CH 15

Ch.
15 Including Uncertainty in Deductive Databases {74{

VS
Including Uncertainty in Deductive
Databases
Including Lattice-based (and hence also fuzzy) uncertainty in
Deductive Databases.
Including Probabilistic modes of uncertainty in Deductive Databases.
Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Advanced Database Systems Morgan Kaufmann Copyright
c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {75{
VS
Lattice-based Extensions of Deductive
Databases: The GAP Paradigm
GAP = \Generalized Annotated Program."
Given any complete lattice, (L; v), we can dene a logical
language within which GAPs may be written.
This logical language has two parts:
{ Ordinary logic language: this is dened in the usual way
from a set of constant symbols, function symbols, vari-
able symbols, and predicate symbols. Concepts of terms,
atoms, literals etc. are as usual.
{ Annotation language: this is a special lattice based lan-
guage, dened in terms of the lattice (L; v) selected.

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {76{
VS
Annotation language
1. Lattice constants: Every member of L is a lattice constant.
2. Lattice variables: We assume the existence of a set (innite)
of lattice variables.
3. Lattice functions: We assume the existence of some set of
predened, implemented functions f1; : : :; fk on the lattice L.
4. Lattice terms: These are dened inductively as follows:
(a) Every lattice variable is a lattice term.
(b) Every lattice constant is a lattice term.
(c) If t1 ; : : :; tn are lattice terms, and fi is an n-ary lattice
term, then fi(t1 ; : : :; tn) is a lattice term.
EX: Lattice = all real numbers with +1; 1 added, then ((V +
5) (V 0 + 2)) div 4 is a lattice term.
So is (3 + 4).

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {77{
VS
GAP Language
Mix of logical language and annotation language.
If A is an atom in the logical language, and V is a lattice term,
then A : V is an annotated atom.
EX: at(john; office) : 0:8 says (informally) that there is at
least an 80% certainty (not probability !) that John is in oce.
If A0 : 0; : : :; An : n are annotated atoms, where 1; : : :;
n contain no lattice functions, then
A0 : 0 A1 : 1 ^ ^ An : n
is called an annotated clause.
EX: Return to our face relation, and suppose our lattice is the
set of all closed intervals of [0; 1]. Then the following annotated
clause nds all people with whom Person1 was seen.
V1 + V2
seen(Person1; Person2) :
2
face(File; X1; Y1; X2; Y2; Person1) : V1 ^

face(File; X3; Y3; X4; Y4; Person2) : V2 ^
diff(X1; Y1; X2; Y2; X3; Y3; X4; Y4)
Answer to above:
Person1 Person2 Unc
John Smith Mark Bloom V1+2 V2
John Smith Ted Lewis V1+2 V3
GAP: nite set of annotated clauses.
c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {78{
VS
GAP Model Theory
Interpretation: map from the Herbrand base of a GAP to
the set L
EX: Take the GAP
p(a) : 1 :
p(b) : 0:8 :
q(X ) : V2 p(X ) : V:
Two possible interpretations are:
I (p(a)) = 1; I (p(b)) = 0:8; I (q(a)) = 0:7; I (q(b)) = 0:4
1 1 1 1
I (p(a)) = 1; I (p(b)) = 0:4; I (q(a)) = 0:2; I (q(b)) = 0:4

2 2 2 2
Satisfaction:
1. I satises a ground atom A : i I (A).
2. I satises (F ^ G) i I satises F and I satises G.
3. I satises (F _ G) i I satises F or I satises G.
4. I satises F G i I satises F or I does not satisfy G.
5. I satises (8x:)F [x] i for all ground terms t from the
domain over which x ranges, I satises F [x=t]. Here,
F [x=t] refers to the simultaneous replacement of all free
occurrences of x in F by t.
6. I satises (9x:)F [x] i for some ground term t from the
domain over which x ranges, I satises F [x=t].

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {79{
VS
I satises the above GAP, but I does not (in particular, it
1 2
does not satisfy the instance of the third rule whne X = a abd
V = 1.

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {80{
VS
GAPs: Model Theory (Contd.)
DEF: We write I vI 0 i for all ground atoms A, I (A)vI 0(A):
EX:
I (p) = 0:3; I (q) = 0:4
I 0(p) = 0:5; I 0(q) = 0:45
I 00 (p) = 0:35; I 00 (q) = 0:3
Then: I vI 0, I 00 vI 0, I 6 vI 00 I 00 6 vI .
Theorem: Set of all interpetations is a complete lattice under
v ordering.
t(I )(A) = tfJ (A) j J 2 Ig:

u(I )(A) = ufJ (A) j J 2 Ig:
If I ; I satisfy a rule, then so must I u I .
1 2 1 2
Theorem: Suppose I 0 is any interpretation. Then the set

fI ? j I ? satises P and I 0vI ?g has a unique v-minimal ele-
ment. As a consequence, P has a unique v-minimal model.

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {81{
VS
GAPs: Fixpoint Theory
Given any GAP P , we associate with P , an operator TP that
maps Herbrand interpretations to Herbrand interpretations.
TP (I )(A) = tf j A : Body is a ground instance of an
annotated clause in P such that I satises Body g.
TP (I )(A) may be (ineciently) computed as follos:
1. Let S = ;.
2. First replace P by the (possibly innite) GAP grd(P ) ob-
tained by instantiating each annotated clause in P in as
many ways as possible.
3. For each ground annotated clause in grd(P ) that has a
head of the form A : , do the following: if I satises the
body of the clause, then put in S .
4. Compute the least upper bound of all elements of S and
set TP (I )(A) to this value.

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {82{
VS
An Example
fEX: Suppose P is the GAP given by
p(a) : 1 :
p(b) : 0:8 :
q(X ) : V2 p(X ) : V:
Suppose I1; I2 are the interpretations given below:
I1(p(a)) = 1; I1(p(b)) = 0:8; I1(q(a)) = 0:7; I1(q(b)) = 0:4
I2(p(a)) = 1; I2(p(b)) = 0:4; I2(q(a)) = 0:2; I2(q(b)) = 0:4
Then TP (I1 ) is given by
TP (I )(p(a))
1 = 1
TP (I )(p(b))
1 = 0:8
TP (I )(q(a))
1 = 0:5
TP (I )(q(b))
1 = 0:4
However, TP (I2 ) is given by
TP (I )(p(a))
2 = 1
TP (I )(p(b))
2 = 0:8
TP (I )(q(a))
2 = 0:5
TP (I )(q(b))
2 = 0:2

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {83{
VS
Another Example
P is given by:
p(a) : 0 :
p(X ) : V + 1
2
p(X ) : V:
q(X ) : 1 p(a) : 1:
I is the interpretation such that I (p(a)) = I (q(a))
0 0 0
= 0.
Ij = TPj (I0).
Ijomega = tj<! Ij . For example, we can easily see that
I (p(a)) = 0:5; I (q(a)) = 0
1 1
I (p(a)) = 0:75; I (q(a)) = 0

2 2
I (p(a)) = 0:875; I (q(a)) = 0

3 3

0 1j
Ij (p(a)) = 1 @ 1 A ; Ij (q (a)) = 0
2

I! (p(a)) = 1; I! (q(a)) = 0
I! (p(a)) = 1; I! (q(a)) = 1
+1 +1
I! = I!
+2 +1

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {84{
VS
GAP Fixpoint Theory
Theorem: TP is monotonic, i.e., if I vI , then TP (I )vTP (I ).
1 2 1 2
Theorem: I satises P i TP (I )vI .

Theorem: fI j TP (I ) = I g has a unique, v-minimal element
called the least xpoint of TP , and denoted lfp(TP ).
Theorem: For any ground atom A and any truth value , it
is the case that A : is a logical consequence of the GAP P
i vlfp(TP )(A).

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {85{
VS
GAPs: Query Processing
Atomic lattice constraint: Expression of the form tvt0
where t; t0 are lattice terms.
Lattice constraint: Boolean combination of atomic lattice
constraints.
Query: Expression of theform
(9X1 ; : : :; Xk )(A1 : 1 ^ : : : ^ An : n ) ^ C
where:
{ A : ; : : :; An : n are annotated atoms
1 1
{ each i is a lattice element (not a lattice variable )

{ X ; : : :; Xk are all the variables occurring in A ; : : :; An
1 1
{ C is a lattice constraint (possibly empty).

EX:
(9X; Y )p(X; Y ) : 1 ^ q (Y ) : 0:8:
\Find X; Y such that p(X; Y ) is true with certainty 1 or more
and q (Y ) is true with certainty 0:8 or more."
Query Processing Problem: Find ground substitution for the
variables in the query such that
(8)(A1 : 1 ^ : : : ^ An : n)
is a logical consequence of the GAP P .

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {86{
VS
GAPs: Examples of answers
Take P to be:
p(X; Y ) : V q(X; Z ) : V ^ r(Z ) : V:
q(X; a) : 0:7 :
r(a) : 0:6 :
Consider the query p(X; Y ) : 0:6.
= fY = ag is an answe because (8X )p(X; a) : 0:6 is a
1
logical consequence of P .
Consider the query p(X; Y ) : 0:7. 1 is not an answer to the
query because (8X )p(X; a) : 0:7 is not a logical consequence
of P .

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {87{
VS
GAPs:Annotated Resolvents
Query Q:
(A1 : 1 ^ : : : ^ An : n ) ^ C
Annotated clause C :
A: B : ^ ^ Bm : m:
1 1
Suppose Q; C are standardized apart.

Suppose is an mgu of Ai and A for some 1 i n.
Then:
(A : ^ : : : ^ Ai : i ^ B : ^ ^ Bm : m ^
1 1 1 1 1 1
Ai : i ^ : : : ^ An : n) ^ (C ^ iv)
+1 +1
is said to be an annotated resolvent of Q and C via mgu .

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {88{
VS
GAPs:Annotated Resolvent Example
P is:
p(X; Y ) : V q(X; Z ) : V ^ r(Z ) : V:
q(X; a) : 0:7 :
r(a) : 0:6 :
Query: p(X 0; Y 0) : 0:6.
Clause from P :
p(X; Y ) : V q(X; Z ) : V ^ r(Z ) : V:
Unier: X = X 0; Y = Y 0
Annotated resolvent:
q(X 0; Z ) : V ^ r(Z ) : V ^ 0:6vV:

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {89{
VS
GAPs:Annotated Refutations
Annotated Deduction: inite or innite sequence
(Q0; C0 ; 0); : : :; (Qj ; Cj ; j ); : : :
where
1. Q0 = Q and
2. Cj is a renaming of an annotated clause in P for all j 0
and
3. Qj +1 is an annotated resolvent of Qj and Cj via mgu j .
Annotated refutation of Q from P is a nite annotated
deduction
(Q0; C0; 0); : : :; (Qr 1; Cr 1 ; r 1)
(r 1) from P with respect to Q such that the annotated
resolvent of Qr 1 and Cr 1 via mgu r 1 is the empty query
(i.e., a query containing no annotated atoms, and a solvable
constraint part).

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {90{
VS
GAPs:Annotated Refutation Example
P is:
p(X; Y ) : V q(X; Z ) : V ^ r(Z ) : V:
q(X; a) : 0:7 :
r(a) : 0:6 :
Query: p(X 0; Y 0) : 0:6.
Annotated refutation of this query is:
1. (Q ; Cl ; fX 0 = X; Y 0 = Y g).
0 1
2. (q (X; Z ) : 0:6 ^ r(Z ) : V ^ 0:6vV; Cl ; fZ = ag). 2
3. (r(a) : V ^ (0:6vV ^ V v0:7); Cl ; fg). 3
4. (0:6vV ^ V v0:7 ^ V v0:6; ; ).

The last query above has no atoms (only a lattice constraint)
and this lattice constraint is solvable.

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {91{
VS
>
f t
?
Figure 1: The lattice FOUR
Annotated Refutation is Not Complete

Two reasons for this:
The rst reason is that the operator TP may lead to xpoints

at ordinals greater than ! , leading some atoms to have innite
justications.
The second reason is that the notion of deduction does not al-
low us to \merge" multiple derivations. For example, consider
a lattice such as the lattice FOUR and consider the simple GAP
P given by
p:t :
p:f :
p : > is a logical consequence of this GAP.
But there is no annotated refutation of this query from P .

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {92{
VS
GAPs: Fixpoint Reachability
Given any function f on a complete lattice (L; v), we may
dene the iterations of f as follows:
f " 0 = ?:
f " = f (f " ( 1)) for successor ordinals :
f " = t<f " for limit ordinals :
Fixpoint reachability: We say that a GAP P possesses
the xpoint reachability property if, whenever vlfp(TP )(A),
it is the case that vTP " k(A) for some integer k.

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {93{
VS
GAPs: Reductants and Closure
Suppose C ; C are, respectively:
1 2
A :
1 1 Body1:
A :
2 2 Body2:
If A ; A are uniable via mgu , then the clause
1 2
(A : t 1 Body1 ^ Body2)
1 2
is called a reductant of C1 ; C2.

The closure of P is dened to be <! (P ) where
1. <0 (P ) = P .
2. <j +1 (P ) = <j (P ) [ fC j there exist C1 ; C2 2 <j (P )
such that C is the reductant of C1; C2g.
newfoilGAPs: Reductants and Closure Example
P:
p:t :
p:f :
Reductant:
p:> :

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {94{
VS
Closure:
p:t :
p:f :
p:> :

c 1997
Sec. 15.1 GAPs {95{
VS
Soundness and completeness of annotated
resolution
Let P be any GAP and Q be a query.
(Soundness) If there exists an annotated refutation of Q,
then Q is a logical consequence of P .
( Completeness) Suppose Q is a logical consequence of P
and P satises the xpoint reachability condition. Then there
exists an annotated refutation of Q with respect to the closure
of P .
More ecient procedures which avoid construction of closures
have been developed by:
{ Lu, Murray, and Rosenthal
{ Adali and Subrahmanian

c 1997
Sec. 15.2 Probabilistic Knowledge Bases {96{
VS
Probabilistic Knowledge Bases
Lattice based approach is not probabilistic.
Like GAPs, Probabilistic KBs will have two languages { a log-
ical language identical to that for GAPs, and an annotation
language.
The annotation language for Probabilistic KBs is dierent from
that for GAPs.

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Annotated Language
Annotation variables: Range over the reals in the unit
interval [0; 1].
Annotation functions: Maps (of dierent arities) from
[0; 1]n to [0; 1].
Annotation items: is called an annotation item if it is
one of the following:
1. a constant in [0,1], or
2. an annotation variable in the underlying language, or
3. of the form f (1; : : :; n), where f is an annotation func-
tion of arity n and 1 ; : : :; n are annotation items.
Annotation Term: [ ; ] is called an annotation (term)
1 2
if i(i = 1; 2) is an annotation item.

EX: The following are annotation terms:
1. [0:1; 0:2]
2. [0:7; V2 ]
3. [ jV1 2 V2j ; jV1+2 V2j ]

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Logical Language
conj (BL) = fA ^ : : : ^ An j n 1 is an integer and
1
A ; : : :; An 2 BL and for all 1 i; j n; i 6= j ) Ai 6= Aj g

1
disj (BL ) = fA _: : :_Anjn 1 is an integer and A ; : : :; An 2

1 1
BL and for all 1 i; j n; i =6 j ) Ai =6 Aj g,

where all the Ai's are ground atoms.
Basic formula: Any member of conj (BL) [ disj (BL ).
Thus, basic formulas are either conjunctions of atoms, or dis-
junctions of atoms, but not a mix of the two.
bf (BL) denotes the set of all basic formula.
Annotated Conjunctions/Disjunctions: If C is a con-
junction of atoms, not necessarily ground, and is an annota-
tion, then C : is called an annotated conjunction. Similarly,
if D is a disjunction, not necessarily ground, then D : is
called an annotated disjunction.

