Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© C. Kemke XPS Implementation 1 COMP 4200: Expert Systems Dr. Christel Kemke Department of Computer Science University of Manitoba.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "© C. Kemke XPS Implementation 1 COMP 4200: Expert Systems Dr. Christel Kemke Department of Computer Science University of Manitoba."— Presentation transcript:

1 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 1 COMP 4200: Expert Systems Dr. Christel Kemke Department of Computer Science University of Manitoba

2 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 2 Course Overview  Introduction  Knowledge Representation  Semantic Nets, Frames, Logic  Reasoning and Inference  Predicate Logic, Inference Methods, Resolution  Reasoning with Uncertainty  Probability, Bayesian Decision Making  Expert System Design  ES Life Cycle  CLIPS Overview  Concepts, Notation, Usage  Pattern Matching  Variables, Functions, Expressions, Constraints  Expert System Implementation  Salience, Rete Algorithm  Expert System Examples  Conclusions and Outlook

3 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 3 Overview Implementation of Rule-Based Systems  Motivation  Objectives  Chapter Introduction  Important Concepts  Performance Aspects  Pattern Matching  Basic Idea  Unification  Pattern Matching in Rule- Based Systems  Rete Algorithm  Overview  Rete Network  Assert and Retract  Optimizations  Improvements  Rule Formulation  General vs. Specific Rules  Simple vs. Complex Rules  Loading and Saving Facts  Important Concepts and Terms  Chapter Summary

4 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 4 Motivation  pattern matching and unification are powerful operations to determine the similarity and consistency of complex structures  they are at the core of many rule-based and predicate logic mechanisms  their application goes beyond rule-based systems  study concepts and methods that are critical for the functionality and performance of rule-based systems  pattern matching and the Rete algorithm  use and formulation of rules

5 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 5 Objectives  comprehend the mechanics of pattern matching in rule-based systems  basic concepts and techniques  Rete algorithm  understand the effects of matching and rule formulation on the performance of rule-based systems  learn to write rule-based programs and implement systems in an efficient way  analyze and evaluate the performance of rule-based programs and systems  identify bottlenecks  formulate and implement strategies for performance improvements

6 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 6 Overview Implementation of Rule-Based Systems  due to their more declarative nature, it can be difficult to evaluate and predict the performance of rule-based systems  time to complete a task  memory usage  disk space usage  pattern matching can be used to eliminate unsuitable rules and facts  but it can also introduce substantial overhead

7 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 7 Chapter Introduction  Important Concepts  entities with internal structure u data structures, objects, components u terms, sentences, graphs u diagrams, images u concepts, hierarchies  Performance Aspects  somewhat different from conventional programs u less control over the runtime behavior u pattern matching can do a lot of the work

8 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 8 Pattern Matching  determines if two or more complex entities (patterns) are compatible with each other  patterns can be (almost) anything that has a structure u pictures: mugshot vs. person u drawings: diagrams of systems u expressions: words,sentences of a language, strings  graphs are often used as the underlying representation u the structure of the graphs must be compatible u usually either identical, or one is a sub-graph of the other u the individual parts must be compatible u nodes must have identical or compatible values uvariables are very valuable u links must indicate compatible relationships u compatibility may be dependent on the domain or task [Giarratano & Riley 1998, Friedmann-Hill 2003, Gonzalez & Dankel, 2004]

9 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 9 ????? Pattern Matching Example  images  Do both images refer to the same individual?  Do they have other commonalities?  test Bucky Bucky likes fish Bucky Bucky likes fish Bucky and Satchel Satchel likesBucky

10 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 10 Pattern Matching Example  shapes ?? ?????

11 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 11 Pattern Matching Examples  constants and variables “Hans” “Franz” ? “Josef” “Joseph” first_name “Joseph” ? last_name “Joseph”

12 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 12 Pattern Matching Examples  terms  composed of constants, variables, functions ? father(X) “Joseph” ? father(Y)father(X) mother(X) ?? father(father(X))grandfather(X)

13 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 13 Unification  formal specification for finding substitutions that make logical expressions identical  the unification algorithm takes two sentences and returns a unifier for them (if one exists) Unify(p,q) =  if Subst( ,p) = Subst( ,q)  if there is more than one such substitution, the most general unifier is returned  used in logic programming, automated theorem proving  possibly complex operation u quadratic in the size of the expressions u “occur check” sometimes omitted  determines if a variable is contained in the term against which it is unified

14 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 14 Pattern Matching in Rule-Based Systems  used to match rules with appropriate facts in working memory  rules for which facts can be found are satisfied  the combination of a rule with the facts that satisfy it is used to form activation records  one of the activation records is selected for execution

15 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 15 Simplistic Rule-Based Pattern Matching  go through the list of rules, and check the antecedent (LHS) of each rule against the facts in working memory  create an activation record for each rule with a matching set of facts  repeat after each rule firing  very inefficient  roughly (number of rules) * (number of facts) (number of patterns)  the actual performance depends on the formulation of the rules and the contents of the working memory

16 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 16 Rete Algorithm  in most cases, the set of rules in a rule-based system is relatively constant  the facts (contents of working memory) change frequently  most of the contents of working memory, however, don’t change every time  optimization of the matching algorithm  remember previous results  change only those matches that rely on facts that changed  the Rete algorithm performs an improved matching of rules and facts  invented by Charles Forgy in the early 80s  basis for many rule-based expert system shells [ Friedmann-Hill 2003, Giarratano & Riley 1998, Friedmann-Hill 2003, Gonzalez & Dankel, 2004]

17 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 17 Rete Network  the name comes from the latin word rete  stands for net  consists of a network of interconnected nodes  each node represents one or more tests on the LHS of a rule u input nodes are at the top, output nodes at the bottom  pattern nodes have one input, and check the names of facts  join nodes have two inputs, and combine facts  terminal node at the bottom of the network represent individual rules  a rule is satisfied if there is a combination of facts that passes all the test nodes from the top to the output node at the bottom that represents the rule  the Rete network effectively is the working memory for a rule- based system

18 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 18 Rete Network Example 1 (deftemplate x (slot a)) (deftemplate y (slot b)) (defrule example-1 (x (a ?v1)) (y (b ?v1)) ==> ) ?= x ?= y Left.0.a ?= Right.b example-1 ?v1 ?v1 = ?v1

19 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 19 Rete Left and Right Memories  left (alpha) memory  contains the left input of a join node  right (beta) memory  contains the right input of a join node  notation: Left.p.q ?= Right.r  compare the contents of slot q in fact p from the left memory with slot r in the fact from the right memory (deftemplate x (slot a)) (deftemplate y (slot b)) (defrule example-1 (x (a ?v1)) (y (b ?v1)) ==> ) ?= x ?= y Left.0.a ?= Right.b example-1 ?v1 ?v1 = ?v1

20 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 20 Running the Network  only facts x and y are considered  all facts where x.a == y.b pass the join network  all {x, y} tuples are fowarded to the next node  compare the contents of slot q in fact p from the left memory with slot r in the fact from the right memory (deftemplate x (slot a)) (deftemplate y (slot b)) (defrule example-1 (x (a ?v1)) (y (b ?v1)) ==> ) ?= x ?= y Left.0.a ?= Right.b example-1 ?v1 ?v1 = ?v1

21 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 21 Rete Network Example 2  shares some facts with Example 1 (deftemplate x (slot a)) (deftemplate y (slot b)) (deftemplate z (slot c)) (defrule example-2 (x (a ?v2)) (y (b ?v2)) (z) ==> ) ?= x ?= y ?= z Left.0.a ?= Right.b example-2 ?v2 ?v2 = ?v2 ?v2

22 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 22 Rete Network Example 2 with Assert  additional fact asserted (deftemplate x (slot a)) (deftemplate y (slot b)) (deftemplate z (slot c)) (defrule example-2 (x (a ?v2)) (y (b ?v2)) (z) ==> ) (assert (z (c 17)) ?= x ?= y ?= z Left.0.a ?= Right.b example-2 ?v2 ?v2 = ?v2 ?v2 ?v2 = 17 17

23 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 23 Assert and Retract with Rete  asserting additional facts imposes some more constraints on the network  retracting facts indicates that some previously computed activation records are not valid anymore, and should be discarded  in addition to the actual facts, tags are sent through the networks  ADD to add facts (i.e. for assert)  REMOVE to remove facts (i.e. for retract)  CLEAR to flush the network memories (i.e. for reset)  UPDATE to populate the join nodes of newly added rules  already existing join nodes can neglect these tokens

24 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 24 Rete Network Optimization  networks with shared facts can be combined (deftemplate x (slot a)) (deftemplate y (slot b)) (deftemplate z (slot c)) (defrule example-1 (x (a ?v1)) (y (b ?v1)) ==> ) (defrule example-2 (x (a ?v2)) (y (b ?v2)) (z) ==> ) ?= x ?= y ?= z Left.0.a ?= Right.b example-1example-2

25 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 25 Further Optimizations  sophisticated data structures to optimize the network  hash table to presort the tokens before running the join node tests  fine-tuning via parameters  frequently trade-off between memory usage and time

26 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 26 Special Cases for Pattern Matching  additional enhancements of the Rete network can be used to implement specific methods  backward chaining  requires a signal indicating to the network that a particular fact is needed  not conditional element  indicates the absence of a fact  requires special join nodes and special fields in the tokens passing through the network  test conditional element  uses a special join node that ignores its right input  the result of the function is passed on

27 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 27 Exploring the Rete Network in Jess  (watch compilations) function  diagnostic output when rules are compiled example-1: t  +1 one-input (pattern) node added to the Rete network  +2 two-input (pattern) node added  +t terminal node added  (view) function  graphical viewer of the Rete network in Jess  (matches ) function  displays the contents of the left and right memories of the join nodes for a rule  useful for examining unexpected rule behavior

28 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 28 Rule Formulation  Pattern Order  General vs. Specific Rules  Simple vs. Complex Rules  Loading and Saving Facts [Giarratano & Riley 1998]

29 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 29 Pattern Order  since Rete saves information about rules and facts, it can be critical to order patterns in the right way  otherwise a potentially huge number of partial matches can be generated

30 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 30 Example Pattern Order (deffacts information (find-match a c e g)f1 (item a)f2 (item b)f3 (item c)f4 (item d)f5 (item e)f6 (item f)f7 (item g))f8 (defrule match-1 (find-match ?x ?y ?z ?w)P1 (item ?x)P2 (item ?y)P3 (item ?z)P4 (item ?w)P5 ==> (assert (found-match ?x ?y ?z ?w)) (deffacts information (find-match a c e g) (item a) (item b) (item c) (item d) (item e) (item f) (item g)) (defrule match-2 (item ?x) (item ?y) (item ?z) (item ?w) (find-match ?x ?y ?z ?w) ==> (assert (found-match ?x ?y ?z ?w)) [Giarratano & Riley 1998]

31 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 31 Pattern Matches  full matches P1: f1 P2: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8 P3: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8 P4: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8 P5: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8  partial matches P1: [f1] P1-2: [f1,f2] P1-3: [f1,f2,f4] P1-4: [f1,f2,f4,f6] P1-5: [f1,f2,f4,f6,f8] Total: 29 full, 5 partial matches  full matches P1: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8 P2: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8 P3: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8 P4: f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8 P5: f1  partial matches P1: [f2,f3,f4,f5,f6,f7,f8] P1-2:[f2,f2],[f2,f3],[f2,f4],[f2,f5], [f2,f6],[f2,f7],[f2,f8], [f3,f2],[f3,f3],[f3,f4],[f3,f5], [f3,f6],[f3,f7],[f3,f8],... P1-3, P1-4:... P1-5: [f2,f4,f6,f8, f1] Total: 29 full, 2801 partial matches

