M. Suwa, A. Scott, E. Shortliffe, "An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System", AI Magazine, Vol.3, No. 4, pp. 1621, Fall 1982  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Warehouse may contain anomalies, such as inconsistency, redundancy, and cyclic conditions. They need to be verified by the RWS to detect and take proper actions to remove or accommodate rule anomalies. Rule base verification has been an important area of research in the expert system community [CRA87, NGU85, SUW82, WU93b, ZHA94]. Techniques for verifying expert system rules are available; however, the verification of a rule base containing event and action oriented rules is a much more challenging problem because this type of rules contains method or procedure calls, which can have side effects. Besides, this type of ....

....documents. Apostolou et al. [APO99] presented a three tier architecture of knowledge sharing for supply chain management in the wood furniture sector. 2.4 Rule Verification 2.4.1 Logic Rule Verification Existing works on rule verification deal mostly with verification of logic rules. Early works [CRA87, NGU85, SUW82] detected simple manifestations of redundant, contradictory, and missing rules. Detection is based on rule connectivity and pair wise checking, with time complexities of O(n) and O(n ) respectively. Pioneering systems include the RCP [SUW82] and CHECK [NGU85] More recent works [GIN88, PRE92, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Suwa, M., Scott, A.C., and Shortliffe, E.H., "An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System," AI Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1982, pp. 16-21. 120

....into the rule warehouse may contain inconsistency, redundancy, and non termination conditions, which need to be verified by the RWS to detect and take proper actions to remove or accommodate those anomalies. Rule base verification is an important area of research in 3 the expert system community [DAV76, SUW82, NGU85, CRA87, WU93a, ZHA94]. Techniques for verifying expert system rules are available: for example, the works reported in TEIRESIAS [DAV76] CHECK [NGU85] COVER [PRE92] and EHLPH [WU97] There are some works on non termination detection in active database areas [KAR94, WEI95, BAR95, BAR98, BAR00] However, the ....

....verification is to check the correspondence between 1) the conceptual model and the design model, and 2) the design model and the implemented system. 5. Empirical Testing: It involves running the system with test cases designed for both structure based and function based tests. Early works [CRA87, DAV76, NGU85, SUW82] detected simple manifestations of redundant, contradictory, and missing rules. Detection was based on rule connectivity and pair wise checking with respective time complexities of O (n) and O (n ) Pioneering systems include TEIRESIAS [DAV76] RCP [SUW82] and CHECK [NGU85] More recent works ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Suwa, M., Scott, A.C., and Shortliffe, E.H., "An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in A Rule-Based Expert System," AI Magazine, 3(4), 1983, pp. 16-21.

....reason for this is that they are the most often practically used representation of knowledge implemented. A number of existing approaches to knowledge base verification can be found in [1] 5] 9] 14] 15] 16] 17] 18] 19] 21] 22] 23] 24] 25] 26] 28] 29] 30] 31] [32]; in [37] a comparative overview can be found for some of the existing approaches. As argued in [37] one of the problems in almost all of the existing approaches to knowledge base verification is that both the properties addressed (e.g. consistency, correctness, completeness) and the techniques ....

....consistency, correctness, completeness) and the techniques used for verification strongly depend on the knowledge representation language in which the knowledge base is expressed. Most references address the case of rule based knowledge representation; e.g. 22] 23] 24] 26] 30] 31] [32]. Other contributions focus on decision tables (e.g. 5] frames (e.g. 6] or other representation languages. This dependency on a specific knowledge representation language leads to ad hoc syntactical definitions of the properties, to problems in the transfer of the approaches from one ....

M. Suwa, A. Scott, E.H. Shortliffe, An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule based expert system, AI Magazine, 3(4), 1982, p 16-21.

....that is supported by the tool 3. The focus and behavior of the tool in the analyses or development phase of a system One criterion is formed by the anomalies that are detected by the tool. Some tools do not detect anomalies in a chain of logic, for example the Rule Checker Program (RCP) [19] and CHECK [20] Others like RCP, CHECK and EVA [21] do not detect missing rules and unused literals. VALENS is complete with respect to the anomalies defined by Preece [14] Another criterion is the language that is supported by the tool. Most verification and validation systems, which verify a ....

M. Suwa, A.C. Scott, E.H. Shortliffe, 1982, An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System, AI Magazine, Vol. 3, Nr. 4

....2 Language supported by the tool 3 Focus and behavior of the tool in the analysis or development phase of a system The first criterion is formed by the anomalies that are detected by the tool. Some tools do not detect anomalies in a chain of logic, for example the Rule Checker Program (RCP) [13] and CHECK [14] Others like RCP, CHECK and EVA [15] do not detect missing rules and unused literals. VALENS is complete with respect to the anomalies defined by Preece [2] Another criterion is the language that is supported by the tool. Most verification and validation systems, which verify a ....

M. Suwa, A.C. Scott, E.H. Shortliffe, 1982, An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System, AI Magazine, Vol. 3, Nr. 4

....that is supported by the tool The focus and behavior of the tool in the analyses or development phase of a system The first criterion is formed by the anomalies that are detected by the tool. Some tools do not detect anomalies in a chain of logic, for example the Rule Checker Program (RCP) [8] and CHECK [9] Others like RCP, CHECK and EVA [10] do not detect missing rules and unused literals. VALENS is complete with respect to the anomalies defined by Preece [4] Another criterion is the language that is supported by the tool. Most verification and validation systems, which verify a ....

M. Suwa, A.C. Scott, E.H. Shortliffe, 1982, An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System, AI Magazine, Vol. 3, Nr. 4

....tools were required to assist as much as possible in conducting verification and evaluation. In 1982, the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project (HPP) developed what is generally believed to be the fixst verification tool for KBS: the Rule Checking Program (RCP) for the ONCOCIN expert system [Suwa:82]. The important feature of the RCP was that it checked domain independent properties of a KB: redundant, conflicting and missing rules. These properties are anomalies: they do not necessarily signify faults in a particular system they may be intentional or harmless but they are suspicious and ....

Suwa, M., Scott, A. C., and Shortliffe, E. H. (1982). An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule-based expert system. AI Magazine, 3(4):16-21.

....for expert systems validation and verification (V V) because erroneous advice may lead to invaluable economic loss and even fatal loss of life in some domain applications. Traditionally, attention has been concentrated on using verification techniques to tackle rule based systems [1] 4] 11] 13][17]. However, these techniques exhibit a limited range of applicability. They could not cope with the kind of hybrid expert systems (HES) rule based plus frame based, which many of today s expert systems are developed [3] 14] The use of this hybrid approach integrates the power of organizing data ....

Suwa, M., Scott, A.C. and Shortliffe, E.H. An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-based Expert System. AIMagazine, pp.16-21, 1982.

.... is represented and reasoned with explicitly using formalisms as robust as those used for other kinds of expertise: Development Time Conflict Resolution: Systems of this type require that potential conflicts be compiled out of them by virtue of exhaustive discussions when they are developed [3, 34, 48, 51, 39]. The conflict resolution knowledge utilized by the domain Mark Klein Conflict Management 4 experts is then implicit in the individual conflict resolution decisions made during development. This approach has a number of serious disadvantages. For example, it is very time consuming to change or ....

Suwa, M., Scott, A.C., and Shortliffe, E.H. An Approach To Verifying Completeness And Consistency In A Rule-Based Expert System. AAAI (1982).

.... 1993 and Steels 1993) and ontologies (Guha and Lenat 1990, Patil et al. 1992 and Pirlein and Studer 1994) The need for complex modeling as a prerequisite to knowledge acquisition (KA) has resulted in the development of verification (Cragun and Streuduel 1987, Preece, Shinghal and Batarekh 1992, Suwa, Scott and Shortliffe 1982) and validation (O Keefe and Leary 1993) V V) techniques that are designed for use before the system goes into routine use. There is little consideration of incremental validation of such systems and maintenance is often a neglected problem (Kang, Gambetta and Compton 1996, Menzies and Compton ....

