[Home | Browse | Download | Publications | Tools | About]

*by Adam Pease and Chris Benzmueller*

Resolution theorem proving is an approach to automated reasoning. This document explains the basic algorithm.

We will use TPTP notation (where upper case denotes a variable), but include SUO-KIF notation as well to the right of each example. After that we give pseudo-code for the algorithm.

Imagine the following theory

and that we pose a queryTPTP notationSUO-KIF notationp(X)=>q(X) ;; every p is a q (=> (instance ?X P) (instance ?X Q)) q(X)|r(X)=>t(X) ;; if something is either (=> ;; a q or an r it is also a t (or (instance ?X Q) (instance ?X R)) (instance ?X T)) p(a) ;; a is a p (instance A P)

t(a)|r(a) (or (instance A T) (instance A R))The first step is to put each axiom in Conjuctive Normal Form (which, rather confusingly, means a conjunction (and) of disjunctions (or) ). We use Russell and Norvig's algorithm. This gives us a knowledge base of

-p(X)|q(X) (or (not (instance ?X P)) (instance ?X Q)) (-q(X)&-r(X))|t(X) ;; needs more simplification (or (and (not (instance ?X Q)) (not (instance ?X R))) (instance ?X T)) p(a) (instance A P)Resolution theorem proving is a proof by

-t(a)&-r(a) ;; can be simplified (and (not (instance A T)) (not (instance A R)))The second statement in the knowlege base is still not in CNF. It becomes

(-q(X)|t(X))&(-r(X)|t(X)) (and (or (not (instance ?X Q)) (instance ?X T)) (or (not (instance ?X R)) (instance ?X T)))Statements that are conjunctions can be simplified into separate assertions in the knowledge base, so the statement is simplified again into two statements:

-q(X)|t(X) (or (not (instance ?X Q)) (instance ?X T)) -r(X)|t(X) (or (not (instance ?X R)) (instance ?X T))Similarly for the negated query, it becomes two statements

-t(a) (not (instance A T)) -r(a) (not (instance A R))Now that we have canonicalized the statements, we can set up some indexes that allow the knowledge base to be searched efficiently at run time. For every term, we create a set of pointers to every axiom in which the term appears

A --> p(a) (instance A P) P --> -p(X)|q(X), p(a) (or (not (instance ?X P)) (instance ?X Q)), (instance A P) Q --> -q(X)|t(X), -p(X)|q(X) (or (not (instance ?X Q)) (instance ?X T)), (or (not (instance ?X P)) (instance ?X Q)) R --> -r(X)|t(X) (or (not (instance ?X R)) (instance ?X T)) T --> -q(X)|t(X), -r(X)|t(X) (or (not (instance ?X Q)) (instance ?X T)), (or (not (instance ?X R)) (instance ?X T))With preliminaries done, we can now get down to business. We create a list we might call "To Be Used" (TBU). We put the now two statements derived from the negated query into that data structure

TBU --> {-t(a), -r(a)} (not (instance A T)), (not (instance A R))For each step of the resolution algorithm we remove a statement from TBU, find statements in the knowledge base that it can be combined (unified) with and put the result into TBU. We can start with -t(a). It has two terms, t and a. We use our term indexes to find three statements which may be relevant.

Candidates for -t(a) --> {p(a), -q(X)|t(X), -r(X)|t(X)} (instance A P), (or (not (instance ?X Q)) (instance ?X T)), (or (not (instance ?X R)) (instance ?X T))p(a) cannot unify with t(a), since p and t are different terms. The second succeeds. a unifies with variable X and -t(a) and t(X) cancel each other out, leaving -q(a), which then gets added to TBU. Similarly -t(a) unifies with its opposite in the third candidate statement, leaving -r(a). Having removed -t(a) from TBU, we add it to the knowledge base. Now we have

TBU --> {-r(a), -q(a), -r(a)} (not (instance A R)), (not (instance A Q)), (not (instance A R))However, it's pointless to add the second -r(a), so it is dropped, leaving

TBU --> {-r(a), -q(a)} (not (instance A R)), (not (instance A Q))We then pick another statement from TBU and perform the same process. Recall that having removed -t(a) from TBU in the previous step, we added it to the knowledge base, where it becomes available as a candidate resolver in future steps.

Candidates for -r(a) --> {p(a), -t(a), -r(X)|t(X)} (instance A P), (not (instance A T)), (or (not (instance ?X R)) (instance ?X T))No resolutions result from this step, since we have to find a positive clause r(X) to unify with -r(a). -r(a) is removed from TBU, and added to the knowledge base, leaving

TBU --> {-q(a)} (not (instance A Q))Selecting {-q(a)} we get

Candidates for -q(a) --> {p(a), -t(a), -r(a), -q(X)|t(X), -p(X)|q(X)} (instance A P), (not (instance A T)), (not (instance A R)), (or (not (instance ?X Q)) (instance ?X T)), (or (not (instance ?X P)) (instance ?X Q))Only the statement with a positive clause for q can unify. -q(a) matches the clause q(X), with X=a leaving us with -q(a), which is added to TBU.

TBU --> {-p(a)} (not (instance A P))There's only one choice in TBU so we find the following candidates

Candidates for -p(a) --> {p(a), -t(a), -r(a), -q(a), -p(X)vq(X)} (instance A P), (not (instance A T)), (not (instance A R)), (not (instance A Q)), (or (not (instance ?X P)) (instance ?X Q))Only one candidate has a positive clause for p, which matches exactly with its opposite. No clause is left over to be added to TBU. We've found an exact match and we're done. We've found a contradiction for the negation of our query, thereby proving it to be true.

Clausify() BuildIndexes() NegateQuery() - then put in TBU while not empty(TBU) remove statement S from TBU find candidate resolvers for S add S to knowledge base for each candidate C unify C and S if empty clause success! else assert remaining clause(s) to TBUThat's all there is to it! One minor challenge is preventing cycles. We can check for the situation of trying to prove something that has already been attempted (whether with failure or success). We can create a list we might call AlreadyTried and add every statement we pull from TBU to that list. If we pull a statement from TBU that is already in AlreadyTried, we discard it and move on. One complication may come with function application, as a simple syntactic check for an identical statement might not be enough [explain further here].

The biggest complication is speed. On a knowledge base of any size, the combinatorial explosion inherent in this depth first search makes heuristics and optimizations essential. One is to check to make sure that any clause added to TBU is not already subsumed by one in TBU, or the knowledge base. For example, if my knowledge base has p(X), there's no point adding p(a) or r(X)vp(X) to TBU.

Another small optimization is that we want to check as little as possible during run-time. The more we can do up-front and once, at least for many applications, the better off we'll be, as opposed to possibly doing the same operation several times, and at run time. We might canonicalize all variables, so that p(X)vr(Y) becomes p(V1)vr(V2) and p(M)vR(M) also becomes p(V1)vr(V2), allowing us to do a simple string compare to see if they are the same, since all variable names are local to their expressions. p(X)vr(X) is also identical to r(X)vp(X), so we might sort clauses alphabetically, resulting in p(X)vr(X) in both cases (the second assertion gets rearranged to the canonical order).

We could also have more complicated indexing, for example, having two sets of pointers: one in which the term appears in a positive clause, and another in which the term appears in a negative clause, thereby giving us a better chance at returning only those statements which have a chance to unify with the statement to be proven.

*thanks to Geoff Sutcliffe for his help in correcting errors and making this clearer.*