Acquisition of search knowledge

Long Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1319)


The development of highly effective heuristics for search problems is a difficult and time-consuming task. We present a knowledge acquisition approach to incrementally model expert search processes. Though, experts do not normally have introspective access to that knowledge, their explanations of actual search considerations seems very valuable in constructing a knowledge level model of their search processes. The incremental method was inspired by the work on Ripple-Down Rules which allows knowledge acquisition and maintenance without analysis or a knowledge engineer. We substantially extend Ripple Down Rules to allow undefined terms in the conditions. These undefined terms in turn become defined by Ripple Down Rules. The resulting framework is called Nested Ripple Down Rules. Our system SmS1.2 (SmS for Smart Searcher), has been employed for the acquisition of expert chess knowledge for performing a highly pruned tree search. Our first experimental results in the chess domain are evidence for the validity of our approach, even though a number of the planned features are still under development.


Knowledge Base Knowledge Acquisition Search State Concept Definition Concept Hierarchy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    N. Aussenac, J. Frontin, M.-H. Riviere, and J.-L. Soubie. A mediating representation to assist knowledge acquisition with MACAO. In Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 516–529. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Chandrasekaran. Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: High-level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Expert, pages 23–30, Autumn 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. Clancey. Situated action: A neuropsychological interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17:87–116, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Compton, G. Edwards, B. Kang, L. Lazarus, R. Malor, P. Preston, and A. Srinivasan. Ripple down rules: Turning knowledge acquisition into knowledge maintenance. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 4:463–475, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Compton and R. Jansen. A philosophical basis for knowledge acquisition. Knowledge Acquisition, 2:241–257, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Compton, B. Kang, P. Preston, and M. Mulholland.Knowledge acquisition without knowledge analysis. In Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 277–299. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Compton, P. Preston, and T. Yip. Local patching produces compact knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 104–117. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. de Groot. Thought and choice in chess. Mouton, Paris, 1965.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. de Groot. Perception and memeory versus thought: some old ideas and recent findings. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Dieng, A. Giboin, P. A. Tourtier, and O. Corby. Knowledge acquisition for explainable, multi-expert, knowledge-based system design. In Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 298–317. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. L. Dreyfus. What Computers Still Can't do. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Gaines. Induction and visualisation of rules with exceptions. In Proceedings of the 6th AAAI-sponsored Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop, pages 7.1–7.17, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Gero and F. Sudweeks, editors. Artificial Intelligence in Design. Kluwer Academic Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Gero and E. Tyugu, editors. Formal Design Methods for CAD. North-Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Hoffmann. Phenomenology, representations and complexity. In Proceedings of the 10 th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 610–614, Vienna, Austria, August 1992. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Hoffmann and S. Thakar. Acquiring knowledge by efficient query learning. In Proceedings of the 12 th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 783–788, Sydney, Australia, August 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Kang, P. Compton, and P. Preston. Multiple classification ripple down rules: Evaluation and possibilities. In Proceedings of the 9th AAAI-sponsored Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop, pages 17.1–17.20, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Lengauer. Combinatorial Algorithms for Integrated Circuit Layout. John Wiley and Sons, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Linster. Explicit and operational madels as a basis for second generation knowledge-acquisition tools. In J.-M. David, J.-P. Krivine, and R. Simmons, editors, Second Generation Expert Systems, pages 477–506. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Newell. The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18:87–127, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Scheffer. Algebraic foundations and improved methods of induction or rippledown rules. In Proceedings of the 2 nd Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Schreiber, B. Wielinga, and J. Breuker. KADS A Principled Approach to Knowledge-Based System Development. Academic Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Schreiber, B. Wielinga, J. Akkermans, W. van de Velde, and R. de Hoog. CommonKADS: A comprehensive methodology for KBS. IEEE Expert, 9(6):28–37, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    N. R. Shadbolt and B. Wielinga. Knowledge-based knowledge acquisition: The next generation of support tools. In Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 98–317. IOS Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. L. Shaw and B. R. Gaines. Personal construct psychology foundations for knowledge acquisition and representation. In Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 256–276. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Shiraz and C. Sammut. Combining knowledge acquisition and machine learning to control dynamic systems. In Proceedings of the 15 th IJCAI, page to appear, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. Winograd and F. Flores. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A new Foundation for Design. Norwood Publisher, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyNSW

Personalised recommendations