Suwa, M., Scott, A. and Shortliffe, E. (1982) An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System AI Magazine 3(4):16-21.

....and extended definitions for structural anomalies of rule based systems. We have take a specific formulation of anomalies for rulebases from [7] henceforth Pr Sh for short) as the basis for our work, but that paper in turn builds upon previous work by a variety of researchers, including [9, 6, 4, 2]. These papers define a wide class of anomalies, but we focus on those in [7] which are an important and representative set of anomalies. We will show how to reinterpret these anomalies in terms of the conceptual models as proposed by the KADS method of KBS construction. KADS [11] is a well known ....

M. Suwa, A. Scott, and E. Shortliffe. An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule-based expert system. AI Magazine, 3(4):16--21, 19982.

....assumes that issues such as (e.g. the presence of loops, tautologies, redundancies, inconsistencies are secondary to the basic requirement that a model must be able to reproduce the known behaviour of the thing that it is modelling. For algorithms that critique these internal model features, see [23, 29, 30]. EA is closest in internal data structures to the CTMSvalidation procedure of [30] However, CTMS validation assumes that the model testing process can dictate to the environment what test data is to be supplied. Here, we explore domains where data collection is prohibitively expensive (e.g. ....

Suwa, M., A.C. Scott, and E.H. Shortliffe, An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-based Expert System. 1982, Department of Computer Science, University of Stanford:

.... is represented and reasoned with explicitly using formalisms as robust as those used for other kinds of expertise: Development Time Conflict Resolution: Systems of this type require that potential conflicts be compiled out of them by virtue of exhaustive discussions when they are developed [2, 36, 47, 50, 39]. The conflict resolution knowledge utilized by the domain experts is then implicit in the individual conflict resolution decisions made during development. This approach has a number of serious disadvantages. For example, it is very time consuming to change or add to the existing design agents. ....

Suwa, M., Scott, A.C., and Shortliffe, E.H. An Approach To Verifying Completeness And Consistency In A Rule-Based Expert System. AAAI (1982).

....V) community have numerous techniques for internal assessment. After constructing a dependency network between rules in a knowledge base, an automatic process can detect circularities, inappropriate dead ends, missing logic (seen as isolated literals) repeated logic, and redundant subsumed logic (Suwa, Scott et al. 1982; Nguyen, Perkins et al. 1987; Preece and Shinghal 1992) More sophisticated systems import the rule base into a truth maintenance system (TMS) and compute the worlds that include each conclusion. Zlatareva uses a JTMS variant (Doyle 1979; Zlatareva 1992; Zlatareva 1993) while Ginsberg uses an ....

Suwa, M., A.C. Scott and E.H. Shortliffe (1982). An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rulebased Expert System. Department of Computer Science, University of Stanford.

....be divided into two categories [O Keefe and O Leary 93] 1.1 Domain Independent Tools Domain independent tools try to detect anomalies which consist of an abuse or unusual use of the knowledge representation scheme. Some are based on decision table methods (ESC [Cragen and Steudel 87] RCP [Suwa et al. 82] CHECK [Nguyen et al. 87] They separate rules conditions and actions parameters. Conditions are given along the X axis and actions along the Y axis. Algorithms then examine the existence of relationships among rows and columns. The drawback of this method is that it is useful only for small ....

Suwa M., Scott A.C, Shortliffe E.H. An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule-based expert system. AI Magazine 3 (4) 16-2, Fall 1982. Proceedings

....can be divided into two categories [O Keefe and O Leary 93] 1.1 Domain independent tools Domain independent tools try to detect anomalies which consist of an abuse or unusual use of the Knowledge representation scheme. Some are based on decision table methods ESC [Cragen and Steudel 87] RCP [Suwa et al. 82] CHECK [Nguyen et al. 87] They separate rules conditions and actions parameters. Conditions are given along the X axis and actions along the Y axis. Algorithms then examine the existence of relationships among rows and columns. The drawback of this method is that it is useful only for small rule ....

Suwa M., Scott A.C, Shortliffe E.H. An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule-based expert system. AI Magazine 3 (4) 16-2, Fall 1982.

....[16] 17] 18] The tools developed may be divided into two categories [16] 2.2.1 Domain independent tools Domain independent tools try to detect anomalies which consist of an abuse or unusual use of the knowledge representation scheme. Some are based on decision table methods : ESC [19] RCP [20] CHECK [21] They separate rules conditions and actions parameters. Conditions are given along the X axis and actions along the Y axis. Algorithms then examine the existence of relationships among rows and columns. The drawback of this method is that it is useful only for small rule bases, ....

Suwa M., Scott A.C, Shortliffe E.H. An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule-based expert system. AI Magazine 3 (4) 16-2, Fall 1982.

....software (see [ABC82] for a review of methods and [FW85, RW85] for a data flow approach to testing) and earlier work on rule base analysis. Early approaches for rule base analysis carried out only verification or validation. A number of systems, such as the ONCOCIN Rule Checker Program (RCP) SSS82] CHECK [NPLP85, NPLP87] ESC (Expert System Checker) CS87] and KB Reducer [Gin87, Gin88] carry out only verification. Beyond their limitation to verification, these systems have additional weaknesses. RCP is limited to identification of static problems at the rule level, and cannot identify ....

M. Suwa, S.C. Scott, and E.H. Shortliffe. An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in rule-based expert system. AI Magazine, 3(4):16--21, Fall 1982.

....(lack of) redundancy, and (lack of) circularity. Section 2.2 takes a closer look at knowledge base redundancy and subsumption. Some of the most influential approaches to the verification of redundancy in knowledge based systems are reviewed, including the research done by Suwa, Scott and Shortli#e [SSS82], Nguyen, Perkins, La#ey and Pecora [NPLP85, NPLP87] Cragun and Steudel [CS87] Ginsberg [Gin88] Preece and Shinghal [PS91] Charles [Cha90, CD91] Nazareth [Naz88, Naz89, 2 Introduction NK91] Meseguer [Mes91, Mes92] Chang, Combs and Stachowitz [SC87, CCS90] Tepandi [Tep91] and Valiente ....

....on the underlying definitions for redundancy and subsumption. These verification programs take a knowledge base, possibly together with a domain dependent set of semantic constraints, as input and produce a listing of all the verification issues detected as output. Suwa, Scott and Shortli#e [SSS82] were the first researchers to define notions of redundancy and subsumption for knowledge based systems, in the context of the ONCOCIN Rule Checking Program. Redundancy: two rules succeed in the same situation and have the same results. Subsumption: two rules have the same results, but one ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Motoi Suwa, A. Carlisle Scott, and Edward H. Shortli#e. An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule-based system. AI Magazine, 3(4):16--21, 1982.

....to which conflict resolution expertise is made explicit and available for use during run time. Development Time Conflict Resolution: Traditional knowledge based systems rely on all of the potential conflicts between different perspectives being resolved at development time [bezem 87] nguyen 85] [suwa 82]. The conflict resolution knowledge utilized by the experts is then implicit in the individual conflict resolution decisions made during development. While this approach can be used in cooperative problem solving systems, there are a number of advantages to allowing conflicts among knowledge ....

Suwa, Scott & Shortliffe. An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System. AAAI-82. 1982.

No context found.

M. Suwa, A. Scott, E. Shortliffe, "An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System", AI Magazine, Vol.3, No. 4, pp. 1621, Fall 1982

No context found.

Suwa, M., A. C. Scott, and E. H. Shortliffe. An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System. AI Magazine, 1982, pp. 16--21.

No context found.

Suwa,M.,Scott, A. C., Shortliffe, E.H.,An approach to verifying completeness and consistency in a rule based expert system,The AI Magazine,Vol 3,no 3,1982

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC