Você está na página 1de 29

Applying AI in Insurance Domain

1 Introduction to Intelligent system:


The re-engineering of old, existing information systems and their
transformation in modern, extensible, scalable, viable systems is a complex and tedious
process involving significant costs and resources.

1.1Overview of Intelligent Systems :


Artificial intelligence is a dynamic, varied, growing field. Its applied
technologies range from expert system to computer vision. In this part we first present an
overview of expert systems. These systems are constructed knowledge engineering,
which involves several tasks. First knowledge is collected (from people or from
documented sources) by a process called knowledge acquisition. Knowledge acqusisition
can be accomplished manually and with some degree of automation. Then the acquired
knowledge is organized into a knowledge base. In many systems knowledge
representation involves IF-THEN rules, but there are other useful representations (such as
frames).
Represented knowledge is used through reasoning or inferencing,
procedures, which can be done through under assumption certainty or uncertainty. The
knowledge engineering development process is described.
1.2 Expert System:
1.2.1What is Expert System:
[1]In this paper use of expert systems speed-up of human
professional work, human productivity, financial benefits and a better answer to
users needs. Last decade shows that a growing number of organizations shift their
informational systems towards a knowledge-based approach. Expert system is
used in many different fields like stock market advisors, commodity trading,
financial planning, tax preparation and planning, granting of loans and
determination of credit limits, diagnosis and treatment of various diseases,
determination of chemical properties of unknown compounds ,scheduling and
control of automated factory, configuration and design of computers, layout and
design of printed circuit boards.
[1] Talked about the following types of benefits from ES:
(1) Better customer service.
(2) Reduction in time to complete tasks:
• two weeks to 30 minutes;
• 50 man-days to two man-days;
• 15 man-days to one man-day.
(3) Organizational learning increased.
(4) Increases in production.
(5) Fewer defects.
(6) Better quality.
(7) Shorter time to diagnosis.
(8) More effective uses of resources.
(9) More consistent decision making.
(10) Reduction in emergency calls.
(11) Reduction in staff.
(12) Redeployment of personnel.

Complex decisions involve intricate combination of factual and heuristic


knowledge. In order for the computer to be able to retrieve and effectively use
heuristic knowledge, the knowledge must be organized in an easily accessible
format that distinguishes among data, knowledge, and control structures. Expert
system is organized in three different levels they are:
1) Knowledge base consists of problem-solving rules, procedures, and intrinsic
data relevant to the problem domain.
2) Working memory refers to task-specific data for the problem under
consideration.
3) Inference engine is a generic control mechanism that applies the axiomatic
knowledge in the knowledge base to the task-specific data to arrive at some
solution or conclusion.
Expert System Structure: [17]The modularity of an expert system is an
important distinguishing characteristic compared to a conventional computer
program. Modularity is affected in an expert system by the use of three distinct
components, as shown in Fig 1.

Inference Knowledge
Engine Engineer

User Expert

Working Knowledge
Memory Base

Database
Fig 1

1.2.2 Development process:


The development process for ES has changed over the years.
Originally, all ES were developed in specialized AI languages such as LISP or
PROLOG. Both of these are languages that require specialized training, even for
experienced programmers in traditional languages such ignore programming
concerns and concentrate on structuring the expert’s knowledge in the system.
The structure is usually in the form of “if-then” rules, although other structures
such as objects are also used. After an initial prototype is developed, an ES
typically goes through several iterations. These iterations consist of alternately
testing by an expert or experts and modifications to the system by the developer
using the suggestions of the experts. After the ES reaches an acceptable level of
performance, the implementation process to the users is started.
[2] Presents CAPE a powerful tool for building a new generation of
KBSS. It combines the strengths of two well-established tools with very powerful
but complementary pattern-matching mechanisms. Perl's ability to search text and
match powerful regular expressions is unequaled, while CLIPS provides powerful
mechanisms for finding patterns of combinations of symbolic information. The
CAPE programmer can exploit the strengths of both, using Perl to analyze
documents or query results, and CLIPS to recognize and react to the combinations
of matches found. CAPE provides powerful mechanisms to support a number of
key activities:

Symbolic reasoning: CLIPS offers a very efficient forward chaining rule-based


system with extremely expressive pattern matching, coupled with a highly
flexible object-oriented system and supported by a truth-maintenance system.

Data analysis/manipulation: Perl has extremely powerful regular expression


matching coupled with very concise string handling and easy-to-use hash-based
index-building and data structuring.

