Model construction operators

https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(92)90037-XGet rights and content

Abstract

Expert systems can be viewed as programs that construct a model of some system in the world so that it can be assembled, repaired, controlled, etc. In contrast with most conventional computer programs, these models represent processes and structures by relational net works. Control knowledge for constructing such a model can be described as operators that construct a graph linking processes and structures causally, temporally, spatially, by subtype, etc. From this perspective, we find that the terminology of blackboard expert systems is not specific to a particular set of programs, but is rather a valuable perspective for understanding what every expert system is doing.

This paper reviews different ways of describing expert system reasoning, emphasizing the use of simple logic, set, and graph notations for making dimensional analyses of modeling languages and inference methods. The practical question is, how can we systematically develop knowledge acquisition tools that capture general knowledge about types of domains and modeling methods? Examples of modeling operators from ABEL, CADUCEUS, NEOMYCIN, HASP, and ACCORD demonstrate how diverse expert system approaches can be explained and integrated by the model construction perspective. Reworked examples from TEIRESIAS, XPLAIN, and KNACK illustrate how to write metarules without using domain-specific terms, thus making explicit their model construction nature. Generalizing from these observations, we combine the system-model and operator viewpoints to describe the representation of processes in AI programs in terms of three nested levels of domain, inference, and communication modeling. This synthesis reveals how the use of relational networks in computer programs has evolved from programmer descriptions of computational processes (such as flowcharts and dataflow diagrams) to network representations that are constructed and manipulated by the programs themselves.

References (95)

  • J.H. Alexander et al.

    Knowledge level engineering: ontological analysis

  • J.R. Anderson et al.

    The geometry tutor

  • G. Bateson
  • J.S. Bennet

    ROGET: a knowledge-based consultant for acquiring the conceptual structure of an expert system

  • R.J. Brachman, What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic networks, Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud.9,...
  • M.L. Brodie et al.
  • J.S. Brown et al.

    Pedagogical, natural language, and knowledge engineering techniques in Sophie I, II, and III

  • J.S. Brown et al.

    A model-driven question-answering system for mixed-initiative computer-assisted instruction

    IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.

    (1973)
  • J.S. Brown et al.

    Artificial intelligence and learning strategies

  • B.G. Buchanan et al.
  • B.G. Buchanan et al.

    Heuristic Dendral: a program for generating explanatory hypotheses in organic chemistry

  • R.R. Burton

    Diagnosing bugs in a simple procedural skill

  • B. Chandrasekaran

    Expert systems: matching techniques to tasks

  • B. Chandrasekaran

    Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: characterizing systems at the “right” level of complexity

  • B. Chandrasekaran

    Towards a taxonomy of problem solving

  • W.J. Clancey

    An antibiotic therapy selector which provides for explanations

  • W.J. Clancey

    Methodology for building an intelligent tutoring system

  • W.J. Clancey

    The advantages of abstract control knowledge in expert system design

  • W.J. Clancey

    Acquiring, representing, and evaluating a competence model of diagnosis

  • W.J. Clancey

    Details of the revised therapy algorithm

  • W.J. Clancey

    Qualitative student models

  • W.J. Clancey

    From Guidon to Neomycin and Heracles in twenty short lessons

  • W.J. Clancey
  • W.J. Clancey

    The knowledge engineer as student: metacognitive bases for asking good questions

  • W.J. Clancey
  • W.J. Clancey

    The frame of reference problem in the design of intelligent machines

  • W.J. Clancey et al.

    Representing control knowledge as abstract tasks and metarules

  • W.J. Clancey et al.

    NEOMYCIN: reconfiguring a rule-based expert system for application to teaching

  • G.F. Cooper

    NESTOR: a computer-based medical diagnostic aid that integrates causal and probabilistic knowledge

  • R. Davis et al.
  • B.G. Deutsch

    The structure of task-oriented dialogs

  • P. Friedland

    Knowledge-based experiment design in molecular genetics

  • F. Gomez et al.

    Knowledge organization and distribution for medical diagnosis

  • A. Gorry

    Computer-assisted clinical decision making

  • J.G. Greeno

    Cognitive objectives of instruction: theory of knowledge for solving problems and answering questions

  • P.E. Hart

    Directions for AI in the eighties

    SIGART Newslett

    (1982)
  • R.T. Hartley

    Representation of precedural knowledge for expert systems

  • Cited by (99)

    • Incorporating temporal-bounded CBR techniques in real-time agents

      2011, Expert Systems with Applications
      Citation Excerpt :

      KI tasks have been traditionally studied and classified, mainly according to Newell’s Taxonomy (Newell, 1982). There are different works that try to classify KI tasks to facilitate their development (Clancey, 1992; Hayes-Roth, Waterman, & Lenat, 1983; Schreiber et al., 2000). The latter is one of the most widely employed, since it covers the different types of tasks traditionally addressed by the AI community.

    • Workflow agents versus expert systems: Problem solving methods in work systems design

      2009, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text