Transforming Rules and Trees into Comprehensible Knowledge Structures

The problem of transforming the knowledge bases of expert systems using induced rules or decision trees into comprehensible knowledge structures is addressed. A knowledge structure is developed that generalizes and subsumes production rules, decision trees, and rules with exceptions. It gives rise to a natural complexity measure that allows them to be understood, analyzed and compared on a uniform basis. The structure is a directed acyclic graph with the semantics that nodes are premises, some of which have attached conclusions, and the arcs are inheritance links with disjunctive multiple inheritance. A detailed example is given of the generation of a range of such structures of equivalent performance for a simple problem, and the complexity measure of a particular structure is shown to relate to its perceived complexity. The simplest structures are generated by an algorithm that factors common sub-premises from the premises of rules. A more complex example of a chess dataset is used to show the value of this technique in generating comprehensible knowledge structures.

[1]  Brian R. Gaines Empirical investigation of knowledge representation servers: design issues and applications experience with KRS , 1991, SGAR.

[2]  Alen D. Shapiro,et al.  Structured induction in expert systems , 1987 .

[3]  B. Gaines SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION, APPROXIMATION AND COMPLEXITY , 1977 .

[4]  Brian R. Gaines Modeling practical reasoning , 1993, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[5]  Brian R. Gaines A Class Library Implementation of a Principled Open Architecture Knowledge Representation Server with Plug-in Data Types , 1993, IJCAI.

[6]  Jonathan J. Oliver Decision Graphs - An Extension of Decision Trees , 1993 .

[7]  James P. Ignizio,et al.  Foreword , 1996, Comput. Oper. Res..

[8]  Brian R. Gaines An Ounce of Knowledge is Worth a Ton of Data: Quantitative studies of the Trade-Off between Expertise and Data Based On Statistically Well-Founded Empirical Induction , 1989, ML.

[9]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Bottom-Up Induction of Oblivious Read-Once Decision Graphs: Strengths and Limitations , 1994, AAAI.

[10]  William J. Clancey,et al.  From Guidon to Neomycin and Heracles in Twenty Short Lessons: ORN Final Report 1979-1985 , 1986, AI Mag..

[11]  J ClanceyWilliam,et al.  From Guidon to Neomycin and Heracles in twenty short lessons , 1986 .

[12]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Current Issues in Expert Systems , 1987 .

[13]  P. Compton,et al.  A philosophical basis for knowledge acquisition , 1990 .

[14]  J. R. Quinlan Discovering rules by induction from large collections of examples Intro-ductory readings in expert s , 1979 .

[15]  X. Li Quality time-What's so bad about rule-based programming? , 1991 .

[16]  Guus Schreiber,et al.  KADS : a principled approach to knowledge-based system development , 1993 .

[17]  William J. Clancey,et al.  The knowledge level reinterpreted: Modeling socio‐technical systems , 1993, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[18]  William Frawley,et al.  Knowledge Discovery in Databases , 1991 .

[19]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  John T. Nosek,et al.  A Comparison of Formal Knowledge Representation Schemes as Communication Tools: Predicate Logic vs Semantic Network , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[21]  Brian R. Gaines,et al.  Class library implementation of an open architecture knowledge support system , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[22]  William J. Clancey Viewing knowledge bases as qualitative models , 1989, IEEE Expert.

[23]  Donald Michie,et al.  Expert systems in the micro-electronic age , 1979 .

[24]  Jadzia Cendrowska,et al.  PRISM: An Algorithm for Inducing Modular Rules , 1987, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[25]  Brian R. Gaines Integrating Rules in Term Subsumption Knowledge Representation Servers , 1991, AAAI.