is T of F wrt eachworld

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• Logicians typically think in terms of models, which are formally

• m is a model of a sentence  if  is true in m

• M() is the set of all models of 

• Possible worlds ~ models

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• One sentence follows logically from another

 entails sentence b if and only if b is true in all worlds where

e.g., x+y=4 |= 4=x+y

• Entailment is a relationship between sentences that is based

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• Consider possible models for KB assuming only pits and a reduced

• Situation after detecting nothing in [1,1], moving right, detecting

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

All possible models in this reduced Wumpus world.

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• KB = all possible wumpus-worlds consistent with the

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• Consider 2 possible conclusions given a KB

• One possible inference procedure

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

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

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

There are some models entailed by KB where 2 is false

Propositional Logic and Agents Alfredo Milani

• The notion of entailment can be used for logic inference.

• If an algorithm only derives entailed sentences it is called

• Completeness : the algorithm can derive any sentence that is