Logical Agents

Chapter 7
 Why Do We Need Logic?
• Problem-solving agents were very
inflexible: hard code every possible state.

• Search is almost always exponential in the

number of states.

• Problem solving agents cannot infer

unobserved information.
 Knowledge & Reasoning
To address these issues we will introduce

• A knowledge base (KB): a list of facts that are

known to the agent.

• Rules to infer new facts from old facts using rules

of inference.

• Logic provides the natural language for this.

 Knowledge Bases
• Knowledge base:
– set of sentences in a formal language.

• Declarative approach to building an agent:

– Tell it what it needs to know.
– Ask it what to do  answers should follow from the KB.
 Wumpus World PEAS
description
• Performance measure
– gold: +1000, death: -1000
– -1 per step, -10 for using the arrow

• Environment
– Squares adjacent to wumpus are smelly
– Squares adjacent to pit are breezy
– Glitter iff gold is in the same square
– Shooting kills wumpus if you are facing it
– Shooting uses up the only arrow
– Grabbing picks up gold if in same square
– Releasing drops the gold in same square

• Sensors: Stench, Breeze, Glitter, Bump, Scream

• Actuators: Left turn, Right turn, Forward, Grab, Release, Shoot
Wumpus world characterization
• Fully Observable No – only local perception
• Deterministic Yes – outcomes exactly specified
• Episodic No – things we do have an impact.
• Static Yes – Wumpus and Pits do not move
• Discrete Yes
• Single-agent? Yes – Wumpus is essentially a
natural feature
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a Wumpus world

If the Wumpus were

here, stench should be
here. Therefore it is
here.
Since, there is no breeze
here, the pit must be
there

We need rather sophisticated reasoning here!

Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
Exploring a wumpus world
 Logic

• We used logical reasoning to find the gold.

• Logics are formal languages for representing information such
that conclusions can be drawn
• Syntax defines the sentences in the language
• Semantics define the "meaning" of sentences;
– i.e., define truth of a sentence in a world

• E.g., the language of arithmetic

– x+2 ≥ y is a sentence; x2+y > {} is not a sentence syntax
–

semantics
– x+2 ≥ y is true in a world where x = 7, y = 1
– x+2 ≥ y is false in a world where x = 0, y = 6
 Entailment
• Entailment means that one thing follows from
another:
KB ╞ α

• Knowledge base KB entails sentence α if and

only if α is true in all worlds where KB is true
– E.g., the KB containing “the Giants won and the Reds
won” entails “The Giants won”.
– E.g., x+y = 4 entails 4 = x+y
 Models
• Logicians typically think in terms of models, which are formally
structured worlds with respect to which truth can be evaluated

• We say m is a model of a sentence α if α is true in m

• M(α) is the set of all models of α

• Then KB ╞ α iff M(KB)  M(α)

– E.g. KB = Giants won and Reds
won α = Giants won

• Think of KB and α as collections of

constraints and of models m as
possible states. M(KB) are the solutions
KB and M(α) the solutions to α.
Then, KB ╞ α when all solutions to
KB are also solutions to α.
Entailment in the wumpus world

• Consider possible models for KB assuming

only pits and a reduced Wumpus world

• Situation after detecting

nothing in [1,1], moving right, breeze in [2,1]
 Wumpus models

All possible models in this reduced Wumpus world.

 Wumpus models

• KB = all possible wumpus-worlds consistent with the

observations and the “physics” of the Wumpus world.
 Wumpus models

α1 = "[1,2] is safe", KB ╞ α1, proved by model checking

 Wumpus models

α2 = "[2,2] is safe", KB ╞ α2
 Inference Procedures

• KB ├i α = sentence α can be derived from KB by procedure

i

• Soundness: i is sound if whenever KB ├i α, it is also true

that KB╞ α (no wrong inferences, but maybe not all
inferences)

• Completeness: i is complete if whenever KB╞ α, it is also

true that KB ├i α (all inferences can be made, but maybe
some wrong extra ones as well)
 Propositional logic: Syntax
• Propositional logic is the simplest logic – illustrates basic
ideas

• The proposition symbols P1, P2 etc are sentences

– If S is a sentence, S is a sentence (negation)

– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (conjunction)
– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (disjunction)
– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (implication)
– If S1 and S2 are sentences, S1  S2 is a sentence (biconditional)
 Propositional logic: Semantics
Each model/world specifies true or false for each proposition symbol
E.g. P1,2 P2,2 P3,1
false true false
With these symbols, 8 possible models, can be enumerated automatically.

Rules for evaluating truth with respect to a model m:

S is true iff S is false
S1  S2 is true iff S1 is true and S2 is true
S1  S2 is true iff S1is true or S2 is true
S1  S2 is true iff S1 is false or S2 is true
i.e., is false iff S1 is true and S2 is false
S1  S2 is true iff S1S2 is true andS2S1 is true

Simple recursive process evaluates an arbitrary sentence, e.g.,

P1,2  (P2,2  P3,1) = true  (true  false) = true  true = true

 Truth tables for connectives

OR: P or Q is true or both are true. Implication is always true

XOR: P or Q is true but not both. when the premises are False!
 Wumpus world sentences
Let Pi,j be true if there is a pit in [i, j].
Let Bi,j be true if there is a breeze in [i, j].
start:  P1,1
 B1,1
B2,1

• "Pits cause breezes in adjacent squares"

B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)
B2,1  (P1,1  P2,2  P3,1)
 Inference by enumeration

• Enumeration of all models is sound and complete.

• For n symbols, time complexity is O(2n)...

• We need a smarter way to do inference!

• In particular, we are going to infer new logical sentences

from the data-base and see if they match a query.
 Logical equivalence
• To manipulate logical sentences we need some rewrite
rules.
• Two sentences are logically equivalent iff they are true in
same models: α ≡ ß iff α╞ β and β╞ α
You need to
know these !
 Validity and satisfiability
A sentence is valid if it is true in all models,
e.g., True, A A, A  A, (A  (A  B))  B

Validity is connected to inference via the Deduction Theorem:

KB ╞ α if and only if (KB  α) is valid

A sentence is satisfiable if it is true in some model

e.g., A B, C

A sentence is unsatisfiable if it is false in all models

e.g., AA

Satisfiability is connected to inference via the following:

KB ╞ α if and only if (KB α) is unsatisfiable
(there is no model for which KB=true and
 is false)