Evaluating expert-authored rules for military reasoning

Authors:
Mike Pool;Ken Murray;Julie Fitzgerald;Mala Mehrotra;Robert Schrag;Jim Blythe;Jihie Kim;Hans Chalupsky;Pierluigi Miraglia;Thomas Russ;Dave Schneider
Affiliations:
Information Extraction and Transport, Inc.;SRI International;Information Extraction and Transport, Inc.;Pragati Synergetic Research, Inc.;Information Extraction and Transport, Inc.;University of Southern California;University of Southern California;University of Southern California;Cycorp, Inc.;University of Southern California;Cycorp, Inc.
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge capture
Year:
2003

Citing 5
Cited 3

Sketching for military courses of action diagrams

Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces
Supporting plan authoring and analysis

Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces
WhyNot: debugging failed queries in large knowledge bases

Eighteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence
Knowledge formation and dialogue using the KRAKEN toolset

Eighteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence
A web-based ontology browsing and editing system

Eighteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence

Fusion: A System For Business Users To Manage Program Variability

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Companion cognitive systems: a step toward human-level AI

AI Magazine - Special issue on achieving human-level AI through integrated systems and research
Incorporating tutoring principles into interactive knowledge acquisition

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Eliciting complex logical rules directly from logic-naive subject matter experts (SMEs) is a challenging knowledge capture task. We describe a large-scale experiment to evaluate tools designed to produce SME-authored rule bases. We assess the quality of the rule bases with respect to the: 1) performance on the addressed functional task (military course of action (COA) critiquing); and 2) intrinsic knowledge representation quality. In the course of this assessment, we note both strengths and weaknesses in the state of the art, and accordingly suggest some foci for future development in this important technology area.