Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 65, Issue 1, pp 127–155 | Cite as

Activity graphs: A language for flexible consultation systems

  • Samuel Holtzman
  • Peter J. Regan
Article

Abstract

An intelligent decision system (IDS) uses artificial intelligence principles to deliver automated, interactive decision analysis (DA) consultations. Network methods adapted from operations research underlie two key IDS components: influence diagrams and activity graphs. Influence diagrams, which are familiar to DA researchers and practitioners, represent decision problems inevent space. Activity graphs, which are introduced in this paper, represent processes inaction space. While activity graphs can represent any process, we use them as a knowledge-engineering and programming language to represent the process knowledge of skilled decision analysts in the context of a specific class of decisions. This paper defines activity graphs as an extension of directed AND-OR graphs. Anactivity tree is a directed AND-OR tree consisting of nodes, which may contain activities (small computer programs) and connectors that establish logical relationships among nodes and define logical resolution agendas. Anactivity graph is a directed, multiply connected network of activity trees. Activity graphs may involve recursion. Development of the activity graph language is motivated by our desire to enable professional decision analysts — or other experts — with limited advanced programming experience to design and build consultation systems that combine the guidance offered by protocol systems with the flexibility and generality of transaction systems. This paper defines the activity graph language in detail. A simple example illustrates key concepts. The paper also discusses our experience using a computer system that implements activity graphs for developing commercial IDSs.

Keywords

AND-OR graphs knowledge engineering programming language intelligent decision system decision analysis operations research artificial intelligence. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Henrion, J.S. Breese and E.J. Horvitz, Decision analysis and expert systems, AI Magazine, Winter 1991, 64–91.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Holtzman,Intelligent Decision Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R.A. Howard and J.E. Matheson, Influence diagrams, in:Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, volume 2, R.A. Howard and J.E. Matheson, eds., Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA, 1981, pp. 721–762.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S.L. Lauritzen and D.J. Spiegelhalter, Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 50, 1988, 157–224.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. McNamee and J. Celona,Decision Analysis for the Professional — with Supertree, The Scientific Press, Redwood City, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Marcus, An application of artificial intelligence to operations research, Communications of the ACM 27, 1984, 1044–1047.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    N.J. Nilsson,Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Tioga, Palo Alto, CA, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S.M. Olmsted,On Representing and Solving Decision Problems, Ph.D. Thesis, Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P.J. Regan,Design and Construction of Normative Risk Management and Decision Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P.J. Regan and S. Holtzman, R&D analyst: An interactive approach to normative decision system model construction, in:Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the 8th Conference, R.A. Howard and J.E. Matheson, eds., Morgan Kaufmann, Menlo Park, CA, 1992, pp. 259–267.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P.J. Regan and S. Holtzman, R&D Decision Advisor: An interactive approach to normative decision system model construction, European Journal of Operations Research, special issue on Decision Technology, 1995 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R.D. Shachter, Probabilistic inference and influence diagrams, Operations Research 36, 1988, 589–605.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R.D. Shachter, Evaluating influence diagrams,Operations Research 34, 1986, 871–882.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.E. Smith, S. Holtzman and J.E. Matheson, Structuring conditional relationships in influence diagrams, Operations Research 41, 1993, 280–297.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1947.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M.P. Wellman, J.S. Breese and R. Goldman, From knowledge bases to decision models, Knowledge Engineering Review 7, 1992, 35–53.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    D.E. Heckerman et al., Toward normative expert systems: The Pathfinder project, Technical Report KSL-90-08, Medical Computer Science Group, Section on Medical Information Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J.C. Baltzer AG, Science Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Holtzman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter J. Regan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Strategic Decisions GroupMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.Engineering-Economic Systems DepartmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations