Condensing Uncertainty via Incremental Treatment Learning

Models constrain the range of possible behaviors defined for a domain. When parts of a model are uncertain, the possible behaviors may be a data cloud: i.e. an overwhelming range of possibilities that bewilder an analyst. Faced with large data clouds, it is hard to demonstrate that any particular decision leads to a particular outcome. Even if we can’t make definite decisions from such models, it is possible to find decisions that reduce the variance of values within a data cloud. Also, it is possible to change the range of these future behaviors such that the cloud condenses to some improved mode. Our approach uses two tools. Firstly, a model simulator is constructed that knows the range of possible values for uncertain parameters. Secondly, the TAR2 treatment learner uses the output from the simulator to incrementally learn better constraints. In our incremental treatment learning cycle, users review newly discovered treatments before they are added to a growing pool of constraints used by the model simulator.

[1]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  The Capability Maturity Model , 1991 .

[2]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[3]  Ron Rymon.  An SE-tree-based prime implicant generation algorithm , 2005, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[4]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Applications of abduction: hypothesis testing of neuroendocrinological qualitative compartmental models , 1997, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[5]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  Capability Maturity Model , 1991 .

[6]  Ke Wang,et al.  Mining confident rules without support requirement , 2001, CIKM '01.

[7]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering , 2000, International Series in Software Engineering.

[8]  J. Dekleer.  An assumption-based TMS , 1986 .

[9]  Charles Elkan,et al.  The paradoxical success of fuzzy logic , 1993, IEEE Expert.

[10]  Martin S. Feather,et al.  First contract: better, earlier, decisions for software projects , 2001 .

[11]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Converging on the optimal attainment of requirements , 2002, Proceedings IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering.

[12]  Robyn R. Lutz.  Bi-directional Analysis for Certification of Safety-Critical Software , 1999 .

[13]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Constraining discussions in requirements engineering , 2001 .

[14]  Stephen D. Bay,et al.  Detecting change in categorical data: mining contrast sets , 1999, KDD '99.

[15]  Nancy G. Leveson,et al.  Completeness and Consistency Analysis of State-Based Requirements , 1995, 1995 17th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[16]  Wynne Hsu,et al.  Integrating Classification and Association Rule Mining , 1998, KDD.

[17]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  Extending the ATMS , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  The role of abduction in logic programming , 1998 .

[19]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[20]  R. C. Jones,et al.  On the uniformity of error propagation in software , 1997, Proceedings of COMPASS '97: 12th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance.

[21]  Ron Rymon.  An SE-tree based Characterization of the Induction Problem , 1993, ICML.

[22]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Practical large scale what-if queries: case studies with software risk assessment , 2000, Proceedings ASE 2000. Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering.

[23]  Norman E. Fenton,et al.  A Critique of Software Defect Prediction Models , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[24]  Ying Hu,et al.  Just Enough Learning ( of Association Rules ) , 2022 .

[25]  J. A. Acree.  On mutation , 1980 .

[26]  Lashon B. Booker,et al.  Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Genetic algorithms , 1991 .

[27]  Albert Zündorf,et al.  Rewriting poor Design Patterns by good Design Patterns , 1997 .

[28]  Hava T. Siegelmann,et al.  On the Computational Power of Neural Nets , 1995, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[29]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  A Survey of Evolution Strategies , 1991, ICGA.

[30]  Martin S. Feather,et al.  Optimizing the design of end-to-end spacecraft systems using risk as a currency , 2002, Proceedings, IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[31]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Many Maybes Mean (Mostly) the Same Thing , 2004 .

[32]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Reusing Models For Requirements Engineering , 2001 .

[33]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (vol. 1) , 1993 .

[34]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Practical Machine Learning for Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering , 2000 .

[35]  Tim Menzies,et al.  On the Practicality of Viewpoint-Based Requirements Engineering , 1998, PRICAI.

[36]  Alan Smaill,et al.  Backbone Fragility and the Local Search Cost Peak , 2000, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[37]  Elisabetta Di Nitto,et al.  Issues in analyzing the behavior of event dispatching systems , 2000, Tenth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design. IWSSD-10 2000.

[38]  Aditya P. Mathur,et al.  Software testing and reliability , 1996 .

[39]  Martin S. Feather,et al.  DDP-a tool for life-cycle risk management , 2001, 2001 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.01TH8542).

[40]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Fast algorithms for mining association rules , 1998, VLDB 1998.

[41]  W. Eric Wong,et al.  Reducing the cost of mutation testing: An empirical study , 1995, J. Syst. Softw..

[42]  Geoffrey I. Webb.  Efficient search for association rules , 2000, KDD '00.

[43]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision Processes , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[44]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Bayesian Analysis of Empirical Software Engineering Cost Models , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[45]  A. Hasman.  Kardio. A study in deep and qualitative knowledge for expert systems , 1991 .

[46]  Mary Shaw,et al.  Software architecture - perspectives on an emerging discipline , 1996 .

[47]  Ada Wai-Chee Fu,et al.  Mining association rules with weighted items , 1998, Proceedings. IDEAS'98. International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (Cat. No.98EX156).

[48]  Aiko M. Hormann,et al.  Programs for Machine Learning. Part I , 1962, Inf. Control..

[49]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[50]  James M. Crawford,et al.  Experimental Results on the Application of Satisfiability Algorithms to Scheduling Problems , 1994, AAAI.

[51]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  An empirical investigation of multiple viewpoint reasoning in requirements engineering , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188).

[52]  Pietro Torasso,et al.  A spectrum of logical definitions of model‐based diagnosis 1 , 1991, Comput. Intell..

[53]  Ivan Bratko,et al.  Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence , 1986 .