Simulations for Comparing Knowledge Acquisition and Machine Learning

Authors:
Achim G. Hoffmann;Rex Bing Hung Kwok;Paul Compton
Affiliations:
-;-;-
Venue:
AI '01 Proceedings of the 14th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Advances in Artificial Intelligence
Year:
2001

Citing 10
Cited 1

A philosophical basis for knowledge acquisition

Knowledge Acquisition
Empirical Learning as a Function of Concept Character

Machine Learning
C4.5: programs for machine learning

C4.5: programs for machine learning
Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms

Neural Computation
An Experimental Evaluation of Integrating Machine Learning with Knowledge Acquisition

Machine Learning
Evaluating knowledge engineering techniques

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
The experimental evaluation of knowledge acquisition techniques and methods: history, problems, and new directions

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Acquisition of Search Knowledge

EKAW '97 Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management
Using Knowledge Acquisition to Build Spoken Language Systems

EKAW '97 Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management
Combining knowledge acquisition and machine learning to control dynamic systems

IJCAI'97 Proceedings of the Fifteenth international joint conference on Artifical intelligence - Volume 2

Two decades of ripple down rules research

The Knowledge Engineering Review

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper introduces a new class of systematic experimental studies targeted towards a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of knowledge acquisition (KA) methods. We model a domain along with the behaviour of a domain expert. Using these models we can simulate the KA process and observe which factors of the domain, the expert or the KA technique, affect the overall result of the KA process. On the basis of our models, we can also compare the performance of our KA techniques against the performance of automatic KA techniques, i.e. against machine learning techniques.We present a number of results from our modelling approach. These results include the surprising fact that in some domains, building a decision tree by consulting an expert for providing a correct discriminating attribute along with a correct threshold value for a presented case, may still be inferior to an automatic method, such as C4.5, using the same set of cases. Furthermore, we obtained new insights into characteristics of the knowledge representation scheme being used (Ripple Down Rules) as well as guidelines for experts when providing knowledge. Finally, we advocate our methodological approach for studying KA techniques to also being much more widely used in machine learning research. We consider our approach as an important methodological complement to the extensive performance comparisons in machine learning research using 'natural datasets'.