Service Provision: CAPE'S socket monitoring mechanisms allow a rule-based


program to remain responsive to external activity even while it is reasoning.

Standard languages/libraries: CAPE programs can use any of the enormous


range of software available in CPAN, the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network.

Interaction: with software packages Perl provides very concise and flexible
mechanisms for controlling and processing the results obtained from system
commands and other external programs. CAPE programmers can also exploit the
tools for generating Perl "wrappers" for software components written in C, and
make use of Perl's ability to dynamically load compiled code at run-time.
[3]Invest is an expert system developed to help make financial decisions.
With bank officials, Invest obtains information about a customer’s wishes and
attempts to make useful and well-founded investment proposals. Significantly,
Invest covers the entire spectrum of possible investments. We expect it to help
investment experts advice customers. Another application could be in small
branches of banks where the lack of adequately trained staff has made it
impossible to provide investment advice.
[4] Focuses on detailed case study of building Code
Tutor, a Web-based intelligent tutoring system (ITS) in the
domain of radio communications. It is ontologically founded and
was built using CLIPS and Java-based expert system tools, latest
integrated graphical CASE tools for software analysis and design,
and Java servlets. In Code Tutor, Apache HTTP Server stores and
serves static HTML pages, and Apache JServ Java package
enables dynamic interpretation of user defined servlet classes
and generation of active HTML pages. XML technology is used to
generate files that Code Tutor uses to provide recommendations
to the learners.

1.2.2.1 Knowledge Acquisition:


[5] here in this paper we have seen how AI is used to develop mechanism
and tools to operate on Knowledge based system(KBS). Here as large number of
KBS failed it require more methodological approaches. Turning the process of
constructing KBSs from an art into an engineering discipline it requires the
analysis of the building and maintenance process itself and the development of
appropriate methods
The paper contains:
• Historical developments in KE
• Role-limiting Methods and Generic Tasks
• Modeling methods :
• CommonKADS, MIKE & PROTIEGE-II
• PSM in KE
• Current developments in KE and their relationships to other disciplines.

Knowledge Engineering Process:


[6] talk about knowledge Engineering Process which include five major
activities:
• Knowledge acquisition: Knowledge acquisition involves the acquisition of
knowledge from human experts, book, document, sensors or computer files.
The knowledge may be specific to the problem-solving procedures it may be
general knowledge or it may be metaknowledge.
• Knowledge validation: The knowledge is validated and verified until its
quality is acceptable
• Knowledge representation: The acquired knowledge is organized in an
activity called knowledge representation. This activity involves preparation of
knowledge map and encoding the knowledge in knowledge base.
• Inferencing: The activities involves the design of software to enable the
computer to make inference based on the knowledge and specifics the
problem. Then system can provide advice to a non expert user.
• Explanation and justification: This involves the design and programming of an
explanation capability, for example programming ability to answer the
question such as why a specific piece of information is needed by the
computer or how a certain conclusion was derived by the computer.

The process of knowledge engineering and the relationship among these


activities are shown in fig 2.
Knowledge Source of
Validation (test knowledge
cases) (expert,others)

Knowledge Knowledge
base representation

Explanation
justification

Inferencing
Fig 2

KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES:


Basic techniques used are
Interviews:
The most commonly used form of knowledge acquisition is face-to-face
interview analysis. It is an explicit and appears in several variation. It involves
direct dialogs between the expert and the knowledge engineer. Information is
collected with the aid of conventional instruments and is subsequently
transcribed, analyzed and coded.

Unstructured interviews:
Many knowledge acquisition interviews session are conducted informally,
usually as a starting point. Starting information save time it helps to move quickly
to the basic structure of the domain. Usually it is followed by formal technique.
Unstructured interview provides complete or well-organized description of
cogenitive process.

Structured interview:
Structure interview is a systematic goal oriented process. It forces
organized communication between expert and knowledge engineer. It reduces
interpretation problem inherited in unstructured interview, and prevents distortion
caused by domain expert subjectivity. It is more effective and efficient techniques
of knowledge acquisition and can be applied to knowledge acquisition from
multiple experts. While this technique is used experts fill out a set of carefully
designed questions raised by knowledge engineer making use of established
domain model of business decision-making activity to capture the subjective and
qualitative aspects of decision making. Questionnaires can be particularly useful
in discovering the objects of the domain, in uncovering relationship, and in
determining uncertainties.

