| Previous | [ 1] | [ 2] | [ 3] | [ 4] | [ 5] | [ 6] | [ 7] | [ 8] | [ 9] | [ 10] | [ 11] | [ 12] | [ 13] | [ 14] | [ 15] | [ 16] | [ 17] | [ 18] | [ 19] | [ 20] |
¡@
Min-Yuan Cheng and Chin-Jung Huang*
Department of Construction Engineering
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Taipei, 106 Taiwan
*Department of Mechanical and Computer-Aided Engineering
St. John's University
Taipei, 251 Taiwan
Rule base have traditionally emphasized the verification of structural errors in the
rule base. For conflicting or redundant rules, designated rules are usually followed to implement
prioritized or direct deletions. However, there exist no proper methods by which
to resolve conflicting or redundant rules. Due to the uncertainty of uncertain knowledge
itself, it is difficult to treat conflicting rules, and the citation of erroneous knowledge
leads to mistakes in decision making. Among users, 94% report perplexity when conflicting
or redundant rules are cited. It is therefore a necessity to confirm the existence
and reliability of the cited knowledge.
The current study attempts to provide an uncertain rule-based knowledge conflict
treatment algorithm by integrating a group decision and an uncertain inference. In the
algorithm, a ¡§reliability factor¡¨ refers to the reliability level of the conflicting or redundant
rules, while the ¡§certainty factor¡¨ indicates the existence of the knowledge itself. A
¡§certainty reliability index¡¨ is used to show both the existence of the knowledge itself
and its reliability. For conflicting or redundant rules, it is suggested that the knowledge
with a higher reliability factor be chosen. Among users, 92% reported that the algorithm
is helpful to knowledge application and an aid to the decision-making process.
Received December 1, 2006; revised March 13 & May 22, 2008; accepted August 26, 2008.
Communicated by Pau-Choo Chung.