AI and AT
Module III Chapter 1
Lecture 1
Symbolic Reasoning Under Uncertainty
Agenda
Introduction to nonmonotonic
reasoning
Logic for nonmonotonic
reasoning
Recap: What is
Reasoning?
When we require any knowledge
system to do something it has
not been explicitly told how to do
it must reason
The system must figure out what
it needs to know from what it
already knows
We have seen simple example of
reasoning or drawing inferences
already
For example if we know:
◦ Parrots are birds.
◦ All birds have wings.
◦ Then if we ask: Do parrots have
wings?
Toanswer this question
some reasoning has to go on....
Formal Reasoning
Basicrules of inference with logic
knowledge representations
FOPL
FOPL Reasoning
Information need to have the
following 3 properties:
1. It is complete with respect to
the domain of interest
2. It is consistent
3. The only way it can change is
that new facts can be added as
they become available
Monotonicity
If the new facts are consistent
with all the other facts that have
already been asserted, then
nothing will ever be retracted
from the set of facts that are
known to be true
This property is called
monotonicity
Predicate logic and the
inferences we perform on it is an
Unfortunately the world is an
uncertain place
Any AI system that seeks to
model and reasoning in such a
world must be able to deal with
this
Introduction to
nonmonotonic reasoning
How to solve problems posed by
uncertain, fuzzy, and often
changing knowledge?
Example: Murder mystery
D. K. Ravi Case
Two Approaches
1. Nonmonotonic reasoning
◦ The axioms and/or rules of inference
are extended to make it possible to
reason with incomplete information
2. Statistical reasoning
◦ The representation is extended to
allow some kind of numeric measure
of certainty to be associated with
each statement
Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Systems
Designed to be able to solve
problems in which all of the three
properties are missing
In order to do this, we must
address the following key issues:
1. How can the knowledge base be
extended to allow inferences to
be made on the basis of lack of
knowledge as well as on the
presence of it?
2. How can the knowledge base be
updated properly when a
new fact is added to the system/
old one is removed?
3. How can knowledge be used to
help resolve conflicts when there
are several inconsistent
nonmonotonic inferences that
could be drawn?
Logics for Nonmonotonic
Reasoning
No single formalism with all the
desired properties has yet emerged
We need to find a formalism that
does all of the following things:
1. Defines the set of possible worlds
that could exist given the facts that
we do have
2. Provides a way to say that we
prefer to believe in some models
rather than others
3. Provides the basis for a practical
implementation of this kind of
reasoning
4. Corresponds to our intuitions
about how this kind of reasoning
works
We do not want vagaries of syntax
to have a significant impact on the
conclusions that can be drawn within
our system
Models, Wff’s, and
Nonmonotonic reasoning
A : Original set of wff’s
B : New set of wff’s obtained
when we add some
nonmonotonic reasoning
capabilities to A
Few models satisfy B than A
C: Obtained when new wffs (new
information) added to A
In order to find a new set of
models that satisfy C, we need to
accept models that had
previously been rejected
To do that, we need to eliminate
the wff’s that were responsible
for those models being thrown
away
This is the essence of
nonmonotonic reasoning
Default Reasoning
This is a very common from of
non-monotonic reasoning
Here we want to draw
conclusions based on what is
most likely to be true
Two approaches:
1. Nonmonotonic Logic
2. Default Logic
DO NOT get confused about the
label Non-
Monotonic and Default being
applied to reasoning and a
particular logic
Non-Monotonic reasoning is
generic descriptions of a class of
reasoning
Non-Monotonic logic is a specific
theory
Nonmonotonic Logic
(NML)
FOPL augmented with a modal operator
M, which can be read as “is consistent”
Example:
∀x, y: Related(x, y)⋀ M
GetAlong(x,y)→WillDefend(x,y)
For all x and y, if x and y are related
and if the fact that x gets along with y
is consistent with everything else that
is believed, then conclude that x will
defend y
However consider the famous set
of assertions relating to President
Nixon
∀x: Republican(x) ⋀ M ¬Pacifist(x) →
¬Pacifist(x)
∀x: Quaker(x) ⋀ M Pacifist(x) →
Pacifist(x)
Now this states that Quakers tend
to be Pacifists and Republicans
tend not to be
But Nixon was both a Quaker and
a Republican
So we could assert:
◦ Quaker(Nixon)
◦ Republican(Nixon)
Thisnow leads to our total
knowledge becoming inconsistent
Default Logic (DL)
Default logic introduces a new
inference rule:
A:B
C
which states “if A is provable and
it is consistent to assume B then
conclude C”
DL similar to NML but there are
some distinctions:
New inference rules are used for
computing the set of plausible
extensions
Any nonmonotonic expressions
are rules of inference rather than
expressions
How do you have a lavish dinner
in a 5-star hotel with Rs.100=00?
Have the dinner.
Say that you have only
Rs.100=00
Manager will hand you over to
police
Give Rs. 100=00 to police
Walk free
