COMP 4200: Expert Systems

Dr. Christel Kemke Department of Computer Science University of Manitoba

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Reasoning in Expert Systems

knowledge representation in Expert Systems shallow and deep reasoning forward and backward reasoning alternative inference methods metaknowledge

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Experts and Expert Systems

Human Experts achieve high performance because of extensive knowledge concerning their field

Generally developed over many years

Expert performance depends on expert knowledge!

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Types of Knowledge
Knowledge Representation in XPS can include:

conceptual knowledge

terminology, domain-specific terms

derivative knowledge

conclusions between facts

causal model of domain guidelines for actions

causal connections

procedural knowledge

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Knowledge Modeling in XPS

Knowledge Modeling Technique in XPS mostly rule-based systems (RBS) rule system models elements of knowledge formulated independently as rules rule set is easy to expand often only limited deep knowledge, i.e. no explicit coherent causal or functional model of the domain

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Shallow and Deep Reasoning

shallow reasoning
also called experiential reasoning aims at describing aspects of the world heuristically short inference chains complex rules

deep reasoning
also called causal reasoning aims at building a model that behaves like the real thing long inference chains simple rules that describe cause and effect relationships

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Dilbert on Reasoning 1

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Dilbert on Reasoning 2

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

Dilbert on Reasoning 3

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

General Technology of XPS

Knowledge + Inference core of XPS Most often Rule-Based Systems (RBS) other forms: Neural Networks, Case-Based Reasoning

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

10

Rule-Based Expert Systems

Work with a set of facts describing the current world state a set of rules describing the expert knowledge inference mechanisms for combining facts and rules in reasoning

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

11

Inference Engine Knowledge Base (rules)

Agenda

Working Memory (facts)

Explanation Facility

Knowledge Acquisition Facility

User Interface
C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction 12

Architecture of Rule-Based XPS 1

Knowledge-Base / Rule-Base

stores expert knowledge as condition-action-rules (or: ifthen- or premise-consequence-rules) objects or frame structures are often used to represent concepts in the domain of expertise, e.g. club in the golf domain. stores initial facts and generated facts derived by the inference engine additional parameters like the degree of trust in the truth of a fact or a rule ( certainty factors) or probabilistic measurements can be added

Working Memory

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

13

Architecture of Rule-Based XPS 2

Inference Engine matches condition-part of rules against facts stored in Working Memory (pattern matching); rules with satisfied condition are active rules and are placed on the agenda; among the active rules on the agenda, one is selected (see conflict resolution, priorities of rules) as next rule for execution (firing) consequence of rule can add new facts to Working Memory, modify facts, retract facts, and more

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

14

Architecture of Rule-Based XPS 3

Inference Engine + additional components might be necessary for other functions, like calculation of certainty values, determination of priorities of rules and conflict resolution mechanisms, a truth maintenance system (TMS) if reasoning with defaults and beliefs is requested

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

15

Rule-Based Systems
- Example Grades -

Rules to determine grade 1. study good_grade 2. not_study bad_grade 3. sun_shines go_out 4. go_out not_study 5. stay_home study 6. awful_weather stay_home

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

16

Example Grades
Rule-Base to determine the grade:
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

study good_grade not_study bad_grade sun_shines go_out go_out not_study stay_home study awful_weather stay_home

Q1: If the weather is awful, do you get a good or bad grade? Q2: When do you get a good grade?
C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction 17

Forward and Backward Reasoning

forward reasoning

Facts are given. What is the conclusion? A set of known facts is given (in WM); apply rules to derive new facts as conclusions (forward chaining of rules) until you come up with a requested final goal fact.

backward reasoning

Hypothesis (goal) is given. Is it supported by facts? A hypothesis (goal fact) is given; try to derive it based on a set of given initial facts using sub-goals (backward chaining of rules) until goal is grounded in initial facts.

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

18

Example Grades
1. study good_grade 2. not_study bad_grade 3. sun_shines go_out 4. go_out not_study 5. stay_home study 6. awful_weather stay_home forward reasoning given fact: awful_weather backward reasoning hypothesis/goal: good_grade
C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction

rule chain 6,5,1 1,5,6

19

Example Grades Reasoning Tree

good grade bad grade

study

not study

stay home

go out

awful weather
C. Kemke

sun shines
Reasoning - Introduction 20

Example Grades
Working Memory
awful weather

Agenda
Rule 6

Select and apply Rule 6

awful weather stay home Rule 5

Select and apply Rule 5

C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction 21

Example Grades
Working Memory
awful weather stay home study

Agenda
Rule 1

Select and apply Rule 1

awful weather stay home study good grade empty

DONE!
C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction 22

Example Police Reasoning Tree

forward reasoning: backward reasoning: Shield AND Pistol Police Police Badge AND gun

Police

Bad Boy

Badge

AND

Gun
OR

Shield

Revolver

Pistol

Q: What if only Gun is known?

C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction 23

Example Police Reasoning Tree

Police Badge AND Gun OR Shield Revolver Pistol Bad Boy

Q: What if only Pistol is known as ground fact?

C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction 24

Example Police Reasoning Tree

Police Badge
AND

Bad Boy
Gun
OR

Shield

Revolver

Pistol

Task: Write down the Rule-Base for this example!

C. Kemke Reasoning - Introduction 25

Forward vs. Backward Chaining

Forward Chaining
diagnosis data-driven bottom-up reasoning find possible conclusions supported by given facts antecedents (LHS) control evaluation

Backward Chaining
construction goal-driven (hypothesis) top-down reasoning find facts that support a given hypothesis consequents (RHS) control evaluation

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

26

Alternative Reasoning Methods

Theorem Proving

emphasis on mathematical proofs and correctness, not so much on performance and ease of use integrates probabilities into the reasoning process Express subjective assessment of truth of fact or rule

Probabilistic Reasoning

Certainty Factors

Fuzzy Reasoning

allows the use of vaguely defined predicates and rules

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

27

Metaknowledge

deals with knowledge about knowledge

e.g. reasoning about properties of knowledge representation schemes, or inference mechanisms usually relies on higher order logic

in (first order) predicate logic, quantifiers are applied to variables second-order predicate logic allows the use of quantifiers for function and predicate symbols may result in substantial performance problems

CLIPS uses meta-knowledge to define itself, i.e. CLIPS constructs, classes, etc. - in a bootstrapping form

C. Kemke

Reasoning - Introduction

28