Observation:
Sometime it is possible to observe an expert at work. In many ways, this is
the most obvious and straightforward approach to knowledge acquisition. This
technique allows an expert to work in accustomed environment without
interruptions by the knowledge engineer and gives knowledge engineer insights
into complexities of a problem. Before implementing this method it is necessary
to decide experts performance recording technique. Recording methods may be
notes, video etc. The major limitations of
this technique is that the underlying reasoning in expert s mind is usually not
reveled in his/her actions.

Computer-adided approaches:
The purpose of computerized support for the expert is to reduce or
eliminate the potential problems. A smart knowledge acquisition tool must be able
to add knowledge to knowledge base incrementally and refine or even correct
existing knowledge. Benefits derived from using a computer aided environment
for knowledge acquisition include:
1) Electronic documentation of knowledge.
2) Knowledge extraction can be done in parallel from multiple experts.
3) Conflicts are addressed during knowledge extraction sessions.
4) Interactions among experts result in an enlarged and enriched domain of
expertise.

1.2.2.2 Knowledge representation:


[7] Presents what is a knowledge representation? We argue
that the notion can best be understood in terms of five distinct
roles that it plays, each crucial to the task at hand:
First, a knowledge representation is most
Fundamentally a surrogate, a substitute for the thing itself that is
used to enable an entity to determine consequences by thinking
rather than acting, that is, by reasoning about the world rather
than taking action in it.
Second, it is a set of ontological commitments, that is, an
answer to the question; in what terms should I think about the
world?
Third, it is a fragmentary theory of intelligent reasoning
expressed in terms of three components: (1) the representation’s
fundamental conception of intelligent reasoning, (2) the set of
inferences that the representation sanctions, and (3) the set of
inferences
that it recommends.
Fourth, it is a medium for pragmatically efficient
computation, that is, the computational environment in which
thinking is accomplished. One contribution to this pragmatic
efficiency is supplied by the guidance that a representation
provides for organizing information to facilitate making the
recommended inferences.
Fifth, it is a medium of human expression, that is, a
language in which we say things about the world. Understanding
the roles and acknowledging.
[6]book talked about knowledge is represented as IF-THEN or production
rules. Rule based representation is popular because development shells are
available easily, shells are less expensive, ease in usability of shell, rules represent
natural mode of knowledge representation, learning curve for rule-based system is
much steeper than for any alternative mode of representation, rules are
transparent, modifications of rules are easier and validation is relatively easy.
Production rules are normally IF-THEN variety. However, in some instances this
is extended to include IF-THEN-ELSE rules. The alternate designation for IF-
THEN rules is that of condition-action; IF this condition (or premise or
antecedent) occurs, THEN some action (or result or conclusion or consequence)
will (or should) occurs.
• IF premise, THEN conclusion. If your income is high, THEN your chance of
being audited by the IRS is high
• Conclusion, IF premise. Your chance of being audited is high, IF your income
is high
• Inclusion of ELSE. If your income is high THEN your chance of being
audited is high ELSE your chance of being audited is less.
• More complex rules. If the credit rating is high AND the salary is more
$30,000 OR assets are more than $75,000 AND pay history is not “poor”
THEN approve a loan up to $10,000 and list the loan in category B. The
action part may include additional information: THEN approve the loan and
refer the application part may include additional information : THEN approve
the loan and refer the application to an agent.

1.2.2.4 Issues in expert systems:


Here in Expert System how different rules get triggered and how they are
retrieved are some of the major issues to be studied. Also to it is necessary to see that
each and every rules are covered this is the major part of the Expert system.

1.3 Case Base Reasoning:


Expert Advisor works with knowledge acquired from expert and users,
employing the case base reasoning approach. Once knowledge in the knowledge base is
completed, or is at least at a sufficiently high of accuracy, it is ready to be used. A
computer program is needed to access the knowledge for making inferences. This
program is an algorithm that controls a reasoning process and is usually called the
inference engine.
1.3.1 Types of Case Base Reasoning:
1. Textual CBR: Here in this type of Case Base Reasoning Free text is
used
2. Conversational CBR: List of question and answers are used in
conversational type of Case Base Reasoning. Here no common case
structure are used
3. Structural CBR: Database like representation is done in structural Case
Base Reasoning

[8] Focuses on case base reasoning system uses the technique to match a
situation or problem description to a stored database. Here the input is given by the user
on the current situation and the output is case retrieval to the most similar match to the
database. The CBR engine first searches for case history that is similar to the given
description.
As stated case is a unique knowledge entity describing a problem and
solution. It can be represented a single database.
Here representation is:
• A problem point to one or more case.
• A case has a single solution.
• A question can influence one or more case.

