Abstract
The “SKADE 2” is a blackboard system that evaluates product liability claims and makes settlement decisions. The system has three knowledge sources, namely, Legal, Insurance Adjuster, and Manager. The combined expertise from each of these is required to analyze a product liability claim. A control component coordinates the communication between the various knowledge sources on the blackboard. Based on the latest changes to the data or in the hypotheses, it selects and executes the next knowledge source. The model described here reproduces the domain's decision makers' reasoning processes.
The results of validation and analysis of a hypothetical case through a series of experiments with the system confirm that the blackboard is an appropriate model for development of expert systems in the product liability domain. The initial success with the SKADE 2 system suggests that further work needs to be done to see whether more complex models can be built to incorporate a broader range of determinants of product liability claims evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S.S. Nagel,Microcomputers as Decision Aids in Law Practice, Qurom Books: New York, 1987.
D.A. Waterman and M.A. Peterson, “Models of legal decision-making,” R-2717-ICJ, The Institute for Civil Justice, Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, 1981.
D.A. Waterman and M.A. Peterson, “Evaluating civil claims: An expert systems approach,” P-7073-ICJ, The Institute for Civil Justice, Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, 1985.
M.A. Peterson, “New tools for reducing civil litigation expenses,” R-3013-ICJ, The Institute for Civil Justice, Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, 1983.
R.J. Mahoney and S.E. Littlejohn, “Innovation on trial: punitive damages vs new products,”Science, vol. 246, pp. 1395–1399, 1989.
S.D. Sugarman, “The need to reform personal injury law leaving scientific disputes to scientists,”Science, vol. 248, pp. 823–827, 1990.
W. Raghupathi and L.L. Schkade, “Designing artificial intelligence applications in law: a systemic view,”Syst. Practice, vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 61–78, 1992.
W. Raghupathi and L.L. Schkade, “Legal expert systems design: the blackboard model,”Human Syst. Management, in press.
B. Hayes-Roth, “The blackboard architecture: A general framework for problem solving?” Technical Report HPP-83-30, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1983.
D.M. Braunstein, “The blackboard model in expert systems,” MS thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1985.
H.P. Nii, “Blackboard systems,” inThe Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, edited by A. Barr, P.R. Cohen, and E.A. Feigenbaum, vol. 4, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1989.
R. Dodhiawala and L.S. Baum (eds.),Blackboard Architectures and Applications, Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1989.
R. Engelmore and T. Morgan (eds.),Blackboard Systems. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1988.
Nexpert Object Manual. Neuron Data: Palo Alto, CA, 1987.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raghupathi, W., Mykytyn, P.P. & Harbison-Briggs, K. A blackboard model of reasoning in product liability claims evaluation. Appl Intell 3, 249–261 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871940
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871940