In ProbLog, how do I represent the following as p-fact/rule :
A binary vector of size N, where P bits are 1 ? i.e. a bit is ON with probability P/N, where N > 1000
i come up with this, but it seem iffy :
0.02::one(X) :- between(1,1000,X).
Want to use it later to make calculations on what happens if i apply two-or-more operations of bin-vec such as : AND,OR,XOR,count,overlap, hamming distance, but do it like Modeling rather than Simulation
F.e. if I ORed random 10 vec's, what is the probable overlap-count of this unionized vector and a new rand vec
... or what is the probability that they will overlap by X bits
.... questions like that
PS> I suspect cplint is the same.
Another try, but dont have idea how to query for 'single' result
1/10::one(X,Y) :- vec(X), between(1,10,Y). %vec: N=10, P=?
vec(X) :- between(1,2,X). %num of vecs
%P=2 ??
two(A,B,C,D) :- one(1,A), one(2,B), A =\= B, one(1,C), one(2,D), C =\= D.
based on #damianodamiono , so far :
P/N::vec(VID,P,N,_Bit).
prob_on([],[],_,_).
prob_on([H1|T1],[H2|T2],P,N):-
vec(1,P,N,H1), vec(2,P,N,H2),
prob_on(T1,T2,P,N).
query(prob_on([1],[1],2,10)).
query(prob_on([1,2,3,5],[1,6,9,2],2,10)).
I'm super happy to see that someone uses Probabilistic Logic Programming! Anyway, usually you do not need to create a list with 1000 elements and then attach 1000 probabilities. For example, if you want to state that each element of the list has a probabilty to be true of P/N (suppose 0.8), you can use (cplint and ProbLog have almost the same syntax, so you can run the programs on both of them):
0.8::on(_).
in the recursion.
For example:
8/10::on(_).
prob_on([]). prob_on([H|T]):-
on(H),
prob_on(T).
and then ask (in cplint)
?- prob(prob_on([1,2,3]),Prob).
Prob = Prob = 0.512
in ProbLog, you need to add query(prob_on([1,2,3])) in the program. Note the usage of the anonymous variable in the probabilistic fact on/1 (is needed, the motivation may be complicated so I omit it). If you want a probability that depends on the lenght of the list and other variables, you can use flexible probabilities:
P/N::on(P,N).
and then call it in your predicate with
...
on(P,N),
...
where both P and N are ground when on/2 is called. In general, you can add also a body in the probabilistic fact (turning it into a clause), and perform whatever operation you want.
With two lists:
8/10::on_1(_).
7/10::on_2(_).
prob_on([],[]).
prob_on([H1|T1],[H2|T2]):-
on_1(H1),
on_2(H2),
prob_on(T1,T2).
?- prob(prob_on([1,2,3,5],[1,6,9,2]),Prob).
Prob = 0.09834496
Hope this helps, let me know if something is still not clear.
Related
I should preface this by saying this is a homework problem that I am having issues with, and Im not sure if that sort of thing is allowed around here, but I dont know where else to turn to. This is the question I've been asked:
In the sample code for this question, you can see a Fibonacci predicate fibSimple/2 which calculates the Fibonacci of X, a natural number. The problem with the naive recursive solution, is that you end up recalculating the same recursive case several times. See here for an explanation.
For example, working out the fib(5) involves working out the solution for fib(2) three separate times. A Dynamic Programming approach can solve this problem. Essentially, it boils down to starting with fib(2), then calculating fib(3), then fib(4) etc.... until you reach fib(X). You can store these answers in a list, with fib(X) ending up as the first item in the list.
Your base cases would look like the following:
fib(0,[0]).
fib(1,[1,0]).
Note the way that fib(1) is defined as [1,0]. fib(1) is really 1 but we are keeping a list of previous answers.
Why do we do this? Because to calculate fib(X), we just have to calculate fib(X-1) and add the first two elements together and insert them at the front of the list. For example, from the above, it is easy to calculate fib(2,Ans). fib(2) in this case would be [1,1,0]. Then fib(3) would be [2,1,1,0], fib(4) would be [3,2,1,1,0] etc....
Complete the fib/2 predicate as outlined above - the base cases are shown above. You need to figure out the one line that goes after the base cases to handle the recursion.
This is the sample code they provided
fibSimple(0,0). % fib of 0 is 0
fibSimple(1,1). % fib of 1 is 1
fibSimple(N,X) :- N>1,fibSimple(N-1,A), fibSimple(N-2,B), X is A+B.
fib(0,[0]).
fib(1,[1,0]).
I've had a few attempts at this, and while I'm fairly certain my attempt will end up being hopelessly wrong, this is what I have most recently tried
fib(X,[fib(X-2)+fib(X-1) | _]).
My reasoning to this is that if you can get the answer to the last 2, and add them together making them the first or "head" of the list, and then the underscore representing the rest.
My 2 issues are:
1) I don't know/think this underscore will do what I want it to do, and am lost in where to go from here
and
2) I don't know how to even run this program as the fib\2 predicate requires 2 parameters. And lets say for example I wanted to run fib\2 to find the fibonacci of 5, I would not know what to put as the 2nd parameter.
Because this is homework I will only sketch the solution - but it should answer the questions you asked.
A predicate differs from a function in that it has no return value. Prolog just tells you if it can derive it (*). So if you just ask if fib(5) is true the best you can get is "yes". But what are the Fibonacci numbers from 1 to 5 then? That's where the second argument comes in. Either you already know and check:
?- fib(5, [5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 0]).
true ; <--- Prolog can derive this fact. With ; I see more solutions.
false <--- no, there are no other solutions
Or you leave the second argument as a variable and Prolog will tell you what values that variable must have such that it can derive your query:
?- fib(5, X).
X = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 0] ;
false.
So the second argument contains the result you are looking for.
You can also ask the other queries like fib(X,Y) "which numbers and their fibonacci hostories can we derive?" or fib(X, [3 | _]) "which number computes the the fibonacci number 3?". In the second case, we used the underscore to say that the rest of the list does not matter. (2)
So what do we do with fib(X,[fib(X-2)+fib(X-1) | _]).? If we add it to the clauses for 0 and 1 you were given we can just query all results:
?- fib(X,Y).
X = 0,
Y = [1] ; <-- first solution X = 0, Y = [1]
X = 1,
Y = [1, 0] ; <-- second solution X = 1, Y = [1, 0]
Y = [fib(X-2)+fib(X-1)|_2088]. <-- third solution
The third solution just says: a list that begins with the term fib(X-2)+fib(X-1) is a valid solution (the _2088 as just a variable that was not named by you). But as mentioned in the beginning, this term is not evaluated. You would get similar results by defining fib(X, [quetzovercaotl(X-1) | _]).
So similar to fibSimple you need a rule that tells Prolog how to derive new facts from facts it already knows. I have reformatted fibSimple for you:
fibSimple(N,X) :-
N>1,
fibSimple(N-1,A),
fibSimple(N-2,B),
X is A+B.
This says if N > 1 and we can derive fibSimple(N-1,A) and we can derive fibSimple(N-2,B) and we can set X to the result of A + B, then we derive fibSimple(N, X). The difference to what you wrote is that fibSimple(N-1,A) occurs in the body of the rule. Again the argument N-1 does not get evaluated. What actually happens is that the recursion constructs the terms 3-1 and (3-1)-1) when called with the query fib(3,X). The actual evaluation happens in the arithmetic predicates is and <. For example, the recursive predicate stops when it tries to evaluate (3-1)-1 > 1 because 1>1 is not true. But we also do not hit the base case fibSimple(1, 1) because the term (3-1)-1 is not the same as 1 even though they evaluate to the same number.
This is the reason why Prolog does not find the Fibonacci number of 3 in the simple implementation:
?- fibSimple(3, X).
false.
The arithmetic evaluation is done by the is predicate: the query X is (3-1) -1 has exactly the solution X = 1. (3)
So fibSimple must actually look like this: (4)
fibSimple(0,1).
fibSimple(1,1).
fibSimple(N,X) :-
N>1,
M1 is N -1, % evaluate N - 1
M2 is N -2, % evaluate N - 2
fibSimple(M1,A),
fibSimple(M2,B),
X is A+B.