Problem Case Solution

Case Solution

Question

Fig 3

CBR systems vary in the way the case database is structured. The
representation can be flat, where all cases are represented at the same level, or it can be
hierarchical, expressing relationships between cases and sub-cases. The hierarchical
organization is useful when the CBR system is used for taxonomic tasks, for example, to
identify an animal based on its features. A detailed discussion of data structures is beyond
the scope of this paper, as the structure is not expected to impact the performance of a
diagnosis system.
Similarity between Cases:
It consist of following attribute:
• Reflective: A case is similar to itself.
• Symmetric: If A is similar to B, then B is also similar to A
• Transitive : If A is similar to B and B is similar to C, we cannot say that A is
similar to C, because the features defining the similarities between A and B and
between B and C are not necessarily the same.
1.3.2 Knowledge Presentation:
To calculate similarity we use:
• Numeric: sim(a,b)=|a-b| / Range
• Sumbolic: sim(a,b)= 1 if a=b 0 if a not equal to b
• Multi-valued: sim(a,b)= card(a) card(b)/ card(a b)
• Tazonomy: sim(a,b)= h(common node (a,b))/min(h(a),h(b))

Where
Card is the cardinality (size) of the set
range is the absolute value of difference between the upper and lower boundary
of the set .
h is the height (number of levels) of the taxonomy tree.

Case Indexing:
A CBR system its ability to retrieve relevant cases quickly and accurately
from its case base is its main power. It build a structure that will return the most
appropriate case(s) at high speed. Case base indexing minimizes the number of cases that
have to be evaluated at run time and is required for a large set of cases as linear searched
will yield a probability long retrieval time.

Different methods:
• Nearest neighbor:
Number of CBR system relates to nearest-neighbor method. The system
would simply prefer cases that match more features to a case that matched fewer.
The nearest-neighbor algorithm uses statistical method to determine the optimal
set of feature and the number of case that should be used calculated similarities if
the retrieval is somewhat flexible this approach works well. In Nearest-neighbor
algorithm each new case is compared with all other cases in the database. As the
case base grows nearest neighbor cannot be calculated on the fly and pre-indexing
is required.

• Induction:
Inductive approaches to indexing are useful where the retrieval goal or
case outcome is well defined. The output of the induction process is in the form of
a decision tress. Induction-based system use a decision tree for retrieval as
compared to nearest-neighbor indexing which is more associative, and induced
decision tree is hierarchical and static.

Advantage of induction method:


o It can automatically, objectively, and rigorously analyze the cases to
determine the best features for distinguishing them.

o The resultant index increases the retrieval time by only the log of the
number of cases rather than doing linearly. Retrieval time can be an
important factor when using large case bases.

• Knowledge guided:
A knowledge-guided approach uses human knowledge to the induction process by
manually identifying known case features that are considered important and useful for
case retrieval. Its the simplest approach to case classification and indexing. Cases are
reviewed for their important features and the appropriate questions are passed to query
the user about the existence or absence of features.
[9] illustrates about the a hybrid Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and
Information Retrieval (IR) system that generates a query to the IR system by using
information derived from CBR analysis of a problem situation. Based on a CBR analysis
form a set of highly relevant cases the query is automatically formed by submitting in
text. CBR is highly intelligent but limited in its reach and IR is broadly applicable but not
able to reason in any depth. The goal in this project is to take advantage of the strengths
of both CBR and IR in order to retrieve documents that are highly relevant to a problem
case from a standard IR collection without the need for creating symbolic case
representations for documents in the collection. We address the issue of how
automatically formulate good queries based on a problem situation in order to perform
retrieval from large text.
Hybrid CBR-IR system works by first performing a standard CBR
analysis of the input problem case and then using the results of the CBR analysis to drive
text-based document retrieval. Ordinarily, INQUERY would not engage in relevance
feedback until retrieval. based on user input, had been made and a set of documents
retrieved and presented to the user. In effect, our system uses “feedback” in the form of
the RF-CKB on a null query. Our system’s use of relevance feedback, in effect, tells the
IR component that the cases found through the CBR analysis are highly relevant and that
INQUERY should retrieve more like them. Note that while the CBR analysis is done
with respect to the relatively small CKB available to the CBR component, and relevance
feedback is done with respect to the even smaller set of special cases in the RF-CKB, the
Fig 2
IR can be performed with respect to a text collection of arbitrary size. Instead of the user
initiating the retrieval by making up a query, in our approach the user begins by inputting
facts ot’ a case. In effect our system leverages its own “m-house” analysis of the problem
case to a full-blown retrieval from an outside document base.
[10] talks about the methods for case retrieval, reuse, solution testing, and
learning are summarized, and their actual realization is discussed in the light of a few
example systems that represent different CBR approaches. It is a problem solving
paradigm that in many respects is fundamentally different from other major AI
approaches. Instead of relying solely on general knowledge of a problem domain,
or making associations along generalized relationships between problem descriptors
and conclusions, CBR is able to utilize the specific knowledge of previously
experienced, concrete problem situations (cases).

