FUI2Y

sets and systems

ELSEVIER Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163-173

Using meta-rules for fuzzy inference control

Zhengxin Chen
Department oJ' Computer Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182-0500. USA
Received March 1993; revised May 1995

Abstract
Recent cross-fertilization between fuzzy set theory and rule-based expert systems has resulted in successful fuzzy
expert systems. A fuzzy expert system is an expert system which incorporates fuzzy sets and/or fuzzy logic into
its reasoning process and/or knowledge representation scheme. In this paper, we investigate the issue of employ-
ing fuzzy set techniques into inference process itself and its impact on the architecture of rule-based expert sys-
tems. In particular, we discuss the use of fuzzy set concepts to achieve flexible inference control of expert systems.
An extended model of expert systems is introduced, in which fuzzy techniques are used to deal with conflict res-
olution through meta-rules. A top level algorithm is provided which supports flexible inference control based on
different user environments or user stereotypes. The algorithm is illustrated by two examples. First we use a sim-
ple example (a travel agency) to describe in some detail how this algorithm works. In the second example, we
use an expert system for orthopedics to explain how the key ideas illustrated in the first example can be ap-
plied to real-world problems in the medical domain. In addition, we also provide a comparative study and a tax-
onomy which categorizes different ways of incorporating fuzzy set theory into expert systems.
Keywords: Expert system architecture; Efficient search of knowledge base; Meta-rules; Fuzzy inference control; Fuzzy pri-
ority vector; User environments and user stereotypes

I. Introduction reasoning (including the reasoning of human experts)

Recent cross-fertilization between fuzzy set theory
and rule-based expert systems has resulted in suc-
cessful fuzzy expert systems [13, 15,27]. A fuzzy
expert system is an expert system which incorporates
fuzzy sets and/or fuzzy logic into its reasoning pro-
cess and/or knowledge representation scheme [13].
Studies in fuzzy expert systems typically apply fuzzy
set techniques to conventional expert systems. Less
attention has been paid in the other direction of cross-
fertilization, namely, starting from the intrinsic fea-
tures (or inherent problems) of expert systems, how
to incorporate fuzzy set techniques to improve the
architecture of expert systems. If we agree that human
is at least somewhat fuzzy in nature, then this direction
of study is extremely important. Since inference en-
gine is the heart of an expert system, this consideration
leads to the suggestion that inference engine should be
fuzzified. In this paper, we investigate the issue of em-
ploying fuzzy techniques into inference process itself
and its impact on the architecture of rule-based expert
systems.
Early expert systems simply dealt with uncertainty
issue in an ad hoc manner (such as using certainty
factors in MYCIN [7]). Later developments have put
more emphasis on theories of uncertainty, but the bulk
of study has been on the uncertainty of domain know-
ledge rather than the inference itself. Although