For fib you can use this as a template where you only need one recursive call because both A and B are in the history list. Be careful with the head of your clause: if X is the new value it can not also be the new history list. For example, the head could have the form fib(N, [X | Oldhistory]).
Good luck with the homework!
(1) This is a little simplified - Prolog will usually give you an answer substitution that tells you what values the variables in your query have. There are also some limited ways to deal with non-derivability but you don't need that here.
(2) If you use the arithmetic predicates is and > these two queries will not work with the straightforward implementation. The more declarative way of dealing with this is arithmetic constraints.
(3) For this evaluation to work, the right hand side of is may not contain variables. This is where you would need the arithmetic constraints from (2).
(4) Alternatively, the base cases could evaluate the arithmetic terms that were passed down:
fibSimple(X, 0) :-
0 is X.
fibSimple(X, 1) :-
1 is X.
fibSimple(N,X) :-
N>1,
fibSimple(N-1,A),
fibSimple(N-2,B),
X is A+B.
But this is less efficient because a single number takes much less space than the term 100000 - 1 - 1 -1 .... -1.
I want to attach properties to my terms, from a set of about 50 different properties. Usually only a small subset of them are used for a given term. There are many ways to represent these properties, but I am not satisfied with any of them.
For the sake of discussion, here is a set of properties and their possible values:
hair: bald, blonde, brune, red
eyes: blue, green, brown
first_name: John, Dick, Harry
There are many ways to represent these properties, for example with a list of pairs:
[eyes-blue, hair-blonde]
The only representation that seems to work is to use a very long list, where each index is used for a specific property:
?- T1=[blonde,_,_], T2=[_,blue,_], T1=T2.
T1 = T2, T2 = [blonde, blue, _1266]
?- T1=[X,_,_], X=blue.
T1 = [blue, _1230, _1236],
X = blue
But it's unreadable with 50 properties, and very bugprone (in my case, a whole set of predicates is dedicated to each property, and sometimes to each value of a property).
The way I would use such a feature would be by having conditions like "Terms T1 and T2 have the same value for property X", or "Terms T1 and T2 are the same", where T1 and T2 have attributes which can be set elsewhere, or can be left unset.
Using dicts desn't work, because unset keys are considered non-existent:
?- T1 = _{eyes:blue, hair:blonde}, T2 = _{eyes:blue}, T1 = T2.
false.
For this to work, I would need to initialize each term with the 50 (mostly irrelevant) properties with free variables, on the off-chance that some of them will be used.
What other options do I have? I am open to using a different logic programming language if there is something closer to my needs than prolog.
With the "very long list", you have indeed found one possible representation that lets you directly use Prolog's built-in unification to perform the task for you.
As you note, this comes at a price though: It's unreadable, error-prone, wasteful etc.
There are many possible ways to solve the task, and I would like to give you two pointers that I hope you find relevant for your task.
Option 1: Use lists of pairs
This is in fact already mentioned in your post. Pairs of the form hair-blonde etc. are a natural way to represent the available data. By convention, (-)/2 is frequently used to denote pairs in Prolog.
All that is missing is precisely describing what "merging" such pairs means. You call it "unification", so let us use this terminology although it is of course different from syntactic unification that is available with (=)/2. One way to define the relation we want is:
unify_pairs([], APs, APs).
unify_pairs([A1-P1|APs1], APs2, APs) :-
if_(selectd_t(A1-P1, APs2, APs2Rest),
APs=[A1-P1|Rest],
if_(attr_exists_t(A1, APs2),
false,
APs = [A1-P1|Rest])),
unify_pairs(APs1, APs2Rest, Rest).
attr_exists_t(A, APs, T) :-
pairs_keys(APs, As),
memberd_t(A, As, T).
selectd_t(E, Xs0, Xs, T) :-
i_selectd_t(Xs0, Xs, E, T).
i_selectd_t([], [], _, false).
i_selectd_t([X|Xs], Rest, E, T) :-
if_(X=E, (T=true,Rest=Xs), (Rest = [X|Rs],i_selectd_t(Xs, Rs, E, T))).
This uses library(reif) and two auxiliary predicates to distinguish the different cases.
Your test cases work as required. For example:
?- unify_pairs([hair-blonde], [eyes-blue], Ps).
Ps = [hair-blonde, eyes-blue].
?- unify_pairs([eyes-blue], [eyes-brown], Ps).
false.
Importantly, we can use it in all directions, and so we can also post significantly more general queries. For example:
?- unify_pairs([T1-P1], [T2-P2], TPs).
T1 = T2,
P1 = P2,
TPs = [T2-P2] ;
TPs = [T1-P1, T2-P2],
dif(T2, T1),
dif(f(T2, P2), f(T1, P1)).
Such answers help us to obtain a better understanding of the relation, and to test it more exhaustively.
Option 2: Use lists of pairs again
The second pointer I would like to include is found in library(ordsets) and similar libraries that ship with several Prolog systems.
This again lets you use lists, even lists of pairs. Importantly, lists are available in all Prolog systems. Various operations are quite efficient due to the way these libraries represent sets as ordered lists.
However, the price you may pay in such cases is the generality explained in the first approach. I suggest you first try the more general approach (i.e., Option 1), and then, only if necessary, resort to lower-level approaches that are more error-prone and less general.
You maybe say "unification" but you mean something different from what unification normally means in Prolog which is why your question might be mistaken for a different question. You could do some things with SWI-Prolog dicts:
?- _{hair:blonde, eyes:blue} >:< _{eyes:blue}.
true.
?- _{hair:blonde, eyes:blue} >:< _{eyes:blue, hair:Color}.
Color = blonde.
?- _{hair:blonde, eyes:blue} >:< _{eyes:blue, hair:bald}.
false.
but you cannot directly do what you need, because if you "put" into a dict you add or replace which is not what you want.
?- R =_{eyes:blue}.put(_{hair:blonde}).
R = _7436{eyes:blue, hair:blonde}.
(this one was OK)
?- R =_{eyes:blue}.put(_{eyes:brown}).
R = _7436{eyes:brown}.
(this is not what you want, is it?)
what you want I don't know what to call in words but it is some form of finding union on keys in key-value pairs. But you can just do it with dicts I think if you first do P1 >:< P2 and then put_dict(P1, P2, Result)?
?- P1 = _{eyes:blue},
P2 = _{hair:blonde,eyes:brown},
P1 >:< P2, put_dict(P1, P2, Result).
false.
?- P1 = _{eyes:blue},
P2 = _{hair:blonde},
P1 >:< P2, put_dict(P1, P2, Result).
Result = _10044{eyes:blue, hair:blonde}.
?- P1 = _{eyes:blue},
P2 = _{hair:blonde,eyes:blue},
P1 >:< P2, put_dict(P1, P2, Result).
Result = _10046{eyes:blue, hair:blonde}.
Please respond if this is what you were asking because I am really not sure? But what is even more important actually is that you think a bit more carefully about the real problem you are trying to model because maybe? (just maybe?) you are thinking of it in terms of solution that is not as good as another solution that will make the problem be a lesser problem or a problem with already existing better solutions. Maybe it will help if you provide even more context about your problem in your question, because now there is enough context about how you tried to solve it but I don't know what you are really solving.
You could make the attributes one-arity terms, like this:
hair(bald)
hair(blonde)
eyes(blue)
eyes(green)
...
That would rule out unifications like
hair(blonde) = hair(red)
and you could quite easily write your own predicate for combining two lists, which could also block/filter out multiple instances of the same attribute.
In languages with strong typing this is a nice representation, but I'm not sure it's so useful in Prolog. Anyway it is a possibility.
I think I understand your question but I don't think I understand your difficulty. You could achieve what you want with dicts, with assocs, with lists of pairs.... You say:
Terms T1 and T2 have the same value for property X
Here it is with dicts, like the answer by #User9213:
?- _{a:1, foo:2, bar:3}.a = _{a:2, foo:22, baz:33}.a.
false.
?- _{a:1, foo:2, bar:3}.a = _{a:1, foo:22, baz:33}.a.
true.
In other words, to compare a "property" of two dicts, you just say Dict1.X = Dict2.X. Note that this also works with X a variable:
?- X = a, _{a:1, b:2}.X = _{a:1, b:432432}.X.
X = a.
The same would work with any other option already mentioned: with library(assoc) (just get the values for that key and compare), or even for lists of pairs (just do member(Key-Value, List) and compare values).
Then, you also say,
Terms T1 and T2 are the same
Now you really can just compare dicts. For assocs, I am not certain if two assocs are always the same if they have the same contents, but you can make lists and compare those. And if you keep your lists of pairs sorted on keys, you can just compare, as with dicts.
Finally, you say:
where T1 and T2 have attributes which can be set elsewhere, or can be left unset.
This is ambiguous. If an attribute is unset, just leave it out of the dict/assoc/list. "Set elsewhere" I really don't get.
You need to write some code down and get a feel for how things could be done. Showing your difficulties with a code example will help you get specific and useful answers.
Good Day,
I have a task (not homework), but test preparation question. Given a value of n where n > 0. I need to find out what 3**n value is. I do have something that works.
% expo
expo([],[]).
expo([X|T], [Y|Result]):-
number(X),
Y is 3 ^ X,
expo(T,Result).
expo([ThrowAway|Tail], [ThrowAway|Result]):-
expo(Tail,Result).
last([X]):-
write("M = "),
write(X).
last([Y|Tail]):-
last(Tail).
do_list(N) :-
findall(Num, between(0, N, Num), L),
expo(L, E),
last(E).
When I run this at the console:
do_list(4).
M = 81
true.
So it does give me what I want. But is a recursive solution necessary? I just want to generate a sequence of numbers and use those numbers as my exponent which I have done, but I had to create two lists to this.
Ideally, I'd like to do:
do_list(4, M).
M = 81
true.
Is this possible to do this without two lists? Is it possible without recursion? I'm new to Prolog, so it's taking me a little getting used to "thinking" in Prolog.
TIA,
coson
If you want to do something in all elements of a list then yes most of the times you need recursion (except from cases like when you use predicates like fundall/3 which does the recursion ...).
If you want to return your result in an argument and not just print it then you need for the above predicate two lists (one is the input and the other one is the output).
Though I don't understand why not just writing:
find_pow(Input,Output):-Output is 3^Input.
From what I understood you calculate 3^i for every i<=n and keep last element which could be done independently. So if I understood corrctly what you're trying to do, this could be done without using lists and recursion (if you use predefined pow function ^ else if you write a predicate that computes the power 3^n then you would use recursion... ).
Example:
?- find_pow(4,X).
X = 81.
I want to create a counter in prolog.
Something like starting it init/0.
Adding 1 increment/0,
and something like get_counter/1. To get the value.
But I don't know how to start something if you have init/0 with no inputs how to set something to 0.
Can someone give me some tips how I should try to do this?
I'm not a native speaker, so if it's not clear what I mean I'm sorry.
Here is something that sort of does what you are trying to achieve:
?- X0 = 0 /* init */, succ(X0, X1) /* inc */, succ(X1, X2) /* inc */.
X0 = 0,
X1 = 1,
X2 = 2.
The init is just giving the variable a value, incrementing is done with succ/2, and the getval is implicit.
However, as I already said in the comment, consider your use case! If you are trying to keep track of how deep inside a loop you are, it is perfectly fine to do it with succ/2 or even following the suggestion by #mat.
So, to count the number of foos in a list:
list_foos([], 0).
list_foos([X|Xs], N) :-
( dif(X, foo)
-> list_foos(Xs, N)
; list_foos(Xs, N0),
succ(N0, N) % or: N0 + 1 #= N
).
You should try out both succ(N0, N) and N0 + 1 #= N to see how you can use them when either one or both of the arguments to list_foos/2 are not ground.
If, however, you need to maintain a global state for some reason: say, you are dynamically changing the database and you need to generate an increasing integer key for a table. Then, you should consider the answer by #coredump. Keep in mind that it is not super easy to write code that runs on any Prolog implementation once you start using "global" variables. One attempt would be to use the predicates for manipulating the database:
:- dynamic foocounter/1.
initfoo :-
retractall(foocounter(_)),
assertz(foocounter(0)).
incrfoo :-
foocounter(V0),
retractall(foocounter(_)),
succ(V0, V),
assertz(foocounter(V)).
And then, you can now count with a global state (it does not need to be in a conjunction like your example use):
?- initfoo.
true.
?- incrfoo.
true.
?- incrfoo.
true.
?- foocounter(V).
V = 2.
This is perfectly valid code but there are many pitfalls, so use with care.
I would use ECLiPSe's non-local variables:
init :- setval(counter, 0).
increment :- incval(counter).
get_counter(V) :- getval(counter, V).
Your implementation might provide something similar. In SWI-prolog, it seems that the same can be achieved with nb_setval (non-backtrackable setval).
A declarative way to solve this is to see this as a relation between two counter values: One before the increment, and one after the increment.
You can use CLP(FD) constraints to relate the two counter values:
counter_next(C0, C) :- C0 + 1 #= C.
Such a predicate is completely pure and can be used in all directions.
A sequence of such relations describes repeatedly incrementing the counter, relating an initial value to its final state:
?- S0 = 0, counter_next(S0, S1), counter_next(S1, S).
S = 2,
S0 = 0,
S1 = 1
EDIT: Suppose you go the other way and manage to implement a 0-ary predicate increment/0, as you ask for, destructively incrementing a global resource. Then you will have severe declarative problems. For example, incrementing the counter must succeed, so we can expect to see:
?- increment.
true.
But this means that the original query is no longer equivalent to its own answer, because the query:
?- true.
true.
certainly does not increment the counter.
It also means you can no longer test and reason about your predicates in isolation, but have to think about the global resource all the time.
This in turn will make it much harder to understand and correct mistakes in your code.
Therefore, I strongly recommend you adopt a declarative way to think about this task, and make the relation between counter values before and after incrementing explicit. As an additional benefit, you can then also use these relations in the other direction, and ask for example: "Which initial counter values, if any, yield a given value when incremented?", or even more generally: "For which arguments does this relation even hold?"
Alright so I am coding a parser for arithmetic equations. I get the input in a list, e.g. "10+20" = [49,48,43,50,48] and then I convert all the digits to there corresponding numbers e.g. [49,48,43,50,48] = [1,0,43,2,0] and from there I want to put integers > 10 back together.
Converting from ascii -> digits I use a maplist and number_codes to convert.
One approach I had was to just traverse the list and if it's 0-9 store it in a variable and then check the next number, 0-9 append it to the other variable and so on until I hit an operator. I can't seem to simply append digits as it were. Here's my current code.
expression(L) :-
maplist(chars, L, Ls).
chars(C, N) :-
(
C >= "0", "9" >= C -> number_codes(N, [C]);
N is C
).
Not sure if there's a simple way to add to my code (as far as I know, maplist only gives back a list of equal length to the list passed in but I could be mistaken).
Any help is appreciated :)
Yes, maplist only 'gives back' a list of equal length. Moreover, maplist applies a predicate only to one element (basically it's context-free). Therefore, it is not possible to do what you want (combine digits between operators to a single number) with maplist and you would have to write the recursion yourself.
However, you can do something way easier than all this converting back and forth:
expression(L, E):-
string_to_atom(L,A),
atom_to_term(A,E,[]).
Which works like this:
2 ?- expression("1+2",E).
E = 1+2.
3 ?- expression("1+2",E), X is E.
E = 1+2, X = 3.
4 ?- expression("1+2",E), X+Y = E.
E = 1+2, X = 1, Y = 2.
5 ?- expression("1+2+3",E), X+Y = E.
E = 1+2+3, X = 1+2, Y = 3.
Naturally, if you want a list with all the numbers involved you will have to do something recursive but this is kinda trivial imho.
If however you still want to do the converting, I suggest checking Definite Clause Grammars; it will simplify the task a lot.
I answered some time ago with an expression parser.
It will show you how to use DCG for practical tasks, and I hope you will appreciate the generality and simplicity of such approach.
Just a library predicate is required from SWI-Prolog, number//1, easily implemented in Sicstus. Let me know if you need more help on that.