atsir, taipei, taiwan november 22-24, 2013 chandra s. amaravadi western illinois university macomb,...

42
ATSIR, Taipei, Taiwan November 22-24, 2013 Chandra S. Amaravadi Western Illinois University Macomb, IL A GRAPHICAL SCHEME FOR COMPLEX KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION 1

Upload: asher-greene

Post on 25-Dec-2015

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • Slide 1
  • ATSIR, Taipei, Taiwan November 22-24, 2013 Chandra S. Amaravadi Western Illinois University Macomb, IL A GRAPHICAL SCHEME FOR COMPLEX KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION 1
  • Slide 2
  • Introduction Relevant literature Characteristics of complex knowledge Knowledge engineering for complex knowledge CKR-1 Conclusions Overview 2
  • Slide 3
  • 3
  • Slide 4
  • Introduction Knowledge representation a key issue in AI/KB systems knowledge is a discrete component Modelling of complex knowledge a standing problem Example tax code, EPA regulations, investment knowledge.. Useful in knowledge-based systems, KM Defined as deep inter-related knowledge concerning a complex object, idea, process, behavior or system. 4
  • Slide 5
  • Some classical problems in KR primitive selection and granularity choice of primitives primitive relationships network partitioning selective inheritance non-monotonic reasoning & belief revision closed world assumption probabilistic & temporal reasoning quantification (some persons are mortal) 5
  • Slide 6
  • 6
  • Slide 7
  • Seminal work in the 70s & 80s Generalized representation languages e.g. KL-One [Brachman & Schmolze 85], Loom [MacGregor 99], .Classic [Patel-schneider 91], KRS [Marcke et al. 87] Specialized schemes adapted to a particular domain e.g. geometric fig. [Lee 88], IR [Gomez 98; Zarri 01].. internet [Heflin et al. 99], NL [Sowa 94] Recent emphasis on procedural, ontological, multi-paradigm schemes plus text processing procedural e.g. CBR [Zeng et al. 06], neural nets [Kurfess 99] ontological e.g. TOB [Zhang et al. 08], BPM [Hepp 06] multi-paradigm schemes e.g. KROL [Shaalan et al. 99] text processing & IR schemes e.g. [Zhao et al. 12] Relevant Literature 7
  • Slide 8
  • Modelling concepts with KL-One KL-ONE [Brachman & Schmolze 85] Ferrari blue red thing person John Mary Grand Prix car v/r val driver Nexus 1 color manufacturer Context 1 8 race
  • Slide 9
  • LOOM [MacGregor 99] (defconcept Person) (defrelation has-child :domain Person :range Person) (defconcept Male) (defconcept Person-with-Sons :is (:and Person (:at-least 1 has-child Male))) (defconcept Person-with-Two-Sons :is (and Person (:exactly 2 has-child Male))) (tell (Person Fred)) (tell (has-child Fred Sandy)) (tell (Male Sandy)) 9
  • Slide 10
  • Conceptual Graphs [Sowa 94] Leaves Van leaves BSS at 11:00 am and goes to Elnet Subj. Van origin BSS Consider: rate making is the process by which insurers determine the rates for each category or classification, of similar, but independent insureds. dest. Elnet 10
  • Slide 11
  • 11 Process uses DOGMA-MESS [Christeans and Moor 06] results-in done-by uses material tool product actor
  • Slide 12
  • MULTI-NETS [Helbig 05] On July 8, 1497, Vasco De Gama led a fleet of four ships with a crew of 170 men from Lisbon and sailed 6,000 miles to reach the shores of India 12
  • Slide 13
  • KR Features of Selected KR Schemes 13
  • Slide 14
  • Lack of continuity in KR 1995 Literature sparse for generalized schemes business knowledge, complex knowledge, graphical schemes No formal studies of domain characteristics Conceptual and epistemic levels still problematic Lack of emphasis on relationships and knowledge structuring primitives Multi-nets recent and comprehensive Limitations of Existing Approaches 14
  • Slide 15
  • 15 Limitations of Ontologies Usually in very structured domains welding [Kitamura and Mizoguchi 2003] BPM [Hepp and Roman 2007] TOB [Zhang 2008] Relationships are rigid and pre-visioned e.g. PROCESS uses TOOL [Christaens and Moor 2006] e.g. PROCESS results-in PRODUCT [ibid] Ontology visualization [Hepp 2008] very simple notation use UML Tend not to be interchangeable
  • Slide 16
  • 16
  • Slide 17
  • Examples of complex knowledge Property includes real property and personal property. Real property is lands, buildings and other property attached to it. 1.6 A liability loss exposure is any condition or situation that presents the possibility of a claim alleging legal responsibility of a person or business for injury or damage suffered by another party. 1.6 Types of insurers include stock insuers, mutual insurers and reciprocal exchanges 1.11 Depreciation is allowance for physical wear and tear or technological or economic obsolescence 6.14 A contract of good faith is an obligation to act in an honest manner and to disclose all relevant facts. 7.7 [Luthardt et al. 2005] 17
  • Slide 18
  • describe objects, events, actions, situations & concepts objects generally concrete concepts generally abstract concepts involve other concepts mathematical structural axiomatic logical concepts may involve undefined concepts alternatively, elaboration on concepts conditions and restrictions may be imposed Characteristics of complex knowledge CK complex knowledge 18
  • Slide 19
  • 19
  • Slide 20
  • Knowledge Engineering for CK committed to graphical notation representational adequacy an ideal support: concept definition, reuse multiple definitions modularity (network partitioning) simple and complex relationships pre-defined relationships (structural, logical etc.) as well as arbitrary 20
  • Slide 21
  • 21
  • Slide 22
  • E/S CKR-1 Constructs Simple/atomic concept, object/ instance or variable Simple event/situation Complex Concept, object Complex Event or Activity Simple activity A A E/A Multiple Arguments (and) Multiple Arguments (and/or) Connector for 2 or more concepts/ objects/ events Derived Concept ( Complex) Name 22
  • Slide 23
  • CKR-1 Logical Operators True if False Negation Then part of an if Quantification = = Equivalence 23 Adapted from [Schubert 1976]
  • Slide 24
  • CKR-1 Relationships TypeFormatExamplesComments Structural (s:)s: is_a, p_sp, has_a, cmp_of, sm_as, ag_of Amaravadi [2005] Descriptive (d:) d-bus: d-cause: d-log: d-math: d-perm: d- prob: d-proc: d-qual: d-quant: d-state: d-temp: d-case: -ACTS, APL.. -CAU, RSLTS, ANS, QUES. - GT, LT, LE, EQ, NOT.. - SUM, AVG.. -GRNT, RVK, LIC, PMT.. -PR, EX, NX.. -LP, NXT, PRV, INP -GOOD, BAD, ACCU, ERR -VOL, AREA, WGHT.. -ST, BT, WT -BFR, AFR, DUR, AT, ALWY -OBJ, INST, AGNT, SUB Experience Schank and Abelson [1977], Axelrod [1976], Schubert et al. [1979], Prescott et al. [2010], Riddle [1996]. Allen [1983], Fillmore [1967], property relationships (p:) p: rp: e: or p: number of members rp: minimum number of members. from experience and traditional KR work. 24
  • Slide 25
  • Representing simple knowledge An unnatural event is an earthquake, fire, flood, storm.. E E E E Unnatural event E E Flood Fire s: is - a 25
  • Slide 26
  • Board of directors Elected officials person position voting s:cmp-of s:is-a rp: method of appointment s:cmp-of Simple Knowledge is not Always Simple The BOD consists of elected officials [Luthardt et al. 2005] 26
  • Slide 27
  • Derived Concepts and Descriptive Relationships DAMAGE c c rp: ST Damaged Entity damageY d-temp: AFTR Damaged Entity X rp: ST d-state:WT Damage is defined as worsening of the state of an entity 27
  • Slide 28
  • Complex Knowledge with Elaboration, Relationships & Variables DAMAGE c c rp: ST Damaged Entity damageY Damaged Entity X rp: ST e:CAU E E Unnatural event Worsening of state is caused by an unatural event d-temp: AFTR d-state:WT 28
  • Slide 29
  • More Relationship Types and Multiplicity LOSS1 c c d-case: OBJ. E E Unnatural event damage A A Damage damage Damaged entity d-cause: CAU Loss is damage to an entity as a result of an unnatural event. Note that damaged entity can be a person, livestock etc. [Luthardt et al. 2005] 29
  • Slide 30
  • LOSS 2 c c d-log:GT d-temp: AFTR Damaged entity value Damaged entity value Damaged entity value Damaged entity value T1 T2 p: time Another way to represent loss: Multiplicity e:CAU E E Unnatural event Loss can be a decrease in value of a damaged entity 30
  • Slide 31
  • User Defined Concepts and Variables Insurance coverage is the legal obligation of underwriter to compensate insured in the event of a loss here insured suffers loss COVERAGE1 c c rp: loss amount Insureddamage E E Loss damageLAMOUNT d-case: SUBJ 31
  • Slide 32
  • COVERAGE2 c c e: loss amount UnderwriterdamageInsured damage LAMOUNT d-bus PP Underwriter compensates insured for loss amount User Defined Concepts.. 32
  • Slide 33
  • COVERAGE Coverage1damageCoverage2 Coverage = Coverage1 and Coverage2 Propositions with User Defined Concepts 33
  • Slide 34
  • insured insurer d-bus: COCO d-bus: LERQ insurancepolicy An insurance policy defines in detail the rights and duties of both parties to the contract: the insured and insurer. Concept Definition & Extension 34 rights duties
  • Slide 35
  • insured coverage Time period s:has-a insurancepolicy+ rp:DUR Adding to Concept Definition.. 35 An insurance policy provides coverage for a specified time period.
  • Slide 36
  • USA law requirement States State insurance department insurer Rate filing X Y Policy form many A s:ag-of s:sm-as d-proc: FILE s:has-a d-bus:APL d-cause:OBJ d-log: SIM e-method s:is-a More complex knowledge.. many states require insurers to file their policy forms with the state department in a manner similar to the method used for rate filing. 36
  • Slide 37
  • Can we represent this ? Indemnify means to restore a party who has suffered loss to the same financial position that the party held before the loss. Liability insurance covers liability loss exposures. It provides for payment on behalf of the insured for injury to others or damage to others property for which the insured is legally responsible. Replacement cost is the cost to repair or replace property using new materials of like kind and quality with no deduction for depreciation. Salvage rights are the insurers rights to recover and sell or otherwise dispose of insured property on which the insurer has paid a total loss or a constructive total loss. 37
  • Slide 38
  • EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS 38
  • Slide 39
  • Result (n = 50)Number of cases% Percentage successful3978% Partially successful 1 2% Could not represent1020% Evaluation of Expressivity in CKR-1 Quantitative Evaluation 39
  • Slide 40
  • Qualitative Evaluation CriteriaComments selective inheritanceno reasoning with defaultsno probabilistic knowledgeyes encoded as d- probrelationship. beliefsno prepositionsyes negationyes quantificationyes quantification operator; conjunctions, disjunctions, and/oryes temporal reasoningsome temporality included incomplete knowledgeyes 40
  • Slide 41
  • graphical method designed for abstract, complex, specialized domains abstractions/partitioning multiple methods of definition some integration of ideas; elements of: logical & partitioned networks case frames & concept graphs designed also for usability and re-usability graphical can be used in multiple domains (FR) modularization very flexible -- arbitrary concepts & relationships some limitations (FR) Conclusions Note: FR Future Research 41
  • Slide 42
  • Questions? 42