Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 67–110 | Cite as

Truth maintenance systems and their application for verifying Expert System Knowledge Bases

  • Neli P. Zlatareva
Article

Abstract

Truth maintenance systems (TMSs) were introduced more than ten years ago, but recently there is an explosion of interest in them and their possible applications in different areas. In this paper we discuss truth maintenance from three perspectives:
  • · Truth maintenance as a data base management facility, which was in fact the original intention of the TMS.

  • · Truth maintenance as an inference facility, which provides a way to extend the role of the TMS in solving problems.

  • · Truth maintenance as a verification facility, which illustrates a new and promising application of TMSs in the area of expert systems design.

This paper is not intended to provide a complete survey on TMSs, rather it aims to present the basic ideas and functionality of TMS, and to show how different kinds of TMS can be used as a meta-environment for testing Expert System Knowledge Bases, represented as sets of production rules, for anomalies.

The paper is addressed to two groups of readers: those who are looking for an introductory survey on TMSs, and those who are interested in non-conventional techniques for Expert System Knowledge Base verification.

Key Words

Knowledge-based Systems Verification of Rule-based Systems Nonmonotonic Reasoning Belief Revision Expert Systems Design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brewka, G. (1990). On minimal change: A critique of the architecture of non-monotonic TMS. Technical report, GMD, Bonn.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, A. and Shoham, Y. (1989). New results on semantical nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proc. Second Int. Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 19–26. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, B. G. and Shortliffe, E. H. (1984). Human engineering of medical expert systems. In Buchanan, B. G. and Shortliffe, E. H. (Eds.), Rule-Based Expert Systems: the MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, Ch. 32, pp. 599–612. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.Google Scholar
  4. deKleer, J. (1986a). An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence (Netherlands), 28(2), 127–162.Google Scholar
  5. deKleer, J. (1986b). Problem solving with the ATMS. Artificial Intelligence (Netherlands), 28(2), 197–224.Google Scholar
  6. de Kleer, J. and Forbus, K. (1990). Truth Maintenance systems. AAAI. Tutorial on TMS presented at AAAI'90.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle, J. (1979). A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence (Netherlands), 12, 231–272.Google Scholar
  8. Elkan, C. (1990). A rational reconstruction of nonmonotonic truth maintenance systems. Artificial Intelligence (Netherlands), 43, 219–234.Google Scholar
  9. Genesereth, M. and Nilsson, N. (1987). Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Pub.Google Scholar
  10. Ginsberg, A. (1987). A new approach to checking knowledge bases for inconsistency and redundancy. In Proc. 3rd Annual Expert Systems in Government Conference, pp. 102–111.Google Scholar
  11. Ginsberg, A. (1988). Knowledge-base reduction: A new approach to checking knowledge bases for inconsistency and redundancy. In Proc. 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 88), Vol. 2, pp. 585–589.Google Scholar
  12. Ginsberg, A. and Williamson, K. (1989). Checking quasi-first-order-logic rule-based systems for inconsistency and redundancy. Technical Report 11354–891229–02TM, AT & T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Goodwin, J. (1987). A Theory and System for Non-monotonic Reasoning. Ph.D. Thesis, Linkoping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  14. Junker, U. and Konolige, K. (1990). Computing the extensions of autoepistemic and default theories with a truth maintenance system. In Proc. 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '90), pp. 278–283. Morgan Kaufmann Pub.Google Scholar
  15. Martins, J. (1990). The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. AI Magazine, Special Issue: 7–25.Google Scholar
  16. Martins, J. and Shapiro, S. (1988). A model for belief revision. Artificial Intelligence (Netherlands), 35(1), 25–79.Google Scholar
  17. McAllester, D. (1980). An outlook on truth maintenance. Technical report, AI Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Nebel, B. (1989). A knowledge level analysis of belief revision. In Proc. First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 301–311. Morgan Kaufmann Pub.Google Scholar
  19. Nguyen, T. A., Perkins, W. A., Laffey, T. J., and Pecora, D. (1985). Checking an expert systems knowledge base for consistency and completeness. In Proc. 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 85), Vol. 1, pp. 375–378. AAAI.Google Scholar
  20. Petrie, C. (1987). Revised dependency-directed backtracking for default reasoning. In Proc. 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAII '87), pp. 167–172. Morgan Kaufmann Pub.Google Scholar
  21. Popchev, I., Zlatareva, N., and Mircheva, M. (1990). A truth maintenance theory: An alternative approach. In Proc. 9th European Conference on AI (ECAI '90), pp. 509–514. Pitman Pub.Google Scholar
  22. Rao, A. and Foo, N. (1989). Formal theories of belief revision. In Proc. First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 369–380. Morgan Kaufmann Pub.Google Scholar
  23. Reinfrank, M. (1989). Fundamentals and Logical Foundations of Truth Maintenance. Ph.D. Thesis, Linkoping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  24. Reinfrank, M. and Dressler, O. (1988). Rules and justifications, a uniform approach to reason maintenance and nonmonotonic inference. In Proc. International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems '88.Google Scholar
  25. Reinfrank, M., Dressler, O., and Brewka, G. (1989). On the relationship between truth maintenance and autoepistemic logic. In Proc. 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI '89), pp. 1206–1212. Morgan Kaufmann Pub.Google Scholar
  26. Zlatareva, N. (1990). Considerations on representing and handling human common-sense knowledge. TASSO-Report 10, FG Intellektik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Zlatareva, N. (1991a). Distributed verification: A new formal approach for verifying knowledge-based systems. In Proc. World Congress on Expert Systems, pp. 1021–1029. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Zlatareva, N. (1991b). Truth maintenance and verification of expert system knowledge bases. Technical report, CENPARMI, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neli P. Zlatareva
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence, Department of Computer ScienceConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations