Expert Systems (ES)

 Is a computer program that attempts to

imitate expert’s reasoning processes and
knowledge in solving specific problems
 Most Popular Applied AI Technology
 Enhance Productivity
 Augment Work Forces
 Works best with narrow problem areas/tasks
 Expert systems do not replace experts, but
 Make their knowledge and experience more widely
available, and thus
 Permit non-experts to work better
2-1 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Important Concepts in ES
 Expert
A human being who has developed a high level of
proficiency in making judgments in a specific domain
 Expertise
The set of capabilities that underlines the
performance of human experts, including
 extensive domain knowledge,
 heuristic rules that simplify and improve approaches to
problem solving,
 meta-knowledge and meta-cognition, and
 compiled forms of behavior that afford great economy in
a skilled performance
2-2 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Important Concepts in ES
 Experts
 Degrees or levels of expertise
 Nonexperts outnumber experts often by 100 to 1
 Transferring Expertise
 From expert to computer to nonexperts via
acquisition, representation, inferencing, transfer
 Inferencing
 Knowledge = Facts + Procedures (Rules)
 Reasoning/thinking performed by a computer
 Rules (IF … THEN …)
 Explanation Capability (Why? How?)
2-3 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Applications of Expert Systems
 DENDRAL
 Applied knowledge (i.e., rule-based reasoning)
 Deduced likely molecular structure of compounds
 MYCIN
 A rule-based expert system
 Used for diagnosing and treating bacterial infections
 XCON
 A rule-based expert system
 Used to determine the optimal information systems
configuration
 New applications: Credit analysis, Marketing,
Finance, Manufacturing, Human resources, Science
and Engineering, Education, …
2-4 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Structures of
Expert Systems
Human
Expert(s) Other Knowledge
Sources

Knowledge Information
Elicitation Gathering

1. Development Knowledge

Environment
Rules
Knowledge
Knowledge Base(s)
Engineer
2. Consultation Inferencing
Rules
(Long Term)

(Runtime) Rule

Environment Inference Engine

Questions Firings
/ Answers

Explanation Knowledge
User Facility Refinement Refined
User Rules
Interface
Blackboard (Workspace)

Facts Data /
Facts Information

Working External Data

Memory Sources
(Short Term) (via WWW)

2-5 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Conceptual Architecture of a
Typical Expert Systems
Modeling of Manufacturing Systems

Abstract

ajshjaskahskaskjhakjs hakhska akjsja s

askjaskjakskjas

Expert(s)
Printed Materials

Expertise Information

Knowledge
Control Structured
Structure Engineer Knowledge

Inference
External Engine Knowledge Knowledge
Interfaces Base(s)
Working
Memory

Base Model Questions/

Data Bases Answers
Spreadsheets Solutions Updates

User
Interface

2-6 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 The Human Element in ES
 Expert
 Has the special knowledge, judgment, experience
and methods to give advice and solve problems
 Knowledge Engineer
 Helps the expert(s) structure the problem area by
interpreting and integrating human answers to
questions, drawing analogies, posing counter
examples, and enlightening conceptual difficulties
 User
 Others
 System Analyst, Builder, Support Staff, …

2-7 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Structure of ES
 Three major components in ES are:
 Knowledge base
 Inference engine
 User interface
 ES may also contain:
 Knowledge acquisition subsystem
 Blackboard (workplace)
 Explanation subsystem (justifier)
 Knowledge refining system
2-8 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Structure of ES
 Knowledge acquisition (KA)
The extraction and formulation of knowledge derived from
various sources, especially from experts (elicitation)
 Knowledge base
A collection of facts, rules, and procedures organized into
schemas. The assembly of all the information and knowledge
about a specific field of interest
 Blackboard (working memory)
An area of working memory set aside for the description of a
current problem and for recording intermediate results in an
expert system
 Explanation subsystem (justifier)
The component of an expert system that can explain the
system’s reasoning and justify its conclusions
2-9 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Knowledge Engineering (KE)
 A set of intensive activities encompassing the
acquisition of knowledge from human experts
(and other information sources) and
converting this knowledge into a repository
(commonly called a knowledge base)
 The primary goal of KE is
 to help experts articulate how they do what they
do, and
 to document this knowledge in a reusable form
 Narrow versus Broad definition of KE?
2-10 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 The Knowledge Engineering Process
Problem or
Opportunity

Knowledge
Acquisition Raw
knowledge

Knowledge
Representation Codified
knowledge

Knowledge
Validation Validated
knowledge

Inferencing
(Reasoning) Meta
knowledge

Explanation &
Feedback loop (corrections and refinements) Justification

Solution

2-11 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Major Categories of Knowledge in ES
 Declarative Knowledge
 Descriptive representation of knowledge that relates to a
specific object.
 Shallow - Expressed in a factual statements
 Important in the initial stage of knowledge acquisition
 Procedural Knowledge
 Considers the manner in which things work under different
sets of circumstances
 Includes step-by-step sequences and how-to types of
instructions
 Metaknowledge
 Knowledge about knowledge

2-12 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 How ES Work:
Inference Mechanisms
 Knowledge representation and
organization
 Expert knowledge must be represented in
a computer-understandable format and
organized properly in the knowledge base
 Different ways of representing human
knowledge include:
 Production rules (*)
 Semantic networks
 Logic statements
2-13 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Forms of Rules
 IF premise, THEN conclusion
 IF your income is high, THEN your chance of being audited by
the IRS is high
 Conclusion, IF premise
 Your chance of being audited is high, IF your income is high
 Inclusion of ELSE
 IF your income is high, OR your deductions are unusual,
THEN your chance of being audited by the IRS is high, ELSE
your chance of being audited is low
 More Complex Rules
 IF credit rating is high AND salary is more than $30,000, OR
assets are more than $75,000, AND pay history is not "poor,"
THEN approve a loan up to $10,000, and list the loan in
category "B.”
2-14 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Knowledge and Inference Rules
 Two types of rules are common in AI:
 Knowledge rules and Inference rules
 Knowledge rules (declarative rules), state all the facts
and relationships about a problem
 Inference rules (procedural rules), advise on how to
solve a problem, given that certain facts are known
 Inference rules contain rules about rules (metarules)
 Knowledge rules are stored in the knowledge base
 Inference rules become part of the inference engine
 Example:
 IF needed data is not known THEN ask the user
 IF more than one rule applies THEN fire the one with the
highest priority value first
2-15 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 How ES Work:
Inference Mechanisms
Inference is the process of chaining multiple
rules together based on available data
 Forward chaining
A data-driven search in a rule-based system
If the premise clauses match the situation, then the
process attempts to assert the conclusion
 Backward chaining
A goal-driven search in a rule-based system
It begins with the action clause of a rule and works
backward through a chain of rules in an attempt to
find a verifiable set of condition clauses
2-16 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Inferencing with Rules:
Forward and Backward Chaining
 Firing a rule
 When all of the rule's hypotheses (the “if parts”) are satisfied, a rule
said to be FIRED
 Inference engine checks every rule in the knowledge base in a forward
or backward direction to find rules that can be FIRED
 Continues until no more rules can fire, or until a goal is achieved

2-17 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Backward Chaining
 Goal-driven: Start from a potential conclusion
(hypothesis), then seek evidence that supports (or
contradicts with) it
 Often involves formulating and testing intermediate
hypotheses (or sub-hypotheses)
Investment DDecision: and
Variable Definitions
Knowledge Base
 A = Have $10,000 R2
Rule 1: A & C -> E
 B = Younger R4
B C than 30 C&D
R5
3
Rule 2: D & C -> F  C = Education at college level or F G
Rule 3: B & E -> F (invest in growth stocks)  D = Annual income > $40,000 2 1
B and B&E
Rule 4: B -> C  E = Invest in securities4 R3
Rule 5: F -> G (invest in IBM) A and
 F= A&CInvestE in growth stocks Legend
6 5 R1
 G = Invest in IBM stock A, B, C, D, E, F, G: Facts
1, 2, 3, 4: Sequence of rule firings
B C R1, R2, R3, R4, R5: Rules
7 R4

2-18 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Forward Chaining
 Data-driven: Start from available information as it
becomes available, then try to draw conclusions
 Which One to Use?
 If all facts available up front - forward chaining
 Diagnostic problems - backward chaining

Knowledge Base FACTS: D and

A is TRUE R2
B C C&D
Rule 1: A & C -> E B is TRUE 1 R4 R5
Rule 2: D & C -> F or F G
4
Rule 3: B & E -> F (invest in growth stocks) B and B&E
Rule 4: B -> C 3 R3

Rule 5: F -> G (invest in IBM) A and A&C E

Legend
2 R1 A, B, C, D, E, F, G: Facts
1, 2, 3, 4: Sequence of rule firings
B C R1, R2, R3, R4, R5: Rules
1 R4

2-19 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Inferencing Issues
 How do we choose between BC and FC
 Follow how a domain expert solves the problem
 If the expert first collect data then infer from it
=> Forward Chaining
 If the expert starts with a hypothetical solution and then
attempts to find facts to prove it => Backward Chaining
 How to handle conflicting rules
IF A & B THEN C
IF X THEN C
1. Establish a goal and stop firing rules when goal is achieved
2. Fire the rule with the highest priority
3. Fire the most specific rule
4. Fire the rule that uses the data most recently entered
2-20 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Inferencing with Uncertainty
Theory of Certainty (Certainty Factors)
 Certainty Factors and Beliefs
 Uncertainty is represented as a Degree of Belief
 Express the Measure of Belief
 Manipulate degrees of belief while using knowledge-
based systems
 Certainty Factors (CF) express belief in an event
based on evidence (or the expert's assessment)
 1.0 or 100 = absolute truth (complete confidence)
 0 = certain falsehood

 CFs are NOT probabilities

 CFs need not sum to 100

2-21 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Inferencing with Uncertainty
Combining Certainty Factors
 Combining Several Certainty Factors in One Rule where
parts are combined using AND and OR logical operators
 AND
IF inflation is high, CF = 50 percent, (A), AND
unemployment rate is above 7, CF = 70 percent, (B), AND
bond prices decline, CF = 100 percent, (C)
THEN stock prices decline
CF(A, B, and C) = Minimum[CF(A), CF(B), CF(C)]
=>
 The CF for “stock prices to decline” = 50 percent

 The chain is as strong as its weakest link

2-22 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Inferencing with Uncertainty
Combining Certainty Factors
 OR
IF inflation is low, CF = 70 percent, (A), OR
bond prices are high, CF = 85 percent, (B)
THEN stock prices will be high
CF(A, B) = Maximum[CF(A), CF(B)]
=>
 The CF for “stock prices to be high” = 85 percent

 Notice that in OR only one IF premise needs to be

true

2-23 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Inferencing with Uncertainty
Combining Certainty Factors
 Combining two or more rules
 Example:
 R1: IF the inflation rate is less than 5 percent,
THEN stock market prices go up (CF = 0.7)
 R2: IF unemployment level is less than 7 percent,
THEN stock market prices go up (CF = 0.6)
 Inflation rate = 4 percent and the unemployment level
= 6.5 percent
 Combined Effect
 CF(R1,R2) = CF(R1) + CF(R2)[1 - CF(R1)]; or
 CF(R1,R2) = CF(R1) + CF(R2) - CF(R1)  CF(R2)

2-24 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Inferencing with Uncertainty
Combining Certainty Factors
 Example continued…
Given CF(R1) = 0.7 AND CF(R2) = 0.6, then:
CF(R1,R2) = 0.7 + 0.6(1 - 0.7) = 0.7 + 0.6(0.3) = 0.88
 Expert System tells us that there is an 88 percent chance that stock
prices will increase
 For a third rule to be added
CF(R1,R2,R3) = CF(R1,R2) + CF(R3) [1 - CF(R1,R2)]

R3: IF bond price increases THEN stock prices go up (CF = 0.85)

Assuming all rules are true in their IF part, the chance that stock
prices will go up is

CF(R1,R2,R3) = 0.88 + 0.85 (1 - 0.88) = 0.982

2-25 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Inferencing with Uncertainty
Certainty Factors - Example
 Rules
R1: IF blood test result is yes
THEN the disease is malaria (CF 0.8)
R2: IF living in malaria zone
THEN the disease is malaria (CF 0.5)
R3: IF bit by a flying bug
THEN the disease is malaria (CF 0.3)

 Questions
What is the CF for having malaria (as its calculated by ES), if
1. The first two rules are considered to be true ?
2. All three rules are considered to be true?

2-26 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Inferencing with Uncertainty
Certainty Factors - Example
 Questions
What is the CF for having malaria (as its calculated by ES), if
1. The first two rules are considered to be true ?
2. All three rules are considered to be true?
 Answer 1
1. CF(R1, R2) = CF(R1) + CF(R2) * (1 – CF(R1)
= 0.8 + 0.5 * (1 - 0.8) = 0.8 – 0.1 = 0.9
2. CF(R1, R2, R3) = CF(R1, R2) + CF(R3) * (1 - CF(R1, R2))
= 0.9 + 0.3 * (1 - 0.9) = 0.9 – 0.03 = 0.93
 Answer 2
1. CF(R1, R2) = CF(R1) + CF(R2) – (CF(R1) * CF(R2))
= 0.8 + 0.5 – (0.8 * 0.5) = 1.3 – 0.4 = 0.9
2. CF(R1, R2, R3) = CF(R1, R2) + CF(R3) – (CF(R1, R2) * CF(R3))
= 0.9 + 0.3 – (0.9 * 0.3) = 1.2 – 0.27 = 0.93
2-27 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Explanation as a Metaknowledge
 Explanation
 Human experts justify and explain their actions
… so should ES
 Explanation: an attempt by an ES to clarify reasoning,
recommendations, other actions (asking a question)
 Explanation facility = Justifier

 Explanation Purposes…
 Make the system more intelligible
 Uncover shortcomings of the knowledge bases (debugging)
 Explain unanticipated situations
 Satisfy users’ psychological and/or social needs
 Clarify the assumptions underlying the system's operations
 Conduct sensitivity analyses
2-28 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Two Basic Explanations
 Why Explanations - Why is a fact requested?
 How Explanations - To determine how a
certain conclusion or recommendation was
reached
 Some simple systems - only at the final conclusion
 Most complex systems provide the chain of rules
used to reach the conclusion

 Explanation is essential in ES
 Used for training and evaluation

2-29 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 How ES Work:
Inference Mechanisms
 Development process of ES
 A typical process for developing ES
includes:
 Knowledge acquisition
 Knowledge representation
 Selection of development tools
 System prototyping
 Evaluation
 Improvement /Maintenance

2-30 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Development of ES
 Defining the nature and scope of the problem
 Rule-based ES are appropriate when the nature of
the problem is qualitative, knowledge is explicit,
and experts are available to solve the problem
effectively and provide their knowledge

 Identifying proper experts

 A proper expert should have a thorough
understanding of:
 Problem-solving knowledge
 The role of ES and decision support technology
 Good communication skills
2-31 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Development of ES
 Acquiring knowledge
 Knowledge engineer
An AI specialist responsible for the technical side
of developing an expert system. The knowledge
engineer works closely with the domain expert to
capture the expert’s knowledge
 Knowledge engineering (KE)
The engineering discipline in which knowledge is
integrated into computer systems to solve complex
problems normally requiring a high level of human
expertise

2-32 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Development of ES
 Selecting the building tools
 General-purpose development environment
 Expert system shell (e.g., ExSys or Corvid)…
A computer program that facilitates relatively easy
implementation of a specific expert system
 Choosing an ES development tool
 Consider the cost benefits
 Consider the functionality and flexibility of the tool
 Consider the tool's compatibility with the existing
information infrastructure
 Consider the reliability of and support from the vendor

2-33 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 A Popular Expert System Shell

2-34 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Development of ES
 Coding (implementing) the system
 The major concern at this stage is whether
the coding (or implementation) process is
properly managed to avoid errors…
 Assessment of an expert system
 Evaluation
 Verification
 Validation

2-35 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Development of ES -
Validation and Verification of the ES
 Evaluation
 Assess an expert system's overall value
 Analyze whether the system would be usable, efficient
and cost-effective
 Validation
 Deals with the performance of the system (compared to
the expert's)
 Was the “right” system built (acceptable level of
accuracy?)
 Verification
 Was the system built "right"?
 Was the system correctly implemented to specifications?

2-36 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 Problem Areas Addressed by ES
 Interpretation systems
 Prediction systems
 Diagnostic systems
 Repair systems
 Design systems
 Planning systems
 Monitoring systems
 Debugging systems
 Instruction systems
 Control systems, …
2-37 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 ES Benefits
 Capture Scarce Expertise
 Increased Productivity and Quality
 Decreased Decision Making Time
 Reduced Downtime via Diagnosis
 Easier Equipment Operation
 Elimination of Expensive Equipment
 Ability to Solve Complex Problems
 Knowledge Transfer to Remote Locations
 Integration of Several Experts' Opinions
 Can Work with Uncertain Information
 … more …
2-38 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Problems and Limitations of ES
 Knowledge is not always readily available
 Expertise can be hard to extract from humans
 Fear of sharing expertise

 Conflicts arise in dealing with multiple experts

 ES work well only in a narrow domain of knowledge

 Experts’ vocabulary often highly technical
 Knowledge engineers are rare and expensive
 Lack of trust by end-users
 ES sometimes produce incorrect recommendations
 … more …
2-39 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 ES Success Factors
 Most Critical Factors
 Having a Champion in Management
 User Involvement and Training
 Justification of the Importance of the Problem
 Good Project Management
 Plus
 The level of knowledge must be sufficiently high
 There must be (at least) one cooperative expert
 The problem must be mostly qualitative
 The problem must be sufficiently narrow in scope
 The ES shell must be high quality, with friendly user
interface, and naturally store and manipulate the
knowledge
2-40 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
 Longevity of Commercial ES
 Only about 1/3 survived more than five years
 Generally ES failed due to managerial issues
 Lack of system acceptance by users
 Inability to retain developers
 Problems in transitioning from development to
maintenance (lack of refinement)
 Shifts in organizational priorities
 Proper management of ES development and
deployment could resolve most of them

2-41 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 An ES Consultation with ExSys
 See it yourself…
 Go to [Link]
 Select from a number of interesting
expert system solutions/demonstrations

2-42 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 End of the Chapter

 Questions / comments…

2-43 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.  

Publishing as Prentice Hall

2-44 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall