Skip to main content

Combining Constraints and Consistency Techniques in Knowledge-Based Expert Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Information Systems (ADVIS 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1909))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 327 Accesses

Abstract

Knowledge-Based Expert Systems (KBES) have long been widely used to perform tasks that normally require human knowledge and intelligence. One important issue that has not been addressed satisfactorily in the existing KBESs is that they try to make posing queries simple by letting the users specify what they want to compute rather than how to compute it. In this paper, we show that the solutions computation process can be modeled with Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) techniques, employing their simple representation schemes and consistency techniques. The motivation behind this is the desire to build up a computation model for reducing the vast amount of deductions required by a KBES when executed on a logic program system. A key idea is to represent the relations among the rules as constraints and to integrate the rule chaining with constraint solving. In this integration, the constraints are regarded as special facts at each node of the solutions graph, and the constraints propagation may cause firing of rules. In this way the model allows the solutions graph to grow progressively by enumerating the solutions of the system of constraints and validating the rules associated to these constraints. The approach to accomplish this is to spend more time in each node of the solutions graph by reducing the sets of possible values for not-yet-assigned variables. The model is introduced as a general control mechanism and realizes an a priori pruning in the solutions graph. This is done by assuming that the only rules to be considered are those arising from the propagation of their constraints and by computing only the rules that acquired some domain-dependent information about the significance of various domain interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. F. Benhamou, Touraïvane, “Prolog IV: langage et algorithmes”, JFPL 95.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Colmerauer, “An introduction to Prolog III”, Communications of the ACM, 30(7), 1990, pp. 2–68.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M.C. Cooper, D.A. Cohen and P.G. Jeavons, “Characterizing tractable constraints, Artificial Intelligence 65 (1994), pp. 347–361.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. R. Dechter, “Enhancement schemes for constraint processing: Backjumping, learning, and curset decomposition”, Artificial Intelligence 41, 1990, pp. 273–312.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. R. Dechter and J. Pearl, “Network-based heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems, Artificial Intelligence 34(1), 1988, pp. 1–38.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. E.C. Freuder, “A sufficient condition for backtrack-bounded search”, J. ACM 32, 1985, pp. 755–761.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. J. Giarratano and G. Riley, “Expert Systems: principles and programming”, PWS Publishing, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Gyssens, P.G. Jeavons and D.A. Cohen, “Decomposing constraint satisfaction problems using database techniques, Artificial Intelligence 66(1), 1994, pp. 57–89.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. P.V. Hentenryck, Y. Deville and C.-M. Teng, “A generic arc consistency algorithm and its specializations”, Artificial Intellligence 27, 1992, pp. 291–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. J. Jaffar, S. Michaijlov, P.J. Stuckey and R.H.C. Yap, “The CLP(R) Language and System”, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 14, no 3, 1992, pp. 339–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. J. Jaffar and J. Lassez, “Constraint logic programming”, POPL-87, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.G. Jeavons and M.C. Cooper, “Tractable constraints on ordered domains”, Artificial Intelligence 79(2), 1995, pp. 327–339.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. L. Kirousis, “Fast parallel constraint satisfaction”, Artificial Intelligence 64, 1993, pp. 147–160.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. A.K. Mackworth, “Consistency in networks of relations”, Artificial Intelligence 8, 1977, pp. 99–118.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. U. Montanari, “Networks of constraints: fundamental properties and applications to picture processing”, Inform. Sci. 7, 1974, pp. 95–132.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. U. Montanari and F. Rossi, “Constraint relaxation may be perfect”, Artificial Intelligence 48, 1991, pp. 143–170.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. U. Montanari, F. Rossi, “Perfect Relaxation in Constraint Logic Programming”, Proc. of the Eight International Conference on Logic Programming, 1991, pp. 223–237.

    Google Scholar 

  18. N.J. Nilson, “Problem-Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence”, McGraw-Hill, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  19. W. Older, F. Benhamou, “Programming in CLP(BNR)”, PPCP 94, Newport, RI (USA), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  20. I. Popescu, “Hierarchical Neural Network for Rules Control in Knowledge-Based Expert Systems”, International Journal of Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computations, Dynamic Publishers, 1995, pp. 379–391.

    Google Scholar 

  21. I. Popescu and M. Zaremba, “Efficient Method for Solving Systems of Constraints in Intelligent Systems”, International Journal of Computers and Their Applications, 1995, pp. 96–103.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. van Beck and R. Dechter, “On the minimality and decomposability of row-convex constraint networks”, J. ACM 42, 1995, pp. 543–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. F. Rossi, “Constraint satisfaction problems in logic programming”, SIGART Newsletter, 106, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. P. Van Hentenryck, “Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Popescu, I. (2000). Combining Constraints and Consistency Techniques in Knowledge-Based Expert Systems. In: Yakhno, T. (eds) Advances in Information Systems. ADVIS 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1909. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40888-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40888-6_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41184-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-40888-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics