User interface standards for expert systems: are they appropriate?

In recent years there has been a growing debate over whether or not standards should be produced for user system interfaces. Those in favor of standardization argue that standards in this area will result in more usable systems, while those against argue that standardization is neither practical nor desirable. The present paper reviews both sides of this debate in relation to expert systems. It argues that in many areas guidelines are more appropriate than standards for user interface design.

Involving users in expert system development

The ultimate criterion of success for interactive expert systems is that they will be used, and used to effect, by individuals other than the system developers. A key ingredient of success in most systems is involving users in the specification and development of systems as they are being built. However, until recently, system designers have paid little attention to ascertaining user needs and to developing systems with corresponding functionality and appropriate interfaces to match those requirements. Although the situation is beginning to change, many developers do not know how to go about involving users, or else tackle the problem in an inadequate way. This paper discusses the need for user involvement and considers why many developers are still not involving users in an optimal way. It looks at the different ways in which users can be involved in the development process and describes how to select appropriate techniques and methods for studying users. Finally, it discusses some of the problems inherent in involving users in expert system development, and recommends an approach which incorporates both ethnographic analysis and formal user testing.

Unified framework for construction of rule based classification systems

Automatic generation of classification rules has been an increasingly popular technique in commercial applications such as Big Data analytics, rule based expert systems and decision making systems. However, a principal problem that arises with most methods for generation of classification rules is the overfit-ting of training data. When Big Data is dealt with, this may result in the generation of a large number of complex rules. This may not only increase computational cost but also lower the accuracy in predicting further unseen instances. This has led to the necessity of developing pruning methods for the simplification of rules. In addition, classification rules are used further to make predictions after the completion of their generation. As efficiency is concerned, it is expected to find the first rule that fires as soon as possible by searching through a rule set. Thus a suit-able structure is required to represent the rule set effectively. In this chapter, the authors introduce a unified framework for construction of rule based classification systems consisting of three operations on Big Data: rule generation, rule simplification and rule representation. The authors also review some existing methods and techniques used for each of the three operations and highlight their limitations. They introduce some novel methods and techniques developed by them recently. These methods and techniques are also discussed in comparison to existing ones with respect to efficient processing of Big Data.

Categorization and construction of rule based systems

Expert systems have been increasingly popular for commercial importance. A rule based system is a special type of an expert system, which consists of a set of ‘if-then‘ rules and can be applied as a decision support system in many areas such as healthcare, transportation and security. Rule based systems can be constructed based on both expert knowledge and data. This paper aims to introduce the theory of rule based systems especially on categorization and construction of such systems from a conceptual point of view. This paper also introduces rule based systems for classification tasks in detail.

Mediating between hearer's and speaker's views in the generation of adaptive explanations

In this article, we examine the case of a system that cooperates with a “direct” user to plan an activity that some “indirect” user, not interacting with the system, should perform. The specific application we consider is the prescription of drugs. In this case, the direct user is the prescriber and the indirect user is the person who is responsible for performing the therapy. Relevant characteristics of the two users are represented in two user models. Explanation strategies are represented in planning operators whose preconditions encode the cognitive state of the indirect user; this allows tailoring the message to the indirect user's characteristics. Expansion of optional subgoals and selection among candidate operators is made by applying decision criteria represented as metarules, that negotiate between direct and indirect users' views also taking into account the context where explanation is provided. After the message has been generated, the direct user may ask to add or remove some items, or change the message style. The system defends the indirect user's needs as far as possible by mentioning the rationale behind the generated message. If needed, the plan is repaired and the direct user model is revised accordingly, so that the system learns progressively to generate messages suited to the preferences of people with whom it interacts.

What do patients want to know? An empirical approach to explanation generation and validation

This article describes an empirical, user-centred approach to explanation design. It reports three studies that investigate what patients want to know when they have been prescribed medication. The question is asked in the context of the development of a drug prescription system called OPADE. The system is aimed primarily at improving the prescribing behaviour of physicians, but will also produce written explanations for indirect users such as patients. In the first study, a large number of people were presented with a scenario about a visit to the doctor, and were asked to list the questions that they would like to ask the doctor about the prescription. On the basis of the results of the study, a categorization of question types was developed in terms of how frequently particular questions were asked. In the second and third studies a number of different explanations were generated in accordance with this categorization, and a new sample of people were presented with another scenario and were asked to rate the explanations on a number of dimensions. The results showed significant differences between the different explanations. People preferred explanations that included items corresponding to frequently asked questions in study 1. For an explanation to be considered useful, it had to include information about side effects, what the medication does, and any lifestyle changes involved. The implications of the results of the three studies are discussed in terms of the development of OPADE's explanation facility.