AIML

NOTES
Unit 2

Ms. Deepika yadav

Assistant Professor
CSE Department
“Logical AI: The idea is that an agent can represent knowledge of its world, its
goals and the current situation by sentences in logic and decide what to do by inferring
that a certain action or course of action is appropriate to achieve its goals.”

John McCarthy in Concepts of logical AI, 2000.

Intelligent agents need knowledge about the world to choose good

actions/decisions.

• Knowledge = {sentences} in a knowledge representation language (formal language).

• A sentence is an assertion about the world.

• A knowledge-based agent is composed of:

1. Knowledge base: domain-specific content.

2. Inference mechanism: domain-independent algorithms.

The agent must be able to: – Represent states, actions, etc.

– Incorporate new percepts

–Update internal representations of the world

– Deduce hidden properties of the world

– Deduce appropriate actions

• Declarative approach to building an agent:

Add new sentences: Tell it what it needs to know

– Query what is known: Ask itself what to do

- answers should follow from the KB

 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

Note: For better understanding use parenthesis to make sure of the correct interpretations.
Such as ¬R∨ Q, It can be interpreted as (¬R) ∨ Q.

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.
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:

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:
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.

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:

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

2. Every man respects his parent.

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

3. Some boys play cricket.

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

4. Not all students like both Mathematics and Science.

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

5. Only one student failed in Mathematics.

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

Inference in First-Order Logic

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

Substitution:

Substitution is a fundamental operation performed on terms and formulas. It occurs in all

inference systems in first-order logic. The substitution is complex in the presence of
quantifiers in FOL. If we write F[a/x], so it refers to substitute a constant "a" in place of
variable "x".

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

Equality:

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

Example: Brother (John) = Smith.

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

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

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

o Universal Generalization
o Universal Instantiation
o Existential Instantiation
o Existential introduction

1. Universal Generalization:

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.
o 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 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.
o This rule states that one can infer P(c) from the formula given in the form of ∃x P(x)
for a new constant symbol c.
o The restriction with this rule is that c used in the rule must be a new term for which
P(c ) is true.

o It can be represented as:

Example:

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

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

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

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

4. Existential introduction

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

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

o It can be represented as:

o Example: Let's say that,
"Priyanka got good marks in English."
"Therefore, someone got good marks in English."

Generalized Modus Ponens Rule:

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

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

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

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

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

2. p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
3. θ is {x/John, y/John} q is evil(x)
4. SUBST(θ,q).

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.
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)
o All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.
?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)
o Missiles are weapons.
Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)
o Enemy of America is known as hostile.
Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)
o Country A is an enemy of America.
Enemy (A, America) .........(7)
o Robert is American
American(Robert). ..........(8)

Forward chaining proof:

Step-1:

In the first step we will start with the known facts and will choose the sentences which do
not have implications, such as: American(Robert), Enemy(A, America), Owns(A, T1),
and Missile(T1). All these facts will be represented as below.
Step-2:

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

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

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

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

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

Step-3:

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

B. Backward Chaining:
Backward-chaining is also known as a backward deduction or backward reasoning
method when using an inference engine. A backward chaining algorithm is a form of
reasoning, which starts with the goal and works backward, chaining through rules to find
known facts that support the goal.

Properties of backward chaining:

o It is known as a top-down approach.

o Backward-chaining is based on modus ponens inference rule.
o In backward chaining, the goal is broken into sub-goal or sub-goals to prove the
facts true.
o It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals decides which rules are selected
and used.
o Backward -chaining algorithm is used in game theory, automated theorem proving
tools, inference engines, proof assistants, and various AI applications.
o The backward-chaining method mostly used a depth-first search strategy for
proof.
Example:
In backward-chaining, we will use the same above example, and will rewrite all the rules.

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

Owns(A, T1) ........(2)
o Missile(T1)
o ?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)
o Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)
o Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)
o Enemy (A, America) .........(7)
o American(Robert). ..........(8)

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

Step-1:

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

Step-2:

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

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

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

Step-4:

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

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

o Forward chaining as the name suggests, start from the known facts and move
forward by applying inference rules to extract more data, and it continues until it
reaches to the goal, whereas backward chaining starts from the goal, move
backward by using inference rules to determine the facts that satisfy the goal.
o Forward chaining is called a data-driven inference technique, whereas backward
chaining is called a goal-driven inference technique.
o Forward chaining is known as the down-up approach, whereas backward chaining
is known as a top-down approach.
o Forward chaining uses breadth-first search strategy, whereas backward chaining
uses depth-first search strategy.
o Forward and backward chaining both applies Modus ponens inference rule.
 o Forward chaining can be used for tasks such as planning, design process
monitoring, diagnosis, and classification, whereas backward chaining can be
used for classification and diagnosis tasks.
o Forward chaining can be like an exhaustive search, whereas backward chaining tries
to avoid the unnecessary path of reasoning.
o In forward-chaining there can be various ASK questions from the knowledge base,
whereas in backward chaining there can be fewer ASK questions.
o Forward chaining is slow as it checks for all the rules, whereas backward chaining
is fast as it checks few required rules only.

S. Forward Chaining Backward Chaining

No.

1. Forward chaining starts from Backward chaining starts from the

known facts and applies inference goal and works backward through
rule to extract more data unit it inference rules to find the required
reaches to the goal. facts that support the goal.

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

3. Forward chaining is known as data- Backward chaining is known as goal-

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

4. Forward chaining reasoning applies Backward chaining reasoning applies

a breadth-first search strategy. a depth-first search strategy.

5. Forward chaining tests for all the Backward chaining only tests for few
available rules required rules.

6. Forward chaining is suitable for the Backward chaining is suitable for

planning, monitoring, control, and diagnostic, prescription, and
interpretation application. debugging application.

7. Forward chaining can generate an Backward chaining generates a finite

infinite number of possible number of possible conclusions.
conclusions.
 8. It operates in the forward direction. It operates in the backward direction.

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

What is Unification?
o Unification is a process of making two different logical atomic expressions identical
by finding a substitution. Unification depends on the substitution process.
o It takes two literals as input and makes them identical using substitution.
o Let Ψ1 and Ψ2 be two atomic sentences and 𝜎 be a unifier such that, Ψ1𝜎 = Ψ2𝜎,
then it can be expressed as UNIFY(Ψ1, Ψ2).
o Example: Find the MGU for Unify{King(x), King(John)}

Let Ψ1 = King(x), Ψ2 = King(John),

Substitution θ = {John/x} is a unifier for these atoms and applying this substitution, and
both expressions will be identical.

o The UNIFY algorithm is used for unification, which takes two atomic sentences and
returns a unifier for those sentences (If any exist).
o Unification is a key component of all first-order inference algorithms.
o It returns fail if the expressions do not match with each other.
o The substitution variables are called Most General Unifier or MGU.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions for Unification:

Following are some basic conditions for unification:

o Predicate symbol must be same, atoms or expression with different predicate

symbol can never be unified.
o Number of Arguments in both expressions must be identical.
o Unification will fail if there are two similar variables present in the same expression.

Unification Algorithm:
Algorithm: Unify(Ψ1, Ψ2)

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

a) If Ψ1 or Ψ2 are identical, then return NIL.
b) Else if Ψ1is a variable,
a. then if Ψ1 occurs in Ψ2, then return FAILURE
b. Else return { (Ψ2/ Ψ1)}.
c) Else if Ψ2 is a variable,
a. If Ψ2 occurs in Ψ1 then return FAILURE,
b. Else return {( Ψ1/ Ψ2)}.
d) Else return FAILURE.
Step.2: If the initial Predicate symbol in Ψ1 and Ψ2 are not same, then return
FAILURE.
Step. 3: IF Ψ1 and Ψ2 have a different number of arguments, then return FAILURE.
Step. 4: Set Substitution set(SUBST) to NIL.
Step. 5: For i=1 to the number of elements in Ψ1.
a) Call Unify function with the ith element of Ψ1 and ith element of Ψ2,
and put the result into S.
b) If S = failure then returns Failure
c) If S ≠ NIL then do,
a. Apply S to the remainder of both L1 and L2.
b. SUBST= APPEND(S, SUBST).
Step.6: Return SUBST.
Implementation of the Algorithm
Step.1: Initialize the substitution set to be empty.

Step.2: Recursively unify atomic sentences:

a. Check for Identical expression match.

b. If one expression is a variable vi, 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 Ψ2 = Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)

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

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

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

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

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

S0 => { knows(Richard, x); knows(Richard, John)}
SUBST θ= {John/x}
S1 => { knows(Richard, John); knows(Richard, John)}, Successfully Unified.
Unifier: {John/x}.
Resolution in FOL
Resolution
Resolution is a theorem proving technique that proceeds by building refutation proofs,
i.e., proofs by contradictions. It was invented by a Mathematician John Alan Robinson in
the year 1965.

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

Clause: Disjunction of literals (an atomic sentence) is called a clause. It is also known as a
unit clause.

Conjunctive Normal Form: A sentence represented as a conjunction of clauses is said to

be conjunctive normal form or CNF.

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

The resolution inference rule:

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

Where li and mj are complementary literals.

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

Example:
We can resolve two clauses which are given below:
[Animal (g(x) V Loves (f(x), x)] and [￢ Loves(a, b) V ￢Kills(a, b)]

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

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

[Animal (g(x) V ￢ Kills(f(x), x)].

Steps for Resolution:

1. Conversion of facts into first-order logic.
2. Convert FOL statements into CNF
3. Negate the statement which needs to prove (proof by contradiction)
4. Draw resolution graph (unification).

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

Example:

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
. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
a. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
b. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)
c. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
d. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
e. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
f. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
 g. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Rename variables or standardize variables
. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
a. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
b. ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
c. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
d. ∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
e. ∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)
f. ∀k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
g. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination.
In this step, we will eliminate existential quantifier ∃, and this 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.
. ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
a. food(Apple)
b. food(vegetables)
c. ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
d. eats (Anil, Peanuts)
e. alive(Anil)
f. ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
g. killed(g) V alive(g)
h. ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
i. 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.