26:198:722 Expert Systems
- Dr. Peter R. Gillett
26:198:722 Expert Systems Dr. Peter R. Gillett Associate Professor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
26:198:722 Expert Systems Dr. Peter R. Gillett Associate Professor Department of Accounting & Information Systems Faculty of Management Rutgers University Introduction to Expert Systems I What are Expert Systems I Overview of Artificial
F “An intelligent computer program that uses
F “Expert Systems are a class of computer
F “An Expert System is a computer system which
F “An expert system is a computer program that
F “Expert System =
F The most significant practical product to
F Knowledge-based systems NOT Artificial
F Decision support systems (DSS) v.
F Characterization by function v. characterization by
technology
F Address higher level problems F Address unstructured problems F Performance comparable to level of human expert (not
necessarily emulation)
F Use a representation of knowledge and rules F Can apply heuristic reasoning F Can supply explanations of their reasoning F Are highly domain specific
F Descriptive knowledge (facts)
N overdrafts are a potential source of finance
F Prescriptive knowledge (rules)
N if long-term finance is needed and only limited security is
available, overdrafts are not a likely source of finance
F Heuristics (rules-of-thumb)
N bank managers in urban centers do not provide large
F User interface F Knowledge acquisition module F Knowledge base F Inference engine
N control strategy N working memory
F Explanation facility F Other interfaces
F Knowledge acquisition
NKnowledge elicitation
F Knowledge representation
NProduction rules NSemantic networks NFrames
F Dominant paradigm for applications? F Especially where textbook knowledge or
F Can pose problems when the number of
F A method for resolving rule conflicts is
F “Object-oriented” approach F Knowledge represented by structured
F Useful when there is a good deal of default
F Provide for inheritance of knowledge F Use “Is-A” links between frames
F Represent knowledge as a network of
F Useful when knowledge less hierarchical F Emphasize relationships rather than nodes
F Preceded frames, but are now less used
F Control Strategies
NForward chaining NBackward chaining
F Search strategies
NDepth first NBreadth first
F Conflict resolution
NRETE algorithm
F Unreliable sources of data and information F Abundance of irrelevant data F Imprecision of language and perception F Lack of understanding F Faulty equipment F Conflicting sources of data F Hidden or unknown variables F Unknown or poorly specified rules or procedures F Data difficult or expensive to obtain
F Classical probabilities F Bayesian inference F Certainty factors F Belief functions F Fuzzy logic, fuzzy sets, possibility theory F Non-monotonic logic
F Preserving, reproducing, or disseminating
F Releasing true human experts from involvement in
F Providing improved reliability by avoiding stress,
F Assisting in training of non-experts F Enabling non-experts to perform at a reasonable
F Handling complex unstructured problems
F Supporting a variety of decision-making styles F Improving timeliness by avoiding wait for human
F Improving overall quality and consistency of
F Improving efficiency and saving money
F Difficulties in identifying suitable human experts
F Difficulties in eliciting expertise from humans, who
F Disagreements among experts F Shortage of knowledge engineering professionals F Decisions and explanations may seem
F Consultations time-consuming relative to
F Scope of implementation
N Willing, recognized experts available N Scope not over-ambitious (task takes a few minutes to a
few hours to complete)
N High payoff value for task N Task requires expertise rather than common sense
F Prototyping
N Throw away the Mark 1 version!
F Development tools
N High level languages
² Lisp, Prolog
N Shells
² “Expert systems with the knowledge base removed”
– Often include additional support tools – May be hard to find one that fits the actual problem
F Verification and validation
N Beware different uses of these terms!
F Gaining user acceptance N User interface is friendly and inviting N The system can explain the reasons for its conclusions or
advice
N Shallow expertise does not give users the impression that the
system is trivial
N Time taken for consultations is not disproportionate to the
perceived value of the advice rendered
F (STRIPS) F DENDRAL F MYCIN (EMYCIN) F TEIRESIAS F PROSPECTOR F R1/XCON
F Finance and banking
NStock portfolio management NDesigning information systems for retail banks NAsset-liability management NLoan approvals and auditing
F Production
NFault diagnosis in networks and equipment NComplex bidding in the construction industry
F Accounting and auditing
NEstate planning and tax advice NExecuting and analyzing internal auditing NCharging back costs in computer time-sharing NAuditing advanced EDP systems
F Marketing and sales
NPackaging insurance products
F General management
NAdvice on management by objectives NSelection and use of forecasting techniques NAnalysis of failing companies NScheduling of business trips and meetings
F Human resources
NMatching personnel to jobs NArranging compensation packages
F Computers and Information Systems
NData center evaluation NSelection and maintenance of hardware and
F Audit
N Audit program development N Internal control evaluation N Risk analysis N Tax accrual and deferral N Disclosure compliance N Technical support (interpreting regulations)
F Computer support
N Software development N Software selection N Information transfer (e.g., file format conversion)
F Tax
N International tax planning N Personal income tax planning N Corporate tax planning N Compliance checking N Special issues (e.g., residency)
F Consulting
N Accounting expert systems for clients N Personal financial planning
F The part of computer science concerned
F State space search
NGenerate-and-test
² Depth first (can be faster, may not terminate) ² Breadth first (finds the shortest solution path)
F Theorem proving F Heuristic search
NHill climbing NBest-first search (A*)
F SHRDLU F Knowledge representation schemes F Procedural v. declarative programming F Separation of inference and knowledge F ‘Neat’ v. ‘scruffy’ debate
F Some classic AI Applications
N Robotics N Machine learning N Computational linguistics N Natural language processing N Pattern recognition N Computer vision N Speech recognition N Uncertain reasoning
F The Hayes-Roth classification of ES
N Interpretation systems N Prediction systems N Diagnosis systems N Design systems N Planning systems N Monitoring systems N Debugging systems N Repair systems N Instruction systems N Control systems
F Analysis
N Interpret
² Identify
– Monitor – Diagnose
² Predict ² Control
F Synthesis
N Construct
² Specify ² Design
– Configure – Plan
² Assemble
– Modify
F Heuristic matching
NData abstraction
² Definitional ² Qualitative ² Generalization
NHeuristic matching NSolution refinement
F Solutions can be enumerated in advance F Covers a wide range of real applications
F Generic tasks (Chandrasekaran)
NHierarchical classification NHypothesis matching NKnowledge-directed information passing
F Destructive modification F Pruning F Least commitment F Propose and revise F Backtracking
F Differentiation F Frequency conditionalization F Symptom distinction F Symptom conditionalization F Path division F Path differentiation F Test differentiation F Test conditionalization
F Structural knowledge
Ndifferent levels of abstraction through which
F Strategic knowledge
Nknowledge about how to approach a problem
F Support knowledge
Na causal model of the domain of discourse
F Support prototyping F Shells F High-level programming languages F Multiple-paradigm programming
F Need to be matched to the task F May be inflexible
Ndifficult to distinguish different kinds of
Nacquiring new knowledge difficult Ndifficult to generate comprehensible
F Knowledge inextricably intertwined with
F Fundamental concepts missing F Inadequate explanation facilities F Too many rules make execution slow and
F Only the generality necessary to solve the
F Let problem characteristics determine the tool F Built-in explanation facilities and user interface F Test early F Sophisticated tools are expensive F Time consuming to perform detailed comparative
F Terminology and notation differ
F Task should not be too hard for human experts F Define the task clearly F Decide early how you will evaluate the system F Work intensively with representative problems F Separate domain-specific from general knowledge F Rules that look big are F If rules are similar, try to unify F Group rules into rule sets F Adopt a programming style F Sacrifice efficiency for maintainability
F Throw away the Mark 1 prototype