c 1997
VS
Examples
1. at(25; 26; robot) : [0:3; 0:4]: This annotated atom says that
the probability that the robot is at location (25; 26) lies in the
range 30% to 40%.
2. (at(25; 26; robot1) ^ at(25; 36; robot2)) : [0:2; 0:25]: This an-
notated conjunction says that the combined probability that
robot1 is at location (25; 26) and robot2 is at location (25; 36)
lies in the range 20% to 25%.
3. (at(25; 26; robot1) _ at(25; 36; robot2)) : [0:4; 0:45]: This an-
notated conjunction says that the combined probability that
either robot1 is at location (25; 26) or robot2 is at location
(25; 36) lies in the range 40% to 45%.
4. (at(25; 26; robot1) _ at(25; 36; robot2)) : [ jV1 2 V2j ; jV1+2 V2 j ]: This
says that the combined probability that either robot1 is at loca-
tion (25; 26) or robot2 is at location (25; 36) lies in the range
[ jV1 2 V2j ; jV1+2 V2 j ], where the values of V1 ; V2 are currently un-
known.

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs
pf-clause:
F :
0 0 F : ^ : : : ^ Fn : n
1 1
where:
F ; : : :; Fn are basic formulas,
0
; : : :; n are annotations such that all the annotation vari-

0
ables that appear in 0 also appear in at least one of 1; : : :; n.

p-clause: If F0 is an atom, then the clause is called a p-
clause.
Pf-KB: A nite set of pf-clauses.
p-KB: A nite set of p-clauses.

c 1997
VS
Examples
Consider the p-clause
object(a) : [max(0; V 2 0:1 ); V +2 0:1 ]
1 2
sensor1(a) : [V ; V ] ^ 1 1
sensor2(a) : [V ; V ]: 2 2
This rule says if sensor1 reports that object a is present with

probability V and sensor2 reports that object a is present with
1
probability V , then we may conclude that object a is present

2
with a probability in the range : [max(0; V1 : ); V2 : ].2

01 +0 1
2
Consider the rule

object(a) : [max(0; V 2 0:1 ); V +2 0:1 ]
1 2
(sensor1(a) ^
sensor2(a)) : [V1; V2]:
This p-clause is slightly dierent from the previous one because
it says that we may conclude that object a is present with a
probability in the range : [max(0; V1 20:1 ); V2 +0
2
:1 ] if the joint
probability that sensor1 and sensor2 detect object a is in the
interval [V1; V2].
The statement
(object(a) ^ object(b)) : [0:9; 1] :
is a simple pf-clause that says that the probability that objects
a and b will occur is over 90%.

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Fixpoint Theory
World: Any Herbrand interpretation.
World probability density function: Mapping, WP :
fW ; : : :;
1
Wk g ! [0; 1] such that for all j = 1; : : :; k, WP (Wj ) 0

Xk
and WP (Wj ) = 1.
j =1
Intuition: We hypothesize multiple possible worlds, but only
one of them is the \actual" world (at a given point in time).
Atoms are either true or false { uncertainty arises because we
don't know which atoms are true and which are false, and
hence, we don't know which of the hypothesized worlds re ects
the actual state of the world.
Formula function: Mapping h : bf (BL) ! C [0; 1],
where C [0; 1] denotes the set of all closed subintervals of the
unit interval [0; 1].
Ordering on Formula function: h1 h2 i 8F 2
bf (BL); h1(F ) h2(F ).
Intuition: h1 h2 may be read as h2 is sharper than h1.

c 1997
VS
Fixpoint Operator for pKBs
Associate with P an operator TP that maps formula functions
to formula functions, dened as follows:
1. For ground atoms A: TP (h)(A) = \f[`; u] j A : [`; u]
B1 : 1 ^ : : : Bk : k is a ground instance of some clause
in P such that for all 1 i k, h(Bi ) ig.
2. For conjunctions A ^ B : TP (h)(A ^ B ) = TP (h)(A)
ig
TP (h)(B ), where
ig is the policy for computing conjunc-
tions under the policy of ignorance.
3. For disjunctions A _ B : TP (h)(A _ B ) = TP (h)(A) ig
TP (h)(B ), where ig is the policy for computing disjunc-
tions under the policy of ignorance.
Procedural explanation of TP (h):
1. First, nd all ground instances of rules in P having a head
of the form A : [`; u] and whose bodies are satised by h,
i.e., if Bi : i occurs in the body of the ground rule, then
h(Bi) must be a subset of i.
2. Collect the intervals [`; u] for all rules satisfying the above
condition.
3. TP (h)(A) is the intersection of all the intervals collected
above.

c 1997
VS
Example of TP for pKBs
P:
object(a) : [max(0; V 2 0:1 ); V +2 0:1 ]

1 2
sensor1(a) : [V ; V ] ^
1 1
sensor2(a) : [V ; V ]:2 2
sensor1(a) : [0:6; 0:6] :

sensor2(a) : [0:4; 0:5] :
h:
h(object(a)) = [0; 0]
h(sensor1(a)) = [0:9; 0:9]
h(sensor2(a)) = [0:8; 0:8]
TP (h):
TP (h)((object(a)) = [0; 0]
TP (h)(sensor1(a)) = [0:6; 0:6]
TP (h)(sensor2(a)) = [0:4; 0:5]

c 1997
VS
p-KBs: TP continued
Iterations of TP :
TP " 0(A) = [0; 1]
TP " (A) = TP (TP " ) if is a successor ordinal with
as its predecessor
TP " (A) = tfTP " j < g if is a limit ordinal
Theorem: If h ; h are formula functions such that h h ,
1 2 1 2
then TP (h ) TP (h ).
1 2
Theorem: If h ; h are formulaTP has a least xpoint, lfp(TP ),

1 2
and furthermore, there exists an ordinal such that lfp(TP ) =

TP " .

c 1997
VS
Fixpoint Operator for pf-KBs
3-stage denition.
Stage 1: In the rst stage, we will dene an operator, called

SP , that will merely behave like TP , except that it will apply
to basic formulas in the heads of pf-clauses as well. However,
it will not attempt to derive probabilities associated with the
atomic parts of such basic formulas.
Stage 2: Once SP (h) is computed, the next step is to treat
SP (h) as a set of events whose probabilities are known.
Stage 3: We may then set up a linear program, denoted LP (SP (h))
for each basic formula, F 2 bf (BL ), in our language, we can
compute a lower bound cF and an upper bound dF on the
probability of F . VP (h)(F ) is then set to [cF ; dF ] and we are
done.

c 1997
VS
Fixpoint Operator for pf-KBs: Stage 1
Given h, let MF = f j F : F : V : : : V Fn : n is
1 1
in grd(P ), is a ground substitution to the set of annotation

variables that occur in the body of the above clause such that
6= ;, and 8i; 1 i n; h(Fi) ig.
If MF =, then SP (h)(F ) = [0; 1].
Otherwise, SP (h)(F ) = T MF .
SP (h)(F ) does not take into account the fact that the proba-
bility of F may be aected by our knowledge of the probabilities
of \atomic" parts of F . This is handled in stage 2.

c 1997
VS
Let LP (SP (h)) be the linear program obtained, as described
when we studied Chapter 13.
That is, for each formula F , create a constraint of the form
X
lb pi ub
wij=F
where SP (h)(F ) = [lb; ub] and pi is a variable denoting the
probability of world wi.
In addition add the constraint
sumwi pi = 1
And that pi 0 for all i.

c 1997
VS
We now dene an operator VP from formula functions to for-
mula functions as follows:
a. If LP (SP (h)) has solutions, then for all F 2 bf (BL),
VP (h)(F ) = [cF ; dF ],0where 1
BB X C
cF = minLP SP h ( ( )) B@ pj CCA and
B
0Wj j=F and Wj 22 L 1
BB X CC
dF = maxLP SP h ( ( )) B@
B
p jC A.
Wj j=F and Wj 22 L
Note that this step involves the straightforward use of any
linear programming package/algorithm, numerous imple-
mentations of which are available in the commercial mar-
ketplace.
b. Otherwise, if LP (SP (h)) is empty, then for all F 2 bf (BL ),
TP (h)(F ) = ;.
BOTTOM LINE: Computation of VP (Pf-KBs) is much
harder than TP (fpr p-KBs). This is the price paid for intro-
ducing non-atomic basic formulas into the heads of rules.

c 1997
VS
Example of VP
P:
(a ^ b) : [1; 1] :
a : [0; 0] :
b : [1; 1] :
Suppose h(F ) = [0; 1] for all basic formulas F .
Stage 1: First, we compute SP (h) and notice that
SP (h)((a ^ b)) = [1; 1]
SP (h)(a) = [0; 0]
SP (h)(b) = [1; 1]
It is immediately apparent that there is an inconsistency here.
After all, the probability of the event (a ^ b) cannot be 1 if
the probability of a is 0, as the second equality above seems
to indicate.
Stage 2: Set t up the linear program LP (SP (h)) as follows.
Suppose w1 is the world in which both a and b are false, w2 is
the world in which a is true, but b is false, w3 is the world in
which b is true, but not a, and w4 is the world in which both
a and b are true. Then the constraints generated are
p = 1
4

c 1997
VS
p +p 2 4 = 0
p 3 = 1
p +p +p +p
1 2 3 4 = 1
pi 1for i = 1; : : :; 4
pi 0for i = 1; : : :; 4
Stage 3: As the set of constraints described above is unsolv-
able, VP (h)(F ) = ; for all basic formulas F .

c 1997
VS
Another example
P:
(a _ b) : [1; 1] :
a : [0:2; 0:5] :
b : [0:4; 0:6] :
Suppose h(F ) = [0; 1] for all basic formulas F .
Stage 1: First, we compute SP (h) and notice that
SP (h)((a _ b)) = [1; 1]
SP (h)(a) = [0:2; 0:5]
SP (h)(b) = [0:4; 0:6]
Stage 2: LP (SP (h)) is:
p +p +p =1
2 3 4 0:2 p + p 0:5 2 4
0:4 p + p 0:6
3 4 p +p +p +p = 1
1 2 3 4
0 pi 1 for i = 1; : : :; 4
Stage 3: For each formula F , we may compute VP (h)(F ) by
nding cF and dF , where cF is the minimal (dF , the maximal)
value of the expression
X
pj
wj j=F
subject to the above constraints. The values of VP (h)(F ) for
some dierent F 's are given below:

c 1997
VS
F
VP (h)(F )
(a _ b) [1; 1]
a [0:4; 0:5]
b [0:5; 0:6]
(a ^ b) [1,1]

c 1997
VS
Pf-KB Fixpoint Theory
Theorem: For all basic formulas F , and all formula functions
h, VP (h)(F ) SP (h)(F ).
Theorem: The VP operator is monotonic.
Theorem: Suppose P is any pf-KB. Then VP has a least
xpoint, denoted lfp(VP ). Furthermore, there exists an ordinal
such that VP " = lfp(VP ).

c 1997
VS
pf-KBs vs. pKBs
1. First, every iteration of the application of the VP operator re-
quires writing down a linear program that is exponential in size
(with respect to the number of ground atoms in the language).
This exacts a huge price. In contrast, no linear programs at all
need to be constructed when dealing with pKBs.
2. Second, for each basic formula F , when computing VP , we
need to solve two linear programming problems: one to obtain
a lower bound on F 's probability, and another to obtain an
upper bound. This needs to be done in every iteration toward
the xpoint. It is well known that linear programming packages
start falling apart when the number of variables (i.e., number of
worlds) and/or the number of constraints in the linear program
run into the tens of thousands. In our case, the number of
Herbrand interpretations could well be very large.

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Model Theory
Prob-Interpretation: Let WP be a world probability den-
sity function. Dene probabilistic interpretation IWP is a map-
ping from all basic formulas to [0; 1] and
0 1
BB X CC
IWP (F ) = B@ B
p jCA:
Wj j=F and Wj 22 L
EX: Suppose
WP (w ) 1 = 0:4
WP (w ) 2 = 0:1
WP (w ) 3 = 0:2
WP (w ) 4 = 0:3
Then
IWP (a) = 0:4
IWP (b) = 0:5
IWP (a _ b) = 0:6
IWP (a _ :b) = 0:8

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Satisfaction
I j=p F : [c ; d ] i I (F ) 2 [c ; d ]
1 1 1 1 1 1
I j=p (F : [c ; d ] ^ : : : ^ Fn : [cn; dn]) i for all 1 j n,

1 1 1
I j=p Fj : [cj ; dj ]
I j=p F : [c ; d ] F : [c ; d ] VV: : : VVFn : [cn; dn] i

0 0 0 1 1 1
I j=p F : [c ; d ] or I 6j=p (F : [c ; d ] : : : Fn : [cn; dn])

0 0 0 1 1 1
I j=p (9x)(C ) i I j=p (C (x=t)) for some ground term t,

where x represents an object variable, and C (x=t) denotes the
replacement of all free occurrences of x in C by t
I j=p (8x)(C ) i I j=p (C (x=t)) for all ground terms t, where

x represents an object variable
I j=p (9V )(C ) i I j=p (C (V=c)) for some c 2 [0; 1], where
V represents an annotation variable
I j=p (8V )(C ) i I j=p (C (V=c)) for all c 2 [0; 1] such

6 ;, where V represents an annotation variable
that (V=c) =
occurring in annotation term . Here, if is an annotation
term, then the notation (V=c) is the annotation term that

c 1997
VS
is obtained by replacing all occurrences of V in by c and
evaluating the resulting term (if it is ground).

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Relationship between
semantic structures
World Probability Probabilistic
Density Function Interpretation
Formula
Function

c 1997
VS
Fully denedness
Fully dened FFs: Formula function h is fully dened i
for all basic formulas F 2 bf (BL); ; h(F ) [0; 1].

c 1997
VS
From Formula Functions to World Prob
Density Functions
Suppose h is a formula function. Then the set of world proba-
bility density functions determined by h, denoted WPD(h), is
given by
WPD(h) = fWP j is a solution of LP (h) and
WP (wi) = pi for all wig.
Given h, we may compute the set, WPD(h), of world proba-
bility density functions associated with h using the following
steps:
1. Construct LP (h).
2. Find every solution of LP (h).
3. For each solution of LP (h), the function WP dened
by WP (wi) = pi is in WPD(h).

c 1997
VS
Model theoretic theoresm on Probabilistic
KBs
Suppose h is a formula function. Then the set of probabilistic
interpretations, denoted PRI(h), is given by fIWP j WP 2
WPD(h)g.
Theorem: Suppose P is a pf-KB and h is a formula func-
tion. Then LP (SP (h)) and LP (VP (h)) have the same set of
solutions.
Theorem: Let h be a formula function. Then VP (h) is fully
dened i WPD(h) 6= ;.
Theorem: Suppose VP (h) is fully dened. Then for all basic
formulas F , VP (h)(F ) is the smallest interval that contains
fI (F ) j I 2 PRI(h)g.
Theorem: Suppose P is a pf-KB, and h is a fully dened
formula function. Then each member of PRI(h) satises P i
VP (h) h.
Theorem: Suppose P is a pf-KB. Then
1. VP has a unique least xpoint denoted by lfp(VP ).
2. For any annotated basic formula F : [cF ; dF ]: F : [cF ; dF ]
is a logical consequence of P i lfp(VP )(F ) [cF ; dF ].
Theorem: Suppose P is a pf-KB. P is consistent (i.e., there
exists a probabilistic interpretation that satises P ) i lfp(VP )
is fully dened.

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Query Processing
Concept of unication changes.
(A ^ : : : ^ An) : and C (B ^ : : : ^ Bm) : i
1 1 2 1 2
fAij1 i ng = fBij1 i mg.

Similarly for disjunctions.
EX:
Exp1 = (p(X; a) _ p(Y; b)):
Exp2 = (p(Z; Z ) _ p(c; W )):
= fX = a; Z = a; Y = c; W = bg
1
= fX = c; Z = b; Y = b; W = ag
2
Bottom Line: MGU's are not necessarily unique !

c 1997
VS
Probabilistic KBs: Unication
Let Uni(F ; F ) denote s the set of all uniers of F ; F . Sup-
1 2 1 2
pose ; 2 Uni(F ; F ). We say the following:

1 2 1 2
1. i there exists a substitution such that = .

1 2 1 2
2. i and . We use the notation []

1 2 1 2 2 1
to denote the equivalence class of , i.e., [] = f0 j 0,

where 0 2 Uni(F ; F )g. 1 2
3. [] [0] i 0.

4. is a maximally general unier (max-gu) of F1 ; F2 i there
does not exist 1 2 Uni(F1 ; F2 ) such that [] < [1 ].
Theorem: If F ; F are basic formulas that are uniable,
1 2
then they have at least one max-gu.

c 1997
VS
Resolution in pf-KBs
Concept of closure and xpoint reacahbility condition used in
GAPs is also needed here.
p-constraint: A conjunction of constraints having the form:
1 2 or 1 = 2, where i(i = 1; 2) is an annotation item.
Constrained pf-clause: Of the form:
F :
0 0 F : ^ : : : ^ Fn : n ^ ConC :
1 1
where
F : 0 F : ^ : : : ^ Fn : n
0 1 1
is a pf-clause and ConC is a p-constraint.

c 1997
VS
Compiled version of a pf-KB
Similar to the closure of a GAP.
LetP = f C ; : : :; Ck g, where for all 1 i k, Ci Fi :
1
[i; i] Bodyi and [i; i] is an annotation term.

1. We may associate a set, LP (P ), of linear constraints with
P as follows: for all0 1 i k, the inequality
1
B X C
i BB@ pj CCA i
Wj j=Fi and Wj 22BL
is in LP (P ). In addition, LP (P ) contains the following
constraints: X
pj = 1; and
Wj 22BL
(8Wj 2 2BL ); pj 0:
2. The closure of P , denoted cl(P ), is now dened as follows.
Let
cl(P ) = P S
f F : [F ; F ] Body1 V : : : V Bodyk V Consol j F 2
bf (BL); 0 1
BB X CC
F = minLP P
( ) @B p jCA;
B
0Wj j=F and Wj 22 L 1
BB X CC
F = maxLP (P ) @ B pj CA ;
Wj j=F and Wj 22BL
and Consol denotes the conjunction of constraints on the
annotation terms for LP (P ) to have solutions. g

c 1997
VS
Example of Closure
P:
a : [0:3; 0:6] c : [0:3; 0:4]:
b : [0:4; 0:8] c : [0:1; 0:4]:
cl(P ) is very large and contains a pf-clause having each of the
following basic formulas in the head: (a _ b), (a ^ b), (a _ c),
(a ^ c), (b _ c), (b ^ c), (a _ b _ c), and (a ^ b ^ c).
cl(P ):
(a _ b) : [0:4; 1] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:
(a ^ b) : [0; 0:6] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:
(a _ c) : [0:3; 1] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:
(a ^ c) : [0; 0:6] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:
(b _ c) : [0:4; 1] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:
(b ^ c) : [0; 0:8] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:
(a _ b _ c) : [0:4; 1] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:
(a ^ b ^ c) : [0; 0:6] c : [0:3; 0:4] ^ c : [0:1; 0:4]:

c 1997
VS
Compiled Version of P
redun(P ) = fF : [0; 1] j F 2 bf (BL)g.
Dene the compiled version of P , denoted by com(P ), as
follows:
com(P ) = S cl(Q) for each subset Q of redun(P ) S grd(P ).
Note: or each basic formula F , if F : is a logical consequence
of P , then there exists a single clause C in com(P ) having a
ground instance, C , such that the head of C is of the form
F : 0 and 0.
This makes it much easier to dene a linear resolution-style
query processing procedure, similar to GAPs, that is sound
and complete.

c 1997
VS
SLDp-Resolvents
Query: If F : ; : : :; Fn : n are annotated basic formulas,
1 1
and ConQ is a conjunction of constraints on the annotation

terms, then
9(F : ^ : : : ^ Fn : n ^ ConQ)
1 1
is a constrained p-query.
Clause C :
G : 0 0 G : ^ : : : ^ Gm : m ^ ConC
1 1
Suppose G and Fi are uniable with max-gu .

0
SLDp-resolvent:
9((F : V : : : V Fi : Vi VVG : V : : : V Gm : m V Fi :
1 1 1 1 1 1 +1
i : : : Fn : n)
+1
V
ConC V ConQ V i ) 0

c 1997
VS
SLDp-Refutations
SLDp-Deduction: Sequence hQ ; C ; i; : : :; hQr; Cr; ri; : : :,
1 1 1
where for all i 1, Ci is a renamed version of a clause in

com(P ); and Qi is an SLDp-resolvent of Qi and Ci through
+1
max-gu i.
SLDp-Refutation: Finite SLDp-deduction
hQ ; C ; i; : : :; hQn; Cn; ni
1 1 1
where the SLDp-resolvent of Qn and Cn via max-gu n, de-

noted by Qn+1, satises the following two conditions:
1. The query part of Qn+1 is empty.
2. The constraint part of Qn+1 is satisable. 1 : : :n is called
the computed answer substitution.

c 1997
VS
Theorems
DEF: A pf-KB P is compact if for all F 2 bf (BL), there
exists an integer F < ! such that lfp(TP )(F ) = TP "
F (F ).
Theorem: SLDp-refutation is sound.
Theorem: SLDp-refutation is complete for compact pf-KBs.

c 1997

CH 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch.

15 Including Uncertainty in Deductive Databases {74{

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

face(File; X1; Y1; X2; Y2; Person1) : V1 ^

I (p(a)) = 1; I (p(b)) = 0:4; I (q(a)) = 0:2; I (q(b)) = 0:4

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

t(I )(A) = tfJ (A) j J 2 Ig:

 Theorem: Suppose I 0 is any interpretation. Then the set

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

I (p(a)) = 0:75; I (q(a)) = 0

I (p(a)) = 0:875; I (q(a)) = 0

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

 Theorem: I satis es P i TP (I )vI .

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

{ each i is a lattice element (not a lattice variable )

{ C is a lattice constraint (possibly empty).

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

 Suppose Q; C are standardized apart.

is said to be an annotated resolvent of Q and C via mgu  .

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

2. (q (X; Z ) : 0:6 ^ r(Z ) : V ^ 0:6vV; Cl ; fZ = ag). 2

3. (r(a) : V ^ (0:6vV ^ V v0:7); Cl ; fg). 3

4. (0:6vV ^ V v0:7 ^ V v0:6; ; ).

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Annotated Refutation is Not Complete

 The rst reason is that the operator TP may lead to xpoints

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

is called a reductant of C1 ; C2.

newfoilGAPs: Reductants and Closure Example

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

if i(i = 1; 2) is an annotation item.

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

A ; : : :; An 2 BL and for all 1  i; j  n; i 6= j ) Ai 6= Aj g

 disj (BL ) = fA _: : :_Anjn  1 is an integer and A ; : : :; An 2

BL and for all 1  i; j  n; i =6 j ) Ai =6 Aj g,

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

  ; : : :; n are annotations such that all the annotation vari-

ables that appear in 0 also appear in at least one of 1; : : :; n.

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

This rule says if sensor1 reports that object a is present with

probability V , then we may conclude that object a is present

with a probability in the range : [max(0; V1 : ); V2 : ].2

 Consider the rule

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Wk g ! [0; 1] such that for all j = 1; : : :; k, WP (Wj )  0

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

object(a) : [max(0; V 2 0:1 ); V +2 0:1 ]

sensor1(a) : [0:6; 0:6] :

Zaniolo|Ceri|Faloutsos|Snodgrass|Subrahmanian| Zicari|All Rights Reserved

Theorem: Suppose I 0 is any interpretation. Then the set

Theorem: I satises P i TP (I )vI .

{ each i is a lattice element (not a lattice variable )

Suppose Q; C are standardized apart.

is said to be an annotated resolvent of Q and C via mgu .

The rst reason is that the operator TP may lead to xpoints

if i(i = 1; 2) is an annotation item.

A ; : : :; An 2 BL and for all 1 i; j n; i 6= j ) Ai 6= Aj g

disj (BL ) = fA _: : :_Anjn 1 is an integer and A ; : : :; An 2

BL and for all 1 i; j n; i =6 j ) Ai =6 Aj g,

; : : :; n are annotations such that all the annotation vari-

ables that appear in 0 also appear in at least one of 1; : : :; n.

Consider the rule

Wk g ! [0; 1] such that for all j = 1; : : :; k, WP (Wj ) 0

Theorem: If h ; h are formulaTP has a least xpoint, lfp(TP ),

Stage 1: In the rst stage, we will dene an operator, called

in grd(P ), is a ground substitution to the set of annotation

I j=p (F : [c ; d ] ^ : : : ^ Fn : [cn; dn]) i for all 1 j n,

I j=p F : [c ; d ] F : [c ; d ] VV: : : VVFn : [cn; dn] i

I j=p (9x)(C ) i I j=p (C (x=t)) for some ground term t,

I j=p (8x)(C ) i I j=p (C (x=t)) for all ground terms t, where

I j=p (8V )(C ) i I j=p (C (V=c)) for all c 2 [0; 1] such

fAij1 i ng = fBij1 i mg.

Bottom Line: MGU's are not necessarily unique !

pose ; 2 Uni(F ; F ). We say the following:

1. i there exists a substitution such that = .

2. i and . We use the notation []

to denote the equivalence class of , i.e., [] = f0 j 0,

3. [] [0] i 0.

[i; i] Bodyi and [i; i] is an annotation term.

Suppose G and Fi are uniable with max-gu .

where for all i 1, Ci is a renamed version of a clause in

where the SLDp-resolvent of Qn and Cn via max-gu n, de-