Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Knowledge Representation
Knowledge representation
Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, methods, limitations, and validity of knowledge and belief. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions:
"What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?" Wikipedia
UBI 517 Expert Systems 2
Knowledge representation
Epistemology Addresses
The structure used to describe the elements of knowledge. The interpretive process required to use the described knowledge.
Representation Criteria
4) Structured representation schemes Each node is considered as a complex data structure consisting of named slots with attached values
Frame-based systems
UBI 517 Expert Systems
Formal Logic
Logic provides
A representation of knowledge & Automation of the inferencing process
Formal Logic
Propositional Logic Predicate Logic
Propositional Logic
One of the oldest & simplest type of formal logic Formal indicates logic is concerned with form of logical statements as opposed to meaning
Propositional Logic
Propositional symbols denote propositions or statements about the world that may be either true or false. Examples
It is raining. raining It is sunny. sunny If it is raining then it is not sunny. raining sunny
UBI 517 Expert Systems 9
Propositional Logic
10
Propositional Logic
For propositional expressions P, Q, and R: P) = P (PQ) = (PQ) De Morgan's Law: (PQ) = (PQ) De Morgan's Law: (PQ) = (PQ) distributive law: PQR) = (PQ)PR) distributive law: PQR) = (PQ)PR) commutative law: (PQ) = (QP) commutative law: (PQ) = (QP) associative law: PQR) = (PQ) R associative law: PQR) = (PQ)R contrapositive law: (PQ) = (QP)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 11
Propositional Logic
PREMISE: All X are Y Doesnt matter if X is apples, planes or Ships. PREMISE: Z is a X Conclusion: Z is a Y Only the form is important. Separating form from meaning is what gives logic its power as a tool Propositional logic is a symbolic logic for manipulating propositions or logical variables Propositions are classified as either T or F.
KBS course is brilliant - (definitely T) Fish is good to eat - ( uncertain truth as depends on
person)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 12
Propositional Logic
He is tall - (variable involved so cant assign value. Also tall is hard concept to define. Cant be done in pred. Calculus). Proposition logic: assign a truth value to statements Propositional logic provides a mechanism for assigning a truth value to compound proposition based on value of individual propositions and connective involved
Propositional Logic
Prop Logic
can only deal with complete sentences that is, it can not examine the internal structure of a statement. too simple for complex domains no support for inferencing doesnt handle fuzzy concepts
14
Concerned with internal structure of sentences Quantifiers - all, some, no - make sentence more exact. Wider scope of expression.
15
16
an alphabet
predicates represent the relations within the domain: man(tom) variables - Dog, Color functions - father(CHILD), plus (2, 3) constants - rover(a_dog), blue(a_color) connectives - and, or, not, is equivalent to.. quantifiers - X, X : x [ PERSON(X) p NEED-AIR(X)] delimiters
UBI 517 Expert Systems 17
Language
A legally constructed formula in the language is called a well-formed formula (wff)
18
Language
Knowledge engineering When Using Formal Logic Develop an understanding of the knowledge. Formulate the knowledge as English statements. Break the statements into their component parts. Choose symbols to represent the elements and relations in each component. Build wffs by using the above symbols that represent the statement. Predicate relation is derived by its name and its arity.
UBI 517 Expert Systems 19
Language
Example: "Rover is a black dog "You will gain weight unless you exercise. If the students average grade is greater than 90%, then the student will get an A in the course.
black(rover) dog(rover)
X [exercise(X) p gain_weight(X) ] X, Name [(student(Name) avrg_grade(Name, X) ge(X, 90) p final_grade(Name, A) ]
UBI 517 Expert Systems
20
Inference Process
Inference in formal logic is the process of generating new wffs from existing wffs through the application of rules of inference.
21
Inference Process
Conclusion: Many English sentences are ambiguous. There is often a choice of ways of representing the knowledge. Even in very simple situations a set of sentences is unlikely to contain all the information necessary to reason about the topic at hand.
22
Inference Process
Logical Inferences Modus ponens and modus tolens provide the foundation for making references. Modus ponens: ((p p q) p) pq If someone is snorkeling then he is wet x snorkeling(X) p wet(X) If we are given that alex is snorkeling snorkeling (alex) we can infer wet(alex)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 23
Inference Process
Logical Inferences Modus tolens: ((p p q) q) p p If someone is snorkeling then he is wet x snorkeling(X) p wet(X) If we are given that alex is not wet wet(alex) we can infer snorkeling(alex)
24
Inference Process
There are three reasoning methods that can be applied to a set of premises.
1. 2. 3.
25
Inference Process
Deduction is reasoning from known (premises) to unknown (logical conclusions).
x, y, z larger(x, y) larger(y, z) p larger(x, z)
If our list of axioms contain the axioms larger(house, car) larger(car, cat) Through deductive reasoning the wff larger(house, cat) Can be derived and added to our list of axioms
UBI 517 Expert Systems 26
Inference Process
In Abduction we begin with a conclusion and procede to derive conditions that would make the conclusion valid. In other words we try to find an explanation for the conclusion It does not guarantee that a true conclusion results. Therefore it s called unsound rule of inference. If given % p B and B is true Abduction allows us to say A is possibly true.
Reasoning under uncertainty.
UBI 517 Expert Systems 27
Inference Process
Induction
Inductive reasoning forms the basis of scientific discovery. If given p(a) is true p(b) is true .. Then we conclude x, p(x) is true If we observe alex over a period of time and note that whenever he is wet, it turns out that he has gone snorkeling. We might induce that x, wet(x) psnorkeling(x) Like abduction, induction is also an unsound inference method.
UBI 517 Expert Systems
28
Inference Process
Monotonic vs non-monotonic reasoning
Deductive reasoning is a monotonic reasoning that produce as arguments that preserve truth. Axioms are not allowed to change, since once a fact is known to be true, it is always true and can never be modified or retracted. Most real life problems are non-monotonic quarter(fourth) leading(bucks) Team [leading(Team) quarter(fourth)] pstrategy(Team, conservative) We can deduce strategy(bucks, conservative) What if the state changes to leading(dolphins)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 29
Inference Process
RESOLUTION attempts to show that the negation of the statement produces a contradiction with the known statements. winter V summer ~winter V cold q deduce summer V cold
In the above example if it is winter the first statement is true if not the second statement is true. From these two we can deduce the third statement to be true
UBI 517 Expert Systems
30
Inference Process
Conjuctive normal form(Davis, 1960) The steps to convert to conjuctive normal form: 1. Eliminate pby using the fact that a p b is equivalent to ~a V b 2. Reduce the scope of ~ ~(A V B) = ~A bB ~(A B) = ~A V bB DeMorgan's law ~x P(x) = x ~P(x) ~x P(x) = x ~P(x)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 31
Inference Process
3. Standardize variables so that each quantifier binds a unique variable. x P(x) V x Q(x) would be converted to x P(x) V y Q(y) 4. Move all quantifiers to the left of the formula without changing their relative order. x y P(x) V Q(y)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 32
Inference Process
5. Eliminate existential quantifiers. A formula that contains an existentially quantified variable asserts that there is a value that can be substituted for the variable that makes the formula true. y President(y) into President(S1) can be transformed
33
Inference Process
5. If existential quantifiers occur within the scope of a universal quantifier then the value that satisfies the predicate may depend on the values of the universally quantified variables.
x y fatherof(y, x) x fatherof(S2(x), x)
34
Inference Process
6. Drop the prefix. 7. Convert the matrix into conjunction of disjuncts. 8. Call each conjunct a separate clause.
35
Inference Process
The Unification Algorithm: The object of the unification procedure is to discover at least one substitution that causes two literals to match.
36
Inference Process
Example: 1. Marcus was a man. man(marcus) 2. Marcus was a Pompeian. pompeian(marcus) 3. All Pompeians were Romans. x pompeian(X) p roman(X) 4. Caesar is a ruler. ruler(caesar)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 37
Inference Process
5. All Romans were either loyal to Caesar or hated him. x roman(X) p loyalto(X, casear) v hate(X, casear) 6. Everyone is loyal to someone. X Y loyalto(X, Y) 7. People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to. X Y person(X) ruler(Y) tryassassinate(X,Y) p~loyalto(X, Y) 8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar. tryassassinate(marcus, caesar)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 38
Inference Process
Proof by resolution: Given the axioms in clause form: 1. man(Marcus) 2. Pompeian(Marcus) 3. ~Pompeian(x1) V Roman(x1) 4. ruler(Caesar) 5. ~Roman(x2) V loyalto(x2, Caesar) V hate(x2, Caesar) 6. loyalto(x3, f1(x3)) 7. ~person(x4) V ~ruler(y1) V ~tryassassinate(x4, y1) V ~loyalto(x4, y1) 8. tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)
UBI 517 Expert Systems 39
Inference Process
Prove: hate(Marcus, Caesar)
40
Inference Process
Prove: loyalto(Marcus, Caesar)
41
Inference Process
Prove: loyalto(Marcus, Caesar) - Continue
Suppose our knowledge base contained the two additional statements 9. persecute(x, y) p hate(y, x) ~persecute(x5, y2) V hate(y2, x5) 10. hate(x, y) p persecute(y, x) ~hate(x6, y3) V persecute(y3, x6)
42
Prolog
Prolog is the implementation language for predicate logic. Prolog is declarative Three main features are:
Facts Rules Backtracking
If something is not explicitly stated, Prolog assumes that it is false. Prolog is non-monotonic where it deviates from pure predicate logic.
UBI 517 Expert Systems 43
Example
child_of(alex, nicole). child_of(alina, nicole). child_of(nicholas, leah). child_of(philip, leah). child_of(melanie, cathy). male(alex). male(philip). male(alex). male(nicholas). female(alina). female(leah). female(nicole). female(angela). sisters(nicole, leah). sisters(X, Z):- child_of(X, Y), child_of(Z, Y), female(X), female(Z)
UBI 517 Expert Systems
44
Managing uncertainty
availability of only two levels of truth true or false. certainty factors have been implemented in Prolog to mitigate this.
45
Exercises:
Consider the following sentences: John likes all kinds of food. Apples are food. Chicken is food. Anything anyone eats and isn't killed by is food. Bill eats peanuts and is still alive. Sue eats everything Bill eats. a. Translate these sentences into formulas in predicate logic. b. Convert the formulas of part a into clause form. c. Prove that John likes peanuts. d. Use resolution to answer the question, "What food does Sue eat?"
46
Exercises:
Consider the following logic statements:
x [panther(X) p feline(X)] x [house_cat(X) p feline(X)] x [house_cat(X) p docile(X)] x [feline(X) p carnivore(X)] x [carnivore(X) p food(X, meat)] x [horse(X) p herbivore(X)] x [herbivore(X) p food(X, plants)]
47
Exercises:
a)Using modus ponens derive all possible relations from the following facts. panther(sam) house_cat(rubble) lion(leo) b)Using abduction and the following statement what could kitty be? food(kitty, meat) c)Convert all of the logic statements into clauses d) Attempt to prove the following statements using resolution: house_cat(rebel) food(rebel, meat) horse(wilber) food(wilber, meat)
48