|
Archive@NYU >
Stern School of Business >
IOMS: Information Systems Working Papers >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/2451/14389
|
| Title: | COMPARING THE VALIDITY OF ALTERNATIVE BELIEF LANGUAGES: AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH |
| Authors: | Schocken, Shimon |
| Issue Date: | Aug-1991 |
| Publisher: | Stern School of Business, New York University |
| Series/Report no.: | IS-91-31 |
| Abstract: | The problem of modeling uncertainty and inexact reasoning in rule-based
expert systems is challenging on nonnative as well on cognitive grounds.
First, the modular structure of the rule-based architecture does not
lend itself to standard Bayesian inference techniques. Second, there is
no consensus on how to model human (expert) judgement under uncertainty.
These factors have led to a proliferation of quasi-probabilistic belief
calculi which are widely-used in practice. This paper investigates the
descriptive and external validity of three well-known "belief
languages:" the Bayesian, ad-hoc Bayesian, and the certainty
factors languages. These models are implemented in many commercial
expert system shells, and their validity is clearly an important issue
for users and designers of expert systems. The methodology consists of a
controlled, within-subject experiment designed to measure the relative
performance of alternative belief languages. The experiment pits the
judgement of human experts with the recommendations generated by their
simulated expert systems, each using a different belief language.
Special emphasis is given to the general issues of validating belief
languages and expert systems at large. |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2451/14389 |
| Appears in Collections: | IOMS: Information Systems Working Papers
|
All items in Faculty Digital Archive are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
