Teiresias: Applications of

meta-level knowledge

Sam
Holmes

History
Stanford University
1970s

Task

Expert

Assistant

Performance
program

Task

Expert

Performance
Teiresias
program

Goal
... make possible the interactive
transfer of expertise from a human
expert to the knowledge base of a
high performance program, in a
dialog conducted in a restricted
subset of the natural language.

Architecture
Teiresias
Explanation

Inference
Engine

Knowledge
Acquisition

Knowledge
Base

Domain
Expert

Experts Job
Test the system

Ignorance
Stupidity
Incompetence
Formalism inadequacy

Teiresias Functions
Explanation
Knowledge acquisition

Starting point
My therapy recommendation will be based on the following
probable infection(s) and potential causative organism(s):
INFECTION-1 is PRIMARY-BACTEREMIA
<Item 1> E.COLI [ORGANISM-1]
<Item 2> PSEUDOMONAS-AERUGINOSA [ORGANISM-1]
Are all these identities correct?
>> N
Are there any identities missing?
>> Y
Which one(s)?
>> KLEBSIELLA-NEUMONIAE PROTEUS-NON-MIRABILIS
Are there any identities that shouldnt have appeared?
>> Y
Which one(s)?
>> PSEUDOMONAS-AERUGINOSA

Starting point
Do you want to
1] track down the problem yourself, or
2] allow me to guide the debugging, or
3] ignore it for now and fix it another time?
Type 1, 2 or 3
>> 1

Explanation
Assumptions:

Program recap is acceptable

Necessary framework

Methodology:

Determine primitives
Record primitives
Select framework (and/or tree)
Program explains trace to user

Explanation
Why?

How?

Explanation
...
Then it is definite (1.0) that the site of the culture is a locus of infection in
the patient.
>> WHY
[i.e., Why is it important to determine a locus of infection in PATIENT-1?]
[3.0] ... In order to find out about an organism of class of organisms for
which therapy should cover.
It has already been established that:
[3.1] the site of the culture is blood, and
[3.2] the stain of the organism is grampos, and
[3.3] the portal of entry of the organism is GI,
therefore, if:
[3.4] [A abdomen is a locus of infection in the patient, or, B pelvis is
a locus of infection in the patient]
then:
There is strongly suggestive evidence (.9) that enterobacteriaceae is a
class of organisms for which therapy should cover.

Explanation
...
There is strongly suggestice evidence (.9) that enterobacteriaceae is a
class of organisms for which therapy should cover.
>> HOW
[i.e., How were you determining an organism or class of organisms for
which therapy should cover?]
[4.0] At that point RULE095 was being used. In addition,
[4.1] RULE162 was used to conclude that bacteroides is an organism
for which treatment should cover, and
[4.2] RULE115 will be tried later, as well.

Explanation
WHY 1-10
Certainty
Special purpose responses
Shortcomings

Single framework
No general / factual explanation
Implementation dependent

Starting point II
Do you want to
1] track down the problem yourself, or
2] allow me to guide the debugging, or
3] ignore it for now and fix it another time?
Type 1, 2 or 3
>> 2

Rule Acquisition
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Tracking the error

Text to rule
Checking results
Second guessing
Final check
Bookkeeping
Re-run initial consultation

Tracking the error

Well start with the PSEUDOMONAS-AERUGINOSA first.
The following rules were used in deducing that the identity of
ORGANISM-1 is pseudomonas-aeruginosa.
RULE184 Since:
[1.1] the category of ORGANISM-1 is not known
[1.2] the gram stain of ORGANISM-1 is gramneg
[1.3] the morphology of ORGANISM-1 is rod
[1.4] the aerobicity of ORGANISM-1 is facultative
There is weakly suggestive evidence (.3) that the identity of
ORGANISM-1 is pseudomonas-aeruginosa
Is this rule correct?
>> Y

Tracking the error

Should its premise have failed for this case?
>> Y
Which clause of the premise should have been false [give #]
>> 1
No conclusions were reached concerning the category of
ORGANISM-1
Should it have been possible to conclude a category?
>> Y
Which one?
>> ENTEROBACTERIACEAE
There were no rules successfully invoked in the attempt to
deduce that the category of ORGANISM-1 is
enterobacteriaceae

Tracking the error

The following (potentially applicable) rules were not executed
because the starred [**] clause failed:
RULE116
....
RULE050
....
Are these rules correct?
>> Y
Should any of them have been successfully invoked?
>> N
Is there a rule missing?
>> Y

Tracking the error

1. Determine specific error
2. Show expert rules used to form
conclusion
3. Handle error cases
Rule expansion narrowed by
category
Expectations narrowed as well

Text to rule
Ok, then I need a rule that would allow me to deduce that the
category of ORGANISM-1 is enterobacteriaceae.
Would you like to give me such a rule now?
>> Y
Good...
The new rule will be called RULE383
If:
1 The patients infection is primary-bacteremia
and 2 the site is one of the sterile sites
and 3
Then: 1 There is evidence (.8) that the category is
enterobacteriaceae
and 2
This may take a few moments...

Text to rule
This is my understanding of your rule:
RULE383
IF: 1) Primary-bacteremia is an associated infection for
which
therapy would cover, and
2) The infection with the organism was acquired while
the patient was hospitalized, and
3) The culture was taken from a sterile source, and
4) The organism is not normally found at this site
Then:
There is strongly suggestive evidence (.8) that the
category of the organism is enterobacteriaceae

Text to rule
Bottom up and top down
Rule models

Examples
Description
More general
More specific

Simple templates

Checking results
This is my understanding of your rule
....
Okay? (Yes or No)
>> N
Change premise?
>> Y
What clause should be changed in premise?
>> CHANGE 1
Suppose (1) were changed to read:
1 The infection is primary-bacteremia
Would that be ok?
>> Y

Checking results
Then youll probably want to delete:
2) The infection with the organism was acquired while the
patient was hospitalized
Correct?
>> Y
<Delete / Undelete example>
<Additional Teiresias-suggested wording change>
>> OK
Change action?
>> N

Checking results
This is my understanding of your rule:
RULE383
IF: 1) The infection is primary-bacteremia, and
2) The site of the culture is one of: those sites that are
normally
sterile
THEN:
There is strongly suggestive evidence (.8) that the
category of the organism is enterobacteriaceae
Okay?
>> Y

Checking results
Translation test
Alternatives presented
Requires some knowledge to be
most effective

Second guessing
I hate to criticize, Dr. Davis, but did you know that most rules
about what the category of a organism might be, that mention

the site of a culture

the infection
Also mention
[A] the portal of entry of a organism
Shall I try to account for [A]?
>> Y
How about
[A] The portal of entry of the organism is GI
Ok?
>> Y

Second guessing
Also, most rules about what the category of a organism may be
Also conclude about
[A] the identity of a organism
Shall I try to write a clause to account for [A]?
>> N

Second guessing
The rule now reads:
RULE383
IF: 1) The infection is primary-bacteremia, and
2) The site of the culture is one of: those sites that are
normally
sterile, and
3) The portal of entry of the organism is GI
THEN:
There is strongly suggestive evidence (.8) that the
category of the organism is enterobacteriaceae

Second guessing
Rule model

Bookkeeping
Please describe briefly why you added (or changed) this rule.
Type an empty line when done.
>> The system failed to realize it could conclude
>> category, and this allowed rule184 to incorrectly
>> conclude identity
>>
RULE383 has now been added to the knowledge base

Re-run initial consultation

I will now rerun the consultation to check the effectiveness of
your new rule. Get comfortable, since this may take a bit.
Also, new questions may be asked as a result of this new rule. If a
question is printed, please answer it with reference to this
current patient.
<MYCIN OUTPUT>
Well, it appears that things are straightened out.
Are all these values correct now?
>> Y
Good, then he problems been fixed.

Adding rules
Context
Meta-knowledge
Shortcomings

Rule models
Natural language
Knowledge base impact

Adding concepts
<expert is entering a new rule>
IF:
....
THEN:
1 The organism is likely (.4) to be an E.COLI
Sorry but I dont understand
THE ORGANISM IS LIKELY (.4) TO BE AN E.COLI
Because these words are unknown: E.COLI
Would you care to try rephrasing that?
>> Y
(please use *s to mark what you think might be a new attribute
or a new value of a attribute)
1 The organism is likely (.4) to be an *E.COLI*

Adding concepts
It looks as though
E.COLI
Refers to a new value of an attribute, correct?
>> Y
... Is it a new value of the identity of a organism?
>> Y
Now please tell me a few things about it...
Please give the full, formal name for E.COLI
>> ESCHERICEA COLI
Now please give all synonyms or abbreviations for ESCHERICEA
COLI which you would like the system to accept:
>> E.COLI
>>

Adding concepts
Please give a short description of E.COLI as a identity of a
organism.
>> ?
[e.g., for PSEUDOMONAS, the description is an organism
commonly found in the hospital, quite often a source of
secondary infections in patients whose immune response is
weakened]
>> Normal flora in the lower intestine, but a cause of septicemia
when transmitted to the blood stream
What is the aeobicity of E.COLI?
The answer should be in the form of 1 or more of the following
<aerobicity> <certainty factor>
>> FACULATATICE .8
>> AEROBIC .2
>>

Adding concepts
What is the gramstain for a E.COLI?
The answer should be in the form of a
<gramstain>
>> ROD
Sorry, but the following are invalid
ROD is not a recognized <gramstain>
Please enter it again [use the same answer if you really meant
it.]
>> GRAMNEG
<morphology example>
[Adding E.COLI to ORGANISMS]
Ok, done with E.COLI now...Back to the rule...

Adding concepts
Meta-knowledge system
Similar to rule models
Addition by descent

Adding concepts thoughts

Factual knowledge.
Is a system necessary?
Benefits?
Useful?

Conclusions
Explanation
Adding rules
Adding concepts