1 / 34

UIUC CS 497: Section EA Lecture #2

UIUC CS 497: Section EA Lecture #2. Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence Professor: Eyal Amir Spring Semester 2004. Last Time. Propositional logic as a language for representing knowledge Did not touch on reasoning procedures Defined language, signature, models

ellard
Télécharger la présentation

UIUC CS 497: Section EA Lecture #2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UIUC CS 497: Section EALecture #2 Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence Professor: Eyal Amir Spring Semester 2004

  2. Last Time • Propositional logic as a language for representing knowledge • Did not touch on reasoning procedures • Defined language, signature, models • From homeworks: you should know • Soundness; Completeness theorem • Deduction theorem • De Morgan Laws

  3. Today • Reasoning procedures for propositional logic • Checking Satisfiability (SAT) using DPLL • Proving entailment using Resolution • Application du jour: Formal Verification • Applications we will nottouch • AI planning, graph algorithms, cryptography, …

  4. SAT via Generate and Test • If we have a truth table of KB, then we can check that KB satisfiable by looking at it. • Problem: n propositional symbols  2n rows in truth table • Checking interpretation I takes time O(|KB|) • Generating table is expensive: O(2n |KB|) time • Observation: SAT requires us to look only for one model

  5. º Ú Ø Ù Ú Ù Ú Ø Ù Ú ( a a ) ( a b ) ( b a ) ( b b ) Clausal Form • Every formula can be reformulated into an equivalent CNF formula (conjunction of clauses). • Examples (using De Morgan Laws):

  6. Clausal Form • Every formula can be reformulated into an equivalent CNF formula (conjunction of clauses). • Examples:

  7. Clausal Form • Every formula can be reformulated into an equivalent CNF formula (conjunction of clauses). • Examples:

  8. Observe Propagating a Truth-Value • KB in CNF, and we observe p=TRUE • Then, removing clauses with p positive from KB gives an equivalent theory. • Example: KB

  9. Propagating a Truth-Value • KB in CNF, and we observe p=TRUE • Then, removing negative instances of p from KB gives an equivalent theory. • Example: KB Observe

  10. DPLL Search Procedure for CNF • If no clauses in KB, return T • If a clause in KB is empty (FALSE), return F • If KB has a unit clause C with prop. p, then return DPLL(KB,p←polarity(p,C)) • Choose an uninstantiated variable p • If DPLL(KB, p←TRUE) returns T, return T • If DPLL(KB, p←FALSE) returns T, return T • Return F

  11. DPLL in Action On board

  12. DPLL in Action On board Note: we could know without thorough checking that this KB is satisfiable

  13. DPLL in Action On board

  14. Related: SAT Solving • Order of selection of variables (lecture #5) • Stochastic local search (paper #1) • Binary Decision Diagrams (paper #2) • Strategies other than unit (paper #23) • 2-SAT is solvable in linear time • Smart backtracking (paper #21) • Clauses/Vars in Random SAT (paper #22) • SAT via probabilistic models (paper #15)

  15. Take a Breath • Until now: SAT solving • Search in the space of models • From now: Resolution theorem proving • Search in the space of proofs • Later: Formal Verification

  16. Resolution Theorem Proving • Given: • KB – a set of propositional sentences • Query Q – a logical sentence • Calling procedure: • Add Q to KB • Convert KB into clausal form • Run theorem prover. If we prove contradiction, return T. Otherwise, return F.

  17. Resolution Theorem Proving • Add Q to KB • Convert KB into clausal form • Run theorem prover. If we prove contradiction, return T. Otherwise, return F. Deduction theorem: KB Q iff KB  Q FALSE ╨ ╨

  18. Resolution Theorem Proving • Add Q to KB • Convert KB into clausal form • Run theorem prover. If we prove contradiction, return T. Otherwise, return F. Deduction theorem: KB Q iff KB  Q FALSE ╨ ╨

  19. Propositional Resolution • Resolution inference rule: C1: p1  C1’ C2: p1  C2’ -------------------- C3: C1’  C2’ C1  p1  C1’ C2  p1  C2’

  20. Propositional Resolution • Resolution algorithm (saturation): • While there are unresolved C1,C2: • Select C1, C2 in KB • If C1, C2 are resolvable, resolve them into a new clause C3 • Add C3 to KB • If C3={ } (empty clause), we got a contradiction. • STOP C1: p1  C1’ C2: p1  C2’ -------------------- C3: C1’  C2’

  21. Resolution in Action On board C1: p1  C1’ C2: p1  C2’ -------------------- C3: C1’  C2’ KB Negated Query

  22. Resolution in Action On board C1: p1  C1’ C2: p1  C2’ -------------------- C3: C1’  C2’ KB Negated Query

  23. Properties of Resolution • Running time for n variables, m clauses: • Resolving two clauses: O(n) • Finding two resolvable clauses: O(1) • Overall algorithm: O(3nn)

  24. Properties of Resolution • Theorem: Resolution is sound • Resolving clauses in KB generates valid consequences of KB • Theorem: Resolution is refutation complete • Resolution of KB with Q yields the empty clause iff KB Q ╨

  25. Properties of Resolution • Resolution does not always generate Q KB = { {a,b}, {a,b}, {b,c} } Q = b  c = {b,c} • Theorem: Resolution always generates a clause that subsumes Q iff KB Q Example: Resolving KB generates b ╨

  26. Simple Enhancements • Remove subsumed clauses • { p } subsumes { p , q } • { p , q } subsumes { p , q, r } • { p } does not subsume { p , q } • Contract same literals • { p , p , q } becomes { p , q } • Unit resolution: resolve unit clauses first

  27. Related to Prop. Resolution • Clause selection for resolution (lecture #5, paper #19) • Consequence finding (paper #3) • Prime implicates/implicants (paper #4)

  28. Resolution vs SAT • SAT solvers can find models • Resolution sometimes better at finding contradictions • With resolution it is easier to explain and provide a proof

  29. Summary So Far • Finding models using DPLL • Resolution theorem proving allows us to find contradictions and explanation. • The deduction theorem tells us how to ask queries from either SAT solvers or Resolution

  30. Application: Hardware Verification f3 x1 f1 not AND x2 f5 AND not f2 OR x3 f4 Question: Can we set this boolean cirtuit to TRUE? f5(x1,x2,x3) = a function of the input signal

  31. Application: Hardware Verification f3 x1 f1 not AND x2 f5 AND not f2 OR SAT(f5) ? x3 f4 Question: Can we set this boolean cirtuit to TRUE? f5(x1,x2,x3) = f3 f4 = f1  (f2  x3) = (x1  x2)  (x2  x3) M[x1]=FALSE M[x2]=FALSE M[x3]=FALSE

  32. Hardware Verification • Questions in logical circuit verification • Equivalence of circuits • Arrival of the circuit to a state (required a temporal model, which gets propositionalized) • Achieving an output from the circuit

  33. Summary • SAT checking using DPLL (instantiate, propagate, backtrack) • Entailment/SAT checking using Resolution (create more and more clauses until KB is saturated) • Formal verification uses mainly SAT checking such as DPLL, but also sometimes resolution

  34. Next Time • FOL Resolution • Homework: • Read readings (incl. application reading) • Make sure you know: • Deduction theorem for FOL • Language of FOL • Soundness, completeness, and incompleteness theorems • Models of first-order logic

More Related