Main types of CBR methods:


Exemplar-based reasoning:
CBR methods that address the learning of concept definitions are
sometimes referred to as exemplar-based. The class of the most similar past case
becomes the solution to the classification problem. The set of classes constitutes the
set of possible solutions. Modification of a solution found is therefore outside the scope
of this method.

Instance-based reasoning: This is a specialization of exemplar-based reasoning into a


highly syntactic CBR-approach. To compensate for lack of guidance from general
background knowledge, a relatively large number of instances are needed in order
to close in on a concept definition.

Memory-based reasoning: This approach emphasizes a collection of cases as a


large memory, and reasoning as a process of accessing and searching in this
memory. Memory organization and access is a focus of the case-based methods.

1.3.3 Retrieval and Reuse


Retrieve:
Determine most similar case(s).
Reuse:
Solve the new problem re-using information and knowledge in the retrieved
case(s).
Revise:
Evaluate the applicability of the proposed solution in the real-world.
Retain:
Update case base with new learned case for future problem solving.

Fig [4] shows the CBR Cycle


Fig 4

Fig 5 consist of Task method decomposition of CBR. Tasks have node names in bold letters,
while methods are written in italics. The links between task nodes (plain lines) are task
decompositions, i.e part-of relations, where the direction of the relationship is
downwards. The top-level task is problem solving and learning from experience and
the method to accomplish the task is case-based reasoning.
• CBR Problem Areas:
As for AI in general, there are no universal CBR methods suitable for
every domain of application The challenge in CBR as elsewhere is to come up
with methods that are suited for problem solving and learning in particular subject
domains and for particular application environments. In line with the task model just
Fig 5
shown, core problems addressed by CBR research can be grouped into five areas. A
set of coherent solutions to these problems constitutes a CBR method:
• Knowledge representation
• Retrieval methods
• Reuse methods
• Revise methods
• Retain methods
[11] Present software architecture for CBR systems based on three
components (a task description, a domain model, and adaptors) connected by a type of
connectors called bridges. Adaptors are basic inference components that perform specific
transformations to cases.The three main elements of the ABC software architecture are (i)
a task description, (ii) a domain model, and (iii) a library of adaptors. These three
elements connected with a special kind of connector called bridge. In addition, the
problem to be solved is called input and for simplicity we will include the case base into
the domain model element. The main issue to go from a specification like ABC to an
actual implementation is deciding how is 1) the representation of components and
bridges, and 2) The control scheme. We are implementing adaptors in Noos, a
representation language designed for supporting knowledge modeling approaches to
problem solving and learning in which different CBR systems have been built. In Noos
cases are represented as feature terms, a formalism for representing structured cases in
which any subpart of a case (feature term) is also a term and thus is also a case. Inference
is provided by problem solving methods (PSMs) thast use domain knowledge to build
models (or parts of models). A problem is solved when a case-specific model is
completed, and then it is retained in the case base. Retrieval is performed by specialized
PSMs, retrieval methods, that use domain knowledge or heuristic principles to search the
case base. Concerning the control scheme, Noos inference is on demand, i.e. follows a
lazy evaluation strategy. The chain of control is thus backwards: retrieval methods
determine the features of a case that they need, thus forcing the evaluation off.