32 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 32 Adding another Fact  what is the effect on the two cases if another fact (item h) is added?  no significant changes for match-1  in particular, no additional partial matches  major changes for match-2  another 1880 partial matches

33 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 33 Guidelines for Pattern Matches  try to formulate your rule such that the number of matches is low  full and partial matches  try to limit the number of old partial matches  removing those also is time-consuming  in general, the state of the system should be reasonably stable  matches  assertion, retraction, modification of facts

34 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 34 Guidelines for Pattern Ordering  most specific patterns first  smallest number of matching facts  largest number of variable bindings to constrain other facts  patterns matching volatile facts go last  facts that are changing frequently should be used by patterns late in the LHS  smallest number of changes in partial matches  may cause a dilemma with the above guideline  patterns matching the fewest facts first  reduces the number of partial matches

35 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 35 Multifield Variables  multifield wildcards and multifield variables are very powerful, but possible very inefficient  should only be used when needed  limit their number in a single slot of a pattern

36 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 36 Test Conditional Element  the test conditional element should be placed as close to the top of the rule as possible  reduces the number of partial matches  evaluation of expressions during pattern matching is usually more efficient

37 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 37 Built-In Pattern Matching Constraints  the built-in constraints are always more efficient than the equivalent expression  not so good: (defrule primary-color color ?x&: (or (eq ?x red) (eq ?x green) (eq ?x blue) ==> (assert (primary-color ?x)))  better: (defrule primary-color color ?x&red|green|blue) ==> (assert (primary-color ?x)))

38 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 38 General vs. Specific Rules  some knowledge can be expressed through many specific, or a few general rules  specific rules generate a top-heavy Rete network with many pattern nodes and fewer join nodes  general rules offer better opportunities for sharing pattern and join nodes  it usually is easier to write an inefficient general rule than an inefficient specific rule

39 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 39 Simple vs. Complex Rules  simple rules are sometimes elegant, but not necessarily efficient  storing temporary facts can be very helpful  especially in recursive or repetitive programs

40 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 40 Loading and Saving Facts  facts can be kept in a file, and loaded into memory when needed  (load-facts) and (save-facts) functions  may lead to visibility or scoping problems if the respective deftemplates are not contained in the current module

41 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 41 Figure Example

42 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 42 Use of References  [Giarratano & Riley 1998] [Giarratano & Riley 1998]  [Russell & Norvig 1995] [Russell & Norvig 1995]  [Jackson 1999] [Jackson 1999]  [Durkin 1994] [Durkin 1994] [Giarratano & Riley 1998]

43 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 43 Important Concepts and Terms  agenda  assert  backward chaining  constant  fact  expert system (ES)  expert system shell  forward chaining  join node  knowledge base  knowledge-based system  left (alpha) memory  matches  matching  pattern  pattern matching  pattern node  RETE algorithm  retract  right (beta) memory  rule  substitution  term  test conditional element  unification  variable  view  working memory

44 © C. Kemke XPS Implementation 44 Summary XPS Implementation  for rule-based systems, an efficient method for pattern matching between the rule antecedents and suitable facts is very critical  matching every rule against all possible facts repeatedly is very inefficient  the Rete algorithm is used in many expert system shells  it constructs a network from the facts and rules in the knowledge base  since certain aspects of the knowledge base are quite static, repeated matching operations can be avoided  a few strategies can be used by programmers to achieve better performance  most specific patterns first, patterns with volatile facts last  careful use of multifield variables, general rules  use of the test conditional element, built-in pattern constraints  loading and saving of facts

Download ppt "© C. Kemke XPS Implementation 1 COMP 4200: Expert Systems Dr. Christel Kemke Department of Computer Science University of Manitoba."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google