Default Reasoning the problem: in FOL, universally-quantified rules cannot have exceptions –  x bird(x)  can_fly(x) –bird(tweety) –bird(opus)  can_fly(opus)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Limitations of First-Order Logic higher-order logics – quantify over predicates –define reflexive properties: all properties P for which x P(x,x) –induction:
Advertisements

İlk sayfaya geç Many Birds Fly, Some dont Elaborations on a Quantification Approach to the Problem of Qualification.
ANIMALS Mammals, reptiles, insects, birds and fish.
Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 25 Top Down Proof Procedure (Ch 5.2.2)
Big Ideas in Cmput366. Search Blind Search State space representation Iterative deepening Heuristic Search A*, f(n)=g(n)+h(n), admissible heuristics Local.
Inference Rules Universal Instantiation Existential Generalization
Introduction to Truth Maintenance Systems A Truth Maintenance System (TMS) is a PS module responsible for: 1.Enforcing logical relations among beliefs.
Logic Programming Automated Reasoning in practice.
1 Default Reasoning Q: How many wheels does John’s car have? A: Four (by default) The conclusion is withdrawn if one is supplied with the information that.
Justification-based TMSs (JTMS) JTMS utilizes 3 types of nodes, where each node is associated with an assertion: 1.Premises. Their justifications (provided.
Truth Maintenance Systems. Outline What is a TMS? Basic TMS model Justification-based TMS.
Artificial Intelligence CS482, CS682, MW 1 – 2:15, SEM 201, MS 227 Prerequisites: 302, 365 Instructor: Sushil Louis,
Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance Systems Meir Kalech.
Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 14/15 HC 10: Structured argumentation (3) Henry Prakken 16 March 2015.
Default Reasoning By Naval Chopra( ) ‏ Pranay Bhatia ( ) ‏ Pradeep Kumar(07D05020) ‏ Siddharth Chinoy(07D05005) ‏ Vaibhav Chhimpa(07D05011)
Methods of Proof Chapter 7, second half.. Proof methods Proof methods divide into (roughly) two kinds: Application of inference rules: Legitimate (sound)
For Friday No reading Homework: –Chapter 9, exercise 4 (This is VERY short – do it while you’re running your tests) Make sure you keep variables and constants.
1 DCP 1172 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Chang-Sheng Chen Topics Covered: Introduction to Nonmonotonic Logic.
Converting formulas into a normal form Consider the following FOL formula stating that a brick is an object which is on another object which is not a pyramid,
Knowledge Representation CPSC 386 Artificial Intelligence Ellen Walker Hiram College.
Logic.
Knowledge Representation
Knowledge Representation
Knowledge Representation Formalization of facts about the real world Used for reasoning Ad-hoc or systematic? Comprehensiveness Completeness Ease of use.
For Friday Finish chapter 10 No homework (get started on program 2)
CSM6120 Introduction to Intelligent Systems Knowledge representation.
Knowledge Representation I Suppose I tell you the following... The Duck-Bill Platypus and the Echidna are the only two mammals that lay eggs. Only birds.
Outline Recap Knowledge Representation I Textbook: Chapters 6, 7, 9 and 10.
1 Reasoning in Uncertain Situations 8a 8.0Introduction 8.1Logic-Based Abductive Inference 8.2Abduction: Alternatives to Logic 8.3The Stochastic Approach.
CSCI 5582 Fall 2006 CSCI 5582 Artificial Intelligence Lecture 9 Jim Martin.
Knowledge in intelligent systems So far, we’ve used relatively specialized, naïve agents. How can we build agents that incorporate knowledge and a memory?
Intro to AI Fall 2002 © L. Joskowicz 1 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence LECTURE 11: Nonmonotonic Reasoning Motivation: beyond FOL + resolution Closed-world.
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning University "Politehnica" of Bucharest Department of Computer Science Fall 2010 Adina Magda Florea
CSNB234 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
For Friday Exam 1. For Monday No reading Take home portion of exam due.
Ming Fang 6/12/2009. Outlines  Classical logics  Introduction to DL  Syntax of DL  Semantics of DL  KR in DL  Reasoning in DL  Applications.
For Wednesday Read chapter 13 Homework: –Chapter 10, exercise 5 (part 1 only, don’t redo) Progress for program 2 due.
Pattern-directed inference systems
Logical Agents Logic Propositional Logic Summary
Slide 1 Propositional Definite Clause Logic: Syntax, Semantics and Bottom-up Proofs Jim Little UBC CS 322 – CSP October 20, 2014.
For Friday Read Homework: –Chapter 10, exercise 22 I strongly encourage you to tackle this together. You may work in groups of up to 4 people.
Ch. 12 – Knowledge Representation Supplemental slides for CSE 327 Prof. Jeff Heflin.
Uncertainty in AI. Birds can fly, right? Seems like common sense knowledge.
Artificial Intelligence “Introduction to Formal Logic” Jennifer J. Burg Department of Mathematics and Computer Science.
For Friday Read Chapter 11, sections 1 and 2 Homework: –Chapter 10, exercises 1 and 5.
Some Thoughts to Consider 8 How difficult is it to get a group of people, or a group of companies, or a group of nations to agree on a particular ontology?
A Preferential Tableau for Circumscriptive ALCO RR 2009 Stephan Grimm Pascal Hitzler.
1 CS 385 Fall 2006 Chapter 7 Knowledge Representation 7.1.1, 7.1.5, 7.2.
For Wednesday Read chapter 13 No homework. Program 2 Any questions?
1 Propositional Logic Limits The expressive power of propositional logic is limited. The assumption is that everything can be expressed by simple facts.
Logical Agents Chapter 7. Outline Knowledge-based agents Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability Inference rules and theorem.
Expert System Seyed Hashem Davarpanah University of Science and Culture.
Lecture 5 Frames. Associative networks, rules or logic do not provide the ability to group facts into associated clusters or to associate relevant procedural.
1 Frame Theory A vague paradigm - to organize knowledge in high-level structures “A Framework for Representing Knowledge” - Minsky, 1974 Knowledge is encoded.
Assumption-based Truth Maintenance Systems: Motivation n Problem solvers need to explore multiple contexts at the same time, instead of a single one (the.
Metalogic Soundness and Completeness. Two Notions of Logical Consequence Validity: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Provability:
Limitations of First-Order Logic
EA C461 – Artificial Intelligence Logical Agent
Symbolic Reasoning under uncertainty
Reasoning with Uncertainty
Knowledge Representation and Inference
CS 416 Artificial Intelligence
Back to “Serious” Topics…
Reasoning with Uncertainty Piyush Porwal ( ) Rohit Jhunjhunwala ( ) Srivatsa R. ( ) Under the guidance of Prof. Pushpak Bhattacharyya.
Knowledge Representation I (Propositional Logic)
Propositional Logic CMSC 471 Chapter , 7.7 and Chuck Dyer
CSNB234 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Logical reasoning systems
Logical reasoning systems
Logical Agents Prof. Dr. Widodo Budiharto 2018
Presentation transcript:

Default Reasoning the problem: in FOL, universally-quantified rules cannot have exceptions –  x bird(x)  can_fly(x) –bird(tweety) –bird(opus)  can_fly(opus) as soon as you assert something contradictory, the knowledge base becomes inconsistent –no models satisfy can_fly(opus) and  can_fly(opus) –arbitrary conclusions can be drawn from an inconsistent knowledge base could add qualifying antecedents, but you have to know/anticipate all possible exceptions –  x bird(x)  penguin(x)  dead(x)  in_cage(x) ...  can_fly(x)

Non-montonicity FOL is monotonic –whenever you add something to a knowledge base, everything that was previously entailed is still true –if KB╞  then KB  ╞  –why? because adding  restricts the models to a subset, but they all still satisfy  Non-monotonic logics (alternatives to FOL) –default logic –circumscription –frames read section 12.6 in textbook

Default Logic Syntax –Prerequisite : Justifcation / Conclusion –Bird(X) : Flies(X) / Flies(X) –read as: if X is a bird and it is not inconsistent to believe that X flies, then conclude that X flies –thus if KB= {bird(X):flies(X)/flies(X),bird(tweety),bird(opus)  flies(opus)} –then KB╞ flies(tweety) but not flies(opus) Semantics –define “minimal” models as models of the FOL subset (non- default sentences) m 1 ={bird(tweety)=T,bird(opus)=T,flies(opus)=F} –define “extensions” of models by an operator that adds a fact from a default rule one at a time, e.g. apply to tweety... m 2 ={bird(tweety)=T,bird(opus)=T,flies(opus)=F,flies(tweety)=T} –define “fixed points” as models that result from iteratively applying this operator until no more conclusions can be drawn –entailments consists of things true in some extension

Circumscription Syntax –introduce “abnormal” predicates in rules (never asserted as facts) –  x bird(x)  abnormal 1 (x)  canFly(x) –bird(tweety), bird(opus),  canFly(opus) Semantics –what is the minimal set of “abnormal” facts that must be assumed to be true to make the KB consistent? –if we assume {abnormal 1 (opus)}, then it works –convenient for large KBs where most objects are “normal”, but there are a few exceptions –the circumscription algorithm will figure out the minimal set that needs to be assumed abnormal

circumscription can be viewed as a form of “model preference” –of all possible models of some sentences, some are more plausible than others, i.e. the ones with fewer abnormal assumptions –sometimes even this is not enough to disambiguate the intended meaning... example –Republican(Nixon)  Quaker(Nixon) –  x Republican(x)  abnormal 2 (x)  Pacifist(x) –  x Quaker(x)  abnormal 3 (x)  Pacifist(x) –m 1 ={abnormal 2 (Nix),Rep(Nix),Qua(Nix),Pac(Nix)} –m 2 ={abnormal 3 (Nix),Rep(Nix),Qua(Nix),  Pac(Nix)} –what should we conclude? 2 distinct circumscribed (minimized) models –perhaps we need to assign precedence among abnormal predicates...

Truth Maintenance Systems in real-world applications, need to... –derive conclusions based on assumptions –when conflicting information comes in (or facts change), need to change beliefs –if P changes from T to F, must identify and retract all consequences that depended on P –must keep track of network of justifications –TMS, JTMS: efficient algorithms for propagating changes in knowledge (minimal belief revision) P Q? R S T initially, I know P and R, and I assume Q is true, so I infer S and T if later I come to find out that T is not true, then I reason backwards to identify that Q must not have been true, so I retract Q, S, and T (mark them as false)

mammal is-a animal –birth: live –hasFur: true –blood: warm reptile is-a animal –birth: eggs –blood: cold dog is-a mammal –num_legs: 4 –sound: bark –has_tail: true bird is-a animal –hasFur: false –birth: eggs –canFly: true penguin is-a bird –canFly: false snoopy instance-of dog –owner: charlie_brown woodstock instance-of bird –owner: snoopy opus instance-of penguin Frames Syntax –describe classes of objects using frames –frames contain slots that give values for features/attributes –“is-a” is like sub-class relationships Semantics (procedural) –to answer a query, look in most specific frame, if slot not defined, look in parent... –allows defaults to be defined in parent, and over- ridden in children who barks? hasFur? laysEggs? canFly? default exception