1.3.4 Issues in CBR:


• Retrieval and Reuse
Retrieve:
Determine most similar case(s).
Reuse:
Solve the new problem re-using information and knowledge in the retrieved
case(s).
• Knowledge Representation:
A case is a unique knowledge entity describing a problem and a solution.A case
can be represented as a single database ‘object” or broken into two or more associated
objects. A typical case will have the following fields:
• Title
• Problem description
• Cause
• Solution

• Case Indexing:
A CBR system its ability to retrieve relevant cases quickly and accurately
from its case base is its main power. It build a structure that will return the most
appropriate case(s) at high speed. Case base indexing minimizes the number of cases that
have to be evaluated at run time and is required for a large set of cases as linear searched
will yield a probability long retrieval time.

1.4 Comparing ES and CBR:


Expert system generates new knowledge and ES is to be replaced where as in
Case Base Reasoning it searches for similar case and adapting these if necessary. In
Expert system knowledge is stored implicitly while in CBR knowledge is stored
explicitly. ES is hard to maintain as unpredictable implication by model change and
extension. In CBR it is easier to maintain and update.

2 Hybrid Intelligent Systems :


2.1. Why hybrid systems?
There has been enormous interest in hybrid systems (especially neural-fuzzy,
neural-genetic, and fuzzy-genetic) in the past ten years. Almost every conceivable
problem has been approached using some form of hybrid system. Why? Is this
because hybrid systems are universally bet ter than conventional approaches?

One claim is that hybrid systems are intrinsically better. They allow for the
synergistic combination of two techniques with more strengths and less weaknesses
than either technique alone.
Although useful for many types of problem, hybrid systems provide even
more opportunity for misuse than single techniques. Although motivated by
combining the strengths of the system, the hybrid will, in the worst case, contain none
of the strengths and all of the weaknesses of the component systems. While hybrid
systems have great potential for solving some very difficult problems, they can also
be used inappropriately. As a technique becomes more complex, the opportunities for
misuse become greater, and hybrid systems are intrinsically more complex than single
techniques. Many researchers are still making gross misuse of neural networks and
fuzzy logic as single techniques, and you can expect that this will carry over into
hybrid systems as they become more and more accessible.

2.2. Integrating expert systems and case-based reasoning: approaches and
applications:
[12] Talks that this research involves both the development of intelligent
systems and the study of cognitive models. The main motivations for the researches
on HMs are
– Cognitive processes are not homogeneous, consequently, a large variety of
representations and modeling techniques can be used
The performance of intelligent systems can be improved by the
combination of different Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques. Therefore,
may electively solve several real-world problems.
[12] Presents new Case Based Reasoning approach using hybrid mechanisms for
case retrieval and adaptation. Several strategies for case adaptation have been
proposed in the literature. They can be classified in three main groups (see Fig. 6):
substitutional
adaptation, transformational adaptation and generative adaptation.

Fig 6

The strategies for substitution adaptation exchange solution attribute values of the
retrieved solution by appropriate values, producing a new solution. The strategies for
transformational adaptation modify the solution structure by including or removing
components of the retrieved solution in order to satisfy the requirements of the new
problem. The strategies for generative adaptation construct a new solution from problem
data using a predefined procedure.
The architecture of the proposed CBR system contains:
– A case retrieval mechanism composed by an ANN based on the
Adaptative Resonance Theory (ART2) model;
– A case adaptation mechanism composed by one of the following ML
algorithms:
– an ANN based on the Multi Layer Perceptron (MLP) model [4];
– a symbolic learning algorithm M5 [26];
– an algorithm based on the statistical learning theory named
Support Vector Machine (SVM) [25].
• Case Retrieval and Incorporation Approach:

The proposed strategy contains two levels of memory organization (see


Fig. 2):
o The first level is composed by the output layer of an ART2 network,
which creates and also indicates clusters with similar cases, reducing the
search space and the retrieval time.
o The second consists of a simple flat memory that stores case instances
grouped into the similarity clusters of the first memory level.
Case Retrieval Process: The case retrieval mechanism proposed (first phase
of the CBR CYCLE) allows the retrieval of one or more similar cases according to
the system requirements. The memory organization employed allows the division
of the search space, reducing the retrieval time.

Case Incorporation Process: The case incorporation mechanism proposed supports the
storage of new cases at any time (fourth phase of the CBR CYCLE). The memory
organization used by this mechanism makes possible the storage of new cases without the
eliminating cases previously stored.

When a new problem is presented, an adapted solution is directly obtained by


applying the procedure. The proposed memory organization and case retrieval
mechanisms enable a search space reduction, decreasing the retrieval time required. The
hybrid approaches would only search in the space corresponding to the cluster obtained
by the ART2(Adaptive Resonance Theory 2) network. When CBR is applied to real-
world problem solving, the retrieved solutions can not be directly used for a new
problem. In general, they need to be adapted to new requirements. One of the major
challenges in designing CBR systems is the acquisition and modeling of appropriate
adaptation knowledge. The case adaptation approach proposed employs a process of
adaptation pattern generation that can reduce the effort for knowledge acquisition in
domains that require substitution adaptation. The hybrid system proposed is
computationally cheap, since the generation of the adaptation patterns demands few
solution components comparisons and the ART2 training for a pattern demands only one
cycle. Moreover, the process to obtain an adaptation pattern data set is fully integrated
with the case retrieval mechanism and can be implemented employing usual retrieval
approaches. The results obtained suggest that the set of adaptation rules extracted from
CB of the systems is consistent and that this approach of adaptation knowledge learning
may be a potential technique for real-world problem solving.

[13]Architecture was presented for improving system accuracy by bringing


together knowledge in two forms: rules and cases. The architecture is intended for
domains that are understood well but not perfectly. The idea is that in such domains,
expert knowledge in the form of rules can be used to provide a skeletal method for
solving problems; cases are then used to flesh out the method by covering idiosyncrasies
and special cases that were not anticipated by the rules. In addition to a reasonably
accurate and efficient set of rules to serve as a starting point for problem solving, the
architecture also needs knowledge in support of CBR-namely, a set of cases and a
similarity metric. The set of cases should be extensive enough to illustrate the errors in
the rules; any un-illustrated problems cannot be corrected. The architecture was applied
to the task of name pronunciation. With minimal knowledge engineering, it was found to
perform almost at the level of state-of-the-art commercial systems. More importantly, a
modification experiment showed that its performance was higher than what it could have
achieved with its rules or cases alone. This demonstrates the capacity of the architecture
to improve upon a pure rule-based or case-based system. In addition to the accuracy
benefits, having rules together with the cases allowed two innovations in CBR
technology: first, the rules provided a natural way to index the cases (prediction-based
indexing); and second, they provided a method of doing case adaptation, termed “case
adaptation by factoring”. The architecture presented here is one data point in a hierarchy
of possible hybrid approaches. One way to abstract away from its design is to keep the
same reasoning components (RBR and CBR), but to combine them differently. The
method of combination could be tailored to whatever knowledge is available in the
domain, whether analytic (e.g., heuristics about when to believe RBR versus CBR) or
empirical (e.g., examples of previous decisions combining RBR and CBR). Another way
to abstract away from the architecture is to replace its RBR component with some other
reasoning method.
CBR then becomes a postprocessor to improve an approximate answer obtained
by any method of choice. The downside, however, is that the benefits of having rules
together with cases would be lost-alternative methods of case indexing and case
adaptation would be needed. A final level of abstraction, and the one that is in fact the
essence of the work presented here, is simply to combine multiple independent
knowledge sources to achieve higher accuracy.
[14]This paper presents an approach to the retrieval of class diagrams integrating
BN, CBR and WordNet. We describe how the BN is built from WordNet and from the
case library, and a detailed example of network retrieval is given. One advantage of our
approach, is the capability of assessing not only the similarity between diagram objects,
but also the structure similarity of diagrams, through the use of network nodes
representing diagram relations. This enables the BN to compute structural similarity,
which is important for assessing diagram similarity. Another advantage is the leaning of
new cases through the network updating. In relation, to other systems using BN for
retrieval, our approach has the advantage of not depending entirely on cases for building
the BN. An initial BN can be built using only WordNet and the query, which will then be
updated with new cases.

2.3 Tools for hybrid systems:


There are number tools used to develop an hybrid expert system they
are CLIPS (C Language Integrated Production System): A forward-chaining rule-based
tool written in C by NASA. It can be easily embedded in other applications and includes
an object-oriented language called COOL. It can be used on DOS, Windows, VMS, Mac,
and UNIX. ART*Enterprise is the latest of the family of rule-based development
environments originating with ART in the mid-1980s. It is a development environment
for enterprise-wide applications, incorporating rules, a full object system which includes
features currently not present in C++ or Smalltalk, and a large collection of object classes
for UI development across platforms (from Windows to OS/2 to Unix), access to
databases (SQL-based and ODBC-based), and multi-person development. The
ART*Enterprise environment provides a forward chaining engine where backward
chaining can be implemented, though it is not supported directly. ART*Enterprise also
provides a CBR kernel for those who are interested in incorporating it into their
applications.
[2] CAPE combines the strengths of two well-established tools with
very powerful but complementary pattern-matching mechanisms. Perl's ability to search
text and match regular expressions is unequaled, while CLIPS provides powerful
mechanisms for finding patterns of combinations of symbolic information. The CAPE
programmer can exploit the strengths of both, using Perl to analyze documents or query
results, and CLIPS to recognize and react to the combinations of matches found.

2.4 Issues in Hybrid Systems:


There has been enormous interest in hybrid systems in the past ten years. Almost
every conceivable problem has been approached using some form of hybrid system.
Why? Is this because hybrid systems are universally better than conventional
approaches?
- Combining knowledge base and case representation:
Here in Hybrid System combining CBR and knowledge representation is an
most important task to be done and this task seams to be tedious job.
- Overhead :
Here indexing and searching of case are the overhead. This is to be stored
with previous attributes.
- Approaches :
Different approaches are being used to over come this issues they are:
o Sequence Infrence type
o Knowledge conversational type
o Host assistant
o Integrated reasoning type

3 Intelligent Systems in Insurance Domain

3.1. Potential applications of ES, CBR in Insurance:


[15] Talks the underwriting function reviews applicant data for determination of
insurability. The feasibility of utilizing an expert system in this area was examined and
determined to be practical, and development of a prototype was initiated. The review
of six expert system software packages narrowed the field to two viable candidates. The
Ml package from technology was selected for the first prototyping stage. The prototype
was quickly developed with a very limited set of rules to provide a simple demonstration
of the applicability of an expert system in this area. The host mainframe at the sponsoring
insurance company proved incompatible with the Ml software, which was replaced by
RuleMaster from Radian. The prototyping work was transferred to RuleMaster, which
proved to be beneficial beyond the compatibility concerns. RuleMaster is a modular
system as opposed to the inference network approach used in Ml, which more closely
resembles LISP or PROLOG in structure. With the modular structure, knowledge and
rule base building and modifications proved much easier from a programming standpoint

3.2 Integrated approach applied in Insurance:


The study of the insurance underwriting domain provided the basis of the
prototyping and system structure for building the insurance underwriting expert system.
The prototyping structure is based upon three key phases of the process: data entry, data
revision and evaluation of data by the expert. The data entry phase was simplified by the
use of the insurance industry standard ACORD application form to record and submit all
applicant data. The data entry screens and data acceptance/storage routines were
developed to portray the various fields from the ACORD forms, which facilitated entry of
the data by a non-expert clerical person. All of the data required for the application
evaluation and policy issuance is entered at one time. Data revision was incorporated into
the data entry phase to allow for the correction of entry errors prior to acceptance of
the data into the system for evaluation.
During the evaluation phase the entered data items are processed according to the
rules and structures in IU. The system determines a numerical weighted score for the
application upon processing. Detail on the determination of the numerical scores, and
verbal descriptions supporting the score assignments are displayed at the conclusion of
the evaluation. UF&C also requested the inclusion of a conclusion “strength” factor, in a
highly recognizable numeric form, as an additional supporting measurement of the
conclusion reached. The overall control structure of IU is a forward chaining - data
driven structure, particularly in the data entry and revision phases, with goal directed
backward chaining structure used in the evaluation phase modules. The logical design of
IU is based on the primary decision factors used in assessing the application. For
example, the automobile insurance underwriting portion of IU includes the review of
information on the vehicles, drovers, agent submitting the application, and a standard set
of ancillary information accompanying the application. The physical design follows the
logical design through the modular structure facilitated by RuleMaster in the data entry,
data revision and data evaluation phases of the process. Within each of these phases the
structure is based on the primary decision factors listed previously.

4 Future study

4.1. Studying the potential applications where hybrid approach can be used
Studying the potential applications of different hybrid approach which we
are going to use.

4.2. Devising methodology for knowledge acquisition, presentation and retrieval.


We are study the overall different methodology for knowledge acquisition,
presentation and retrieval. Using this we are going to representing it to our Insurance
domain.

4.3. Selection/customization of proper tool


There are different tools that we have to study. The following are some of
proper tool:
- LISP
- PROLOG
- JESS
- IKEN Core

4.4. Developing prototype system/s


Here we are going to implement prototype systems for our insurance domain.
Reference:

Você também pode gostar