US5167012A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Method for performing consistency checks
Assignee: International Business Machines Corp
•
Filing: 1991-11-06
•
Granted: 1992-11-24
•
Expires: 2011-11-06
Abstract
Abstract A method for use with a rule-based expert system provides a technique for determining a recent previous consistent state of execution of the expert system after a change is made to a rule or variable. Several queues contain state history information of an inference engine. When changes are made to a rule or variable, these history queues are examined to determine a recent consistent state. If the current state is inconsistent due to the change, the user can be informed that the system is now in an inconsistent state.
Inventors
- 👤 Raymond R. Hayes
- 👤 Lo Hsieh
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-10-26 08:53
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06F; G06F11/00; G06F11/36; G06F11/362; G06N; G06N5/00; G06N5/04
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 6
Claim 1
Independent Claim
271 words
A method performed by a data processing system for finding a consistent state of a rule-based expert system after modification of the rule-based expert system by an operator, comprising the steps performed by the data processing system of: executing an inference engine so that it moves between a plurality of consecutive inferencing states by a sequence of inferencing steps; for each inferencing step in the sequence, for each variable which was used or could have been used by the inference engine during that inferencing step and for each rule which was used or could have been used during that inferencing step, adding to a corresponding debug queue an entry indicating that such variable or rule was used; if a rule or variable is changed by the operator, determining from its respective debug queues whether such rule or variable has been used during execution of the inference engine; if the changed rule or variable has been used, determining from its respective debug queues the inferencing step during which such changed rule or variable was first used, and identifying an immediately preceding inferencing state as the consistent state; if a rule has been changed and if the inference engine uses backward-chaining, the step for determining first use of the rule further including selecting the inferencing step during which the rule was utilized as the first use of the rule; and if the rule has been changed and if the inference engine uses forward-chaining, the step for determining first use of the rule further including selecting the inferencing step during which the rule entered the conflict set as the first use of the rule.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
271 words
A method performed by a data processing system for finding a consistent state of a rule-based expert system after modification of the rule-based expert system by an operator, comprising the steps performed by the data processing system of: executing an inference engine so that it moves between a plurality of consecutive inferencing states by a sequence of inferencing steps; for each inferencing step in the sequence, for each variable which was used or could have been used by the inference engine during that inferencing step and for each rule which was used or could have been used during that inferencing step, adding to a corresponding debug queue an entry indicating that such variable or rule was used; if a rule or variable is changed by the operator, determining from its respective debug queues whether such rule or variable has been used during execution of the inference engine; if the changed rule or variable has been used, determining from its respective debug queues the inferencing step during which such changed rule or variable was first used, and identifying an immediately preceding inferencing state as the consistent state; if a rule has been changed and if the inference engine uses backward-chaining, the step for determining first use of the rule further including selecting the inferencing step during which the rule was utilized as the first use of the rule; and if the rule has been changed and if the inference engine uses forward-chaining, the step for determining first use of the rule further including selecting the inferencing step during which the rule entered the conflict set as the first use of the rule.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
70 words
The method of claim 1 wherein, if the inference engine uses backward-chaining, said selecting step comprises the steps of: examining the debug queues corresponding to all variables on the right hand side of the changed rule; and selecting an entry corresponding to an earliest inferencing step in any such debug queue for which the corresponding variable became a goal as the inferencing step of first use for such changed rule.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
73 words
The method of claim 1 wherein, if the inference engine uses forward-chaining, said selecting step comprises the steps of: determining a minimal firing set of variables for the changed rule; examining the debug queues corresponding to all of the variables in the minimal firing set; and selecting an inferencing step at which all necessary variables in the minimal firing set were defined as the inferencing step of first use for such changed rule.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
52 words
The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: responsive to occurrence of a use of a variable from an inferencing step or to occurrence of a change in status of a rule from an inferencing step, generating a record of a resulting inferencing state in a queue of potential breakpoints.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
93 words
The method of claim 4 wherein, if the inference engine was backward-chaining, said step for determining the inferencing step of first use of the changed rule comprises the steps of: examining the queue of potential breakpoints from the beginning; selecting calls to the breakpoint processor therefrom which correspond to the selection of a variable as a goal; and selecting the first of such selected breakpoints wherein the variable selected as a goal is on the right hand side of the changed rule as the inferencing step of first use of such changed rule.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US4814971A
Cited
US4890240A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1995-11-24 | 1996-05-25 | 1996-11-24 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 1999-11-24 | 2000-05-25 | 2000-11-24 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2003-11-24 | 2004-05-25 | 2004-11-24 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |