An analysis of the distinction between deep and shallow expert systems /
| Data(s) |
19/02/1989
|
|---|---|
| Resumo |
This paper analyzes the relationship between the techniques used to build expert systems and the behaviors they exhibit to show that there is not sufficient evidence to link the behavioral shortcomings of first-generation expert systems to the shallow methods of representation and inference they employ. There is only evidence that the shortcomings are a consequence of a general lack of knowledge. Moreover, the paper shows that the first-generation of expert systems employ both shallow methods and most of the so-called deep methods. Lastly, we show that deeper methods augment but do not replace shallow reasoning methods; most expert systems should possess both." Abstract: "The first generation of expert systems (e.g., MYCIN, DENDRAL, R1) is often characterized as only using shallow methods of representation and inference, such as the use of production rules to encode empirical knowledge. First-generation expert systems are often dismissed on the grounds that shallow methods have inherent and fatal shortcomings which prevent them from achieving problem-solving behaviors that expert systems should possess. Examples of such desirable behaviors include graceful performance degradation, the handling of novel problems, and the ability of the expert system to detect its problem-solving limits. "August 1989." "UIUCDCS-R-89-1536" "To appear in International Journal of Expert Systems, 1989." Includes bibliographical references. This paper analyzes the relationship between the techniques used to build expert systems and the behaviors they exhibit to show that there is not sufficient evidence to link the behavioral shortcomings of first-generation expert systems to the shallow methods of representation and inference they employ. There is only evidence that the shortcomings are a consequence of a general lack of knowledge. Moreover, the paper shows that the first-generation of expert systems employ both shallow methods and most of the so-called deep methods. Lastly, we show that deeper methods augment but do not replace shallow reasoning methods; most expert systems should possess both." Abstract: "The first generation of expert systems (e.g., MYCIN, DENDRAL, R1) is often characterized as only using shallow methods of representation and inference, such as the use of production rules to encode empirical knowledge. First-generation expert systems are often dismissed on the grounds that shallow methods have inherent and fatal shortcomings which prevent them from achieving problem-solving behaviors that expert systems should possess. Examples of such desirable behaviors include graceful performance degradation, the handling of novel problems, and the ability of the expert system to detect its problem-solving limits. Supported in part by DARPA. Supported in part by the NIH. Supported in part by the NSF. Supported in part by the ONR. Mode of access: Internet. |
| Formato |
con |
| Identificador | |
| Idioma(s) |
eng |
| Publicador |
Urbana, Illinois : University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Computer Science, |
| Direitos |
Items in this record are available as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. View access and use profile at http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nc-sa-3.0. Please see individual items for rights and use statements. |
| Palavras-Chave | #Expert systems (Computer science) |
| Tipo |
text |