Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rule Based Systems
Rule Based Systems
Rule based systems / Knowledge based systems/ Expert Systems have played and plays an important role in the AI industry. A report from from 1993 by John Durkin: Reports on Over 2500 Developed Expert Systems
Application areas:
Agriculture, Business, Chemistry, Communications, Computer Systems, Education, Electronics, Engineering, Environment, Geology, Image processing, Information Management, Law, Manufacturing, Mathematics, Medicine, Meteorology, Military, Mining, Power Systems, Science, Space Technology, Transportation Types of systems: Rule Based, Frame Based, Fuzzy Logic, Case Based, Neural Network
Question-andanswer
Menu driven
User
Natural language
Inference engine
Case-specific
data
Graphic
inteface
Expert system shell
Explanation subsystem
Stanford
Pittsburgh Internist internal medicine
- the primary goal of this field is to develop computer programs that perform efficiently and are able to explain their reasoning and conclusions to their users
Why Mycin?
Diagnose likely infecting organisms in blood and meningitis infections Use test results and information about patient supplied by doctor Prescribe an effective antibiotic treatment Do this early in the course of the disease, before all possible information is available To counteract:
- overuse of antibiotics
- irrational use of antibiotics -maldistribution of expertise
IF You are considering giving chloramphenicol, and the patient is less than 1 week old THEN it is definite (1.0) that chlorampericol is contraindicated for this patient [Justification: Newborn infants may develop vasomusculular collapse due to an immaturity of the liver and kidney functions resulting in decreased metabolism of chloramphenicol]
MYCIN Explanation
User: Why didnt you consider Streptococcus as a possiblity for Organism- 1 MYCIN: The following rule could have been used to determine that the identoty of Organism-1 was streptococcus: Rule 33 But Clause 2 (the morphology of the organism is Coccus) was already known to be false for Organism-1, so the rule was never tried.
approval
OK
(1)
OK
(5)
BAL
REP
(3)
APP
INC
RATING
RATING
rule 5 if and bal is true rep is true then 1.0 certainty ok is true.
if
rating is true
I ask because
rule 4 if inc is true then 1.00 certainty pymt is true . I ask because
Dialog and proof of Loan approval are shown here PRO/loanapproval.txt PRO/loanproof.txt
ok is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) (help./ how./ ok./ quit./ ) ? |: how. BECAUSE contributions by rule 1 : ok is true IS PROVED ( 1.00)
rep is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE by rule 3 : rep is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE rating is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE
BECAUSE
collat is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE by rule 2 : collat is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE app is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE app is true is given AND
pymt is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE by rule 4 : pymt is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE inc is true IS PROVED ( 1.00) BECAUSE
The uncertainty model is based on certainties which are numbers between 1 and +1. The example 0.7 is a rule parameter that modifies the certainty of the conclusion.
Uncertainty vs Ignorance
0 0 0 0 0
1
MB
MI
MD
Statistical interpretations
Characteristics
Ranges
Values
0 <= MB <= 1 0 <= MD <= 1 -1 <= CF <= 1
MB=1 MD=0 CF =1
MB=0 MD=1 CF = -1
MB=0 MD=0 CF = 0
Contradictory evidence
MB=1 MD=1 CF = 0
Manipulation of CF-values
Usually, we use only one CF value, so we dont distinguish between ignorance and inconsistency.
CF rule principle
if
P
CF(P) computed
then
CF certainty Q
parameter defined CF(Q) computed
A B
CF(A) CF(B)
(0.5) (0,7)
IF AA
THEN
CF1
(0.7)
B
=> CF(B)=0.35
CF(AA)=0.5
IF B THEN
(0.35)
CF2
(0.3)
C
=> CF(C) = 0.105
R ( CF(R1)= P) R
( CF(R1)= Q)
CFparallel(CF1,CF2) =
(CF1*CF2 <0)
BUT the old rule also had the defect that it was not associative and not commutative
The parallel rule has some good and obviously required properties
The CF parallel combination rule has some very nice (and obviously required) mathematical properties:
- it is associative, i.e. evidence may be grouped arbitrarily - it is commutative, i.e. the sequence of evidence is irrelevant - it has a zero element, (CF = 0) that has no effect - it is symmetric, i.e. equal but opposite evidence cancel out However, the CF parallel combination rule is not idempotent: C + C - C*C > C (if C >0) (If you repeat the same weakly supported postulate sufficiently often, it will be regarded as certain after a while . :-)