S0165-0114/96/$15.00 (~) 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PII S0165-0114(95~00179-4
164 Z Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163-173
there are indications of incorporating fuzzy set
theory to generalize individual inference rules in
classical logic, such as modus ponens [8], little
work has been done on how the factor of uncer-
tainty has changed the overall architecture of expert
systems.
Conventional expert systems typically include a
domain knowledge base, a domain-independent infer-
ence engine, as well as other components, such as the
working memory which holds the case-specific data,
an explanation unit which provides explanations to the
user, and a user interface. In a rule-based expert sys-
tem, the inference engine searches the domain know-
ledge base to determine which rule should be fired
next. Conventional expert systems employ a fixed in-
ference control scheme to fire the rules stored in the
knowledge base using backward reasoning or forward
reasoning. A problem associated with the conven-
tional approach is that in many applications a more
efficient search of knowledge bases is desirable. In
order to support efficient search, a kind of flexibility is
needed in inference control. Starting from these prob-
lems inherent to expert systems, in this paper we in-
vestigate what fuzzy set theory can offer. As a special
case of the flexible inference control, we consider the
issue of conflict resolution which deals with the
case when there are several rules satisfying a cer-
tain condition and competing for firing. The tradi-
tional way of conflict resolution is to develop some
fixed strategies, such as more specific rules (namely,
rules have a greater number of conditions) are al-
ways preferred to more general rules with fewer
conditions. If flexible inference is supported, con-
flict resolution should be handled in a more flexible
manner.
As summarized in [9], uncertainty associated with
conflict resolution can be divided into two cate-
gories: explicit priority of rules and implicit priority
of rules. Implicit priority may be due to specificity
of pattems, recentness of facts matching patterns,
ordering of pattems, or the order in which rules
are entered. In this paper, we address the issue of
dealing with conflict resolution using explicit pri-
ority; fuzzy operators are used to control the pri-
ority for more efficient search in the knowledge
base.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we
discuss the need for flexible inference control in expert
systems (by examining real-time systems and systems
adapted to user environments or stereotypes), and
the role of meta-level reasoning in realizing flexible
inference control. In Section 3, we provide a revised
model of expert systems, which extends conventional
architecture of expert systems and supports flexible
inference control. In Section 4, we further discuss how
to use meta-rules to support fuzzy inference control.
In Section 5, a top level algorithm which supports
flexible inference control based on user environments
or stereotypes is provided, and is illustrated by two
examples. The first example is concerned with a
travel agency. Since the example is simple, we
can use it to explain the key ideas in our ap-
proach in detail. Note that this example serves the
similar purpose as the Travel-Expert does [1], al-
though the actual problems to be solved by these
two travel expert systems differ. In the second ex-
ample, we use an expert system for orthopedics
to explain how the flexible inference control as il-
lustrated in the simple example can be used in
a real-world problem in the medical domain. In
Section 6, we provide a comparative study and
a taxonomy which categorizes different ways
of incorporating fuzzy set theory into expert
systems. The paper is concluded in Section 7,
where our contribution and some future work are
summarized.
2. Meta-level reasoning for flexible inference
control
In this section and next section, we temporarily
put aside the issue of fuzzy set theory. Instead, we
will take a look on one problem inherent in rule-
based expert systems, namely, that related to flexible
inference.
2.1. The need for flexible inference control
As noted by [2], there is a need for more flexible
styles of inference and control over the strategies
guiding the order of inferences. One choice is to
attach a scheduler in inference engine that enables
explicit decisions to be made about which actions
are to be taken (e.g., which rules to apply, whether
to use forward or backward chaining, etc.) [2]. The
 Z. Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163 173
main consideration here is to provide flexible in-
ference control to reduce searching in knowledge
bases. To get a more concrete idea about the impor-
tance of flexible inference control, in the following
we briefly examine two different application areas:
real-time systems and systems adaptable to various
users.
Flexible control in real-time systems. There are
some common considerations behind real-time expert
systems. In order to provide timely response, most
approaches have relied on a more restricted manner
of searching, namely, to restrict the portion of know-
ledge base to be searched. The difference is only in
how to get this done. In the designated inference
engine approach [20], each inference engine only pro-
cesses a particular kind of data; although this seems to
be performing data partitioning, the effect is that only
part of knowledge base will be searched by a parti-
cular inference engine, because the particular data
processed by it determines the portion of knowl-
edge base to be searched. In contrast to partioning
knowledge base, the approaches taken by [12] and
[23] rely on meta-level reasoning and changing of
focus in searching. The term "meta-level inference"
means "inference performed at one level which is
about another level." To assure flexibility, some
degree of domain-dependent control has also been
introduced [23].
User environments, user modeling, system adapt-
ability and perturbation models. The need for flexible
inference control can also be justified from the dif-
ferent circumstances or environments in which users
use the system (which will be referred to as user en-
vironments), or from the perspective of different user
groups of user models [18]. Our viewpoint bears a
similarity with the perturbation models as presented in
[14] where the role of user models in cooperative in-
teractive systems was analyzed. According to the dis-
cussion provided there, a user model refers to a sys-
tem knowledge source that contains explicit assump-
tions on all aspects of the user that may be relevant
for the dialogue behavior of the system. Among our
interest is the notion of perturbation models which
can represent information about the user beyond that
of the system model, while maintaining a close link
between the two. In a perturbation model, the user
model is assumed to be similar to the domain model,
differing only in certain perturbations to the domain
165
model. To support such kind of system adaptability,
flexible inference control is needed. A more radical
idea on the role of users can be found in [22] where
the issue of user participation of reasoning was dis-
cussed. In addition, meta-level reasoning can be used
to incorporate user modeling for flexible inference
control [6].
2.2. The role of meta-level reasoning
The discussion on the need for flexible inference
control and the employment of meta-level reason-
ing to realizing flexible inference control can be
traced back to early expert systems such as Meta-
DENDRAL and TEIRESIAS (the preprocessor of
MYC1N). Associated with these studies is a discus-
sion from Davis [7], where a framework of view-
ing issues of knowledge indexing and retrieval was
summarized. Strategies were viewed as a means
of controlling invocation in situations where tra-
ditional selection mechanisms become ineffective.
Several ways of effecting such control were dis-
cussed; in particular, meta-rules were used as a means
of specifying strategies which offer a number of
advantages.
According to a more recent study on meta-level in-
ference systems [25], the terms "domain knowledge"
and "control knowledge" are often used to distinguish
what a system knows from how the system uses what
it knows. One problem with this terminology is that
it suggests that control knowledge is domain indepen-
dent. However, control knowledge can be either do-
main dependent or domain independent, depending on
whether it refers to the contents of particular elements
of domain knowledge, as in "use rules that mention
cheap blood-tests before rules that mention expensive
blood-tests", or whether it only refers to the general
form of the domain knowledge, without referring to
its domain-specific contents, as in "use cheap rules
before expensive rules".
Meta-level reasoning thus plays an important role
between the domain knowledge in the knowledge base
and the control knowledge used by the inference en-
gine. If reasoning is fuzzy in nature, then the inference
procedure itself should be fuzzified. The fuzziness of
inference can be achieved by using meta-level reason-
ing in an extended expert system model as shown in
the next section.
166 Z. Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163-173
3. Incorporating flexible inference controller into
expert system architecture
In order to describe the extended model, we use
the following notations. If we view the inferencing
process in the architecture of a classical expert sys-
tem as an abstract operator ! (the inference engine)
operating on its unary operand K (the knowledge
base), then we can write
I(K).
To make the inference process more flexible, the func-
tionality of the conventional inference engine should
be expanded. According to the consideration of meta-
level reasoning, we may introduce a new component
setting in between the inference engine and the know-
ledge base; this component contains domain-
dependent meta-rules for flexible searching. The
inference engine with expanded functionality will
be denoted as an extended operator I', and the in-
ferencing process in an expert system with such an
inference engine can be denoted as
t'(K).
Since the expanded inference engine can be realized
by attaching on it a flexible inference controller (which
can be considered as an operator C), the extended
operator I ~ can be viewed as the result of the com-
bination ! o C (where o denotes combination of two
operators). Replacing I ~ by ! o C, we have
(I o C)(K).
But since the flexible inference controller C can
directly work on the knowledge base K, the above
formula can be rewritten as
Jr o ( C ( K ) ) .
This formula expresses an alternative view on the role
of C: the flexible inference controller itself is part
of the operand on which a more general operator I
operates; if C consists of a set of rules, then these rules
are apparently recta-rules.
If we use W to denote working memory (which
stores case-specific data), K to denote the knowl-
edge base in the problem domain, I to denote a
domain-independent inference engine, E to denote
explanation component, and U to denote user inter-
face, then a classical expert system can be denoted
as (K, LE, W, U).
After incorporating the discussions in the previous
sections, the above classical model can be enriched
when meta-level flexible control is introduced. The
revised model consists of an additional component at
the conceptual level, namely, C, a flexible searching
controller. As to be explained in the next section, the
flexible inference controller discussed in this paper is
a fuzzy controller. Putting these things together, the
resulting model can be denoted as (K, (L C),E, W, U).
The relationships between these components are
depicted in Fig. 1.
4. Using meta-rules for fuzzy inference control in
expert systems
We can now address the issue of fuzzy inference
control. Intuitively, the role that fuzzy set theory can
play in flexible inference control can be described as
follows. As already indicated earlier, flexible inference
control means to restrict the search in the knowledge
base. One way is to restrict the search to a particu-
lar region (namely, a semantically interrelated group
of rules) in the knowledge base (instead of the en-
tire knowledge base). Alternatively, we may increase
the difference between the firing priority of the rules
when dealing with a particular search request, so that
fewer rules will remain in the conflict set. Since these
two approaches are related (for instance, different re-
gions in the knowledge base may be given differ-
ent priority for searching), in the following, we will
examine the issue of how to use fuzzy operators to
control the priority. In order to explicitly express the
priority, each rule in the knowledge base has an ad
hoc number ranging from 0 to 1 (or a vector of such
numbers) associated with it to indicate the likeliness
of rule firing (or different conditions of the likeliness
when a vector is used). The number (or more gen-
erally, the vector) discussed here to indicate the pri-
ority of a rule will be referred to as the fuzzy prior-
ity number (or more generally, fuzzy priority vector)
of that rule. The use of a vector (instead of a single
number) is an extremely important idea in our ap-
proach, because it provides a chance to allow the sys-
tem to fire these rules in multiple ways. For instance,
 Z. Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163 173
Knowledze Base
Controller
Worklng Memor~
] .gxpln,tion unit
Fig. 1. Expertsystem with fuzzy inferencecontrol.
when user stereotypes are considered, the priority of
rules firing for one type of users may be different for
some other type of users. If we use one dimension to
indicate one type of users, then a k-dimensional vec-
tor can take care of all k types of users. Obviously, the
numbers associated with the rules represent the pri-
ority of using these rules (a consideration from tradi-
tional knowledge engineering), rather than the uncer-
tainty of these rules. The flexible inference engine (as
discussed in the previous section) contains meta-rules
which provide fuzzy operators to operate on the prior-
ity (thus change the priority) of the rules, so that rules
can be fired according to the specification of the meta-
rules.
One possible scheme is described below.
( 1) Instead of attaching a single number to indicate
the priority of a rule, each rule in the domain know-
ledge base is associated with a f u z z y priority vector
with k factors (namely, a k-dimensional vector) to
indicate k different ways of firing rules (so that flexible
inference control can be realized).
(2) Meta reasoning is achieved through meta-rules
fired by the inference engine. Meta-rules are stored in
the flexible inference controller; they provide instruc-
167
Us~ lnt~v.e Uler
tions on how to activate the rules stored in the domain
knowledge base. Each meta-rule takes the following
format:
if condition
then fire rules in knowledge domain with certain
features.
When the fuzzy priority vectors are used, a meta-
rule can take a more concrete form such as
if the ith factor is involved in current request
then form a meta-level vector whose ith dimension
is CON
and all the other dimensions take the value of 0.
(The meaning of CON is discussed below.)
Fuzzy inference controller stores various meta-
rules which indicate how to employ fuzzy operators.
Various fuzzy operators exist [9, l 1]; of particular
interest tons are concentration and intensification
[9]. For instance, meta-rules may use concentration
CON(A),
~CON(A)(X) = (re(X)) 2.
168 Z Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163-173
The use of concentration operator will not change the
relative relationship (namely, relative priority), but
will increase the difference between priorities. If cut-
off threshold remains unchanged, the number of rules
in the conflict set will be reduced. For instance, sup-
pose we use s-cut = 0.5, and the original conflict set
consists of three rules with fuzzy priority numbers 0.5,
0.6, and 0.8, respectively. After the concentration op-
erator is applied, the fuzzy priority numbers associated
with these three rules become 0.25, 0.36 and 0.64, re-
spectively; if c~-cut remains unchanged, then only the
last rule (with fuzzy priority number 0.64) will remain
in the conflict set.
Another useful operator is intensification INT(A),
which is defined as
~INT(A)(X) =
2(IrA(X))2 for 0 ~</~A(x) ~ 0.5,
1-- 2(1-- /~A(x))2 for 0.5 < IrA(X) < 1.
The INT operation is like contrast intensification of
a picture: it raises the membership grade of those
elements within the crossover points and reduces
the membership grade of those outside the crossover
points, thus increasing the contrast grade between two
kinds of elements. In our case, since each element
represents a priority, the INT operation as specified in
the meta-rules will increase the differences between
the priority values associated with different rules, thus
reducing the number of rules in the conflict rule set.
5. A top level algorithm and examples
5.1. A top level algorithm
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the important
role of fuzzy set theory for expert systems through
meta-rules, rather than to provide the exact form of the
meta-level reasoning. Nevertheless, to illustrate our
idea, in this section, we provide a concrete version
of a top level algorithm for fuzzy flexible inference
control. This algorithm uses meta-rules to deal with
conflict resolution by incorporating user environments
or stereotypes.
while request from user do
1. categorize the user environment or stereotype;
2. fire a meta-rule;
3. perform fuzzy operations indicated by the meta-
inference rule on domain rules;
4. perform backward chaining using activated do-
main rules;
5. display result to the user.
In the above algorithm, step 1 takes place in the
user interface component U, step 2 takes place in the
inference engine I and fuzzy inference controller C,
step 3 takes place in fuzzy inference controller C and
knowledge base K, step 4 takes place in inference
engine I, knowledge base K and working memory
W, and finally, step 5 again takes place in the user
interface component U.
We use a fuzzy inference controller to reduce the
size of the conflict set. The form of the meta-rules
provided by the fuzzy inference controller follow what
was described in the previous section; the following
is an example:
if user belongs to ith type,
then form a meta-level reasoning vector
(0, 0, ..., CON . . . . . 0).
(namely, a vector with ith dimension set to fuzzy
concentration operator, while all the other dimen-
sions set to 0).
The vector as specified by the meta-level rule op-
erates on rules (denoted as rKB'S) in the knowledge
base. This can be denoted as
maX(rmeta(rKB,))
(here we use bold face to emphasize that meta-rule
rmeta is an operator). The specified operator is then
further carried out through vector multiplications:
m a x ( Vmeta • VtKBI ),
where Vmetaand VKBI are two fuzzy priority vectors
associated with the meta-rule and a rule in domain
knowledge base, respectively; and a symbol ' is used
to denote vector transposition.
5.2. A simple example for travel agency
To illustrate how fuzzy inference control can im-
prove conflict resolution, as well as how the top
level algorithm works, we now provide a simple yet
still (somewhat) comprehensive example from user
modeling.
 Z. Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163-173 169

Table 1

Lef~-hand side Right-hand side

R1 Season Interest Destination Fuzzy priority vector (B Y F)

rl-1 Spring for kids Orlando (1.0, 0.3, 1.0)

rl-2 Spring for fun Orlando (1.0, 0.9, 0.5)
rl-3 Spring for sun Orlando (1.0, 0.9, 0.6)
rl-4 Winter for sun Orlando (1.0, 1.0, 0.9)
rl-5 Summer for sightseeing Orlando (1.0, 0.7, 0.5)

Table 2

Left-hand side Right-hand side

R2 Destination Cost Package Fuzzy priority vector (B Y F)

r2-1 Orlando Luxury 1 (0.8, 0.8, 0.4)

r2-2 Orlando Economy 2 (1.0, 1.0, 1.0)
r2-3 Orlando Medium 3 (1.0, 0.9, 0.6)

For convenience of discussion, the example is
simplified (thus it is somewhat hypocritical), but the
idea illustrated here can be generalized into more re-
alistic situations. The expert system mimics a travel
agency which selects appropriate trip packages (from
a set of existing packages) for the users (potential
travelers). A package is selected based on such fac-
tors as destination and the cost the user is willing to
pay. Three types of users have been identified: Type
I (business people, denoted as B), type II (young
couple vacationers, denoted as Y), and type III (fam-
ily vacationers, denoted as F). In case the destination
is not known (this may happen when vacationers
just need a break, but do not know where to go),
the agency may first suggest a destination for the
user based on his or her interest and the season the
trip is to be made, then use this destination to find
a package. For business type travelers we assume
that destination is always known, the system thus
will not select destination for this type of user. Con-
sequently, the fuzzy priority number is assigned to
be 1.
When a user enters a session, the user interface
module will ask questions so that the user will be
categorized into one of these three categories.
Each relational scheme (i.e., the variable names
appearing at the table headline, see Tables 1 and
2) contains at most two attributes (columns) for the
left-hand side (LHS) of rules and one attribute (col-
umn) for the right-hand side (RHS). It also contains
a rule number (r-#). Each tuple (row) in a relation
table represents the meaning as "if attributes in LHS
then take the value of attribute at the RHS". For in-
stance, for the relation R2, the first row in Table 2
represents rule r2-1: "if destination = Orlando and
cost = Luxury then package = 1 with fuzzy priority
vector (0.8, 0.8, 0.4)".
To simplify our discussion, competitive rules in-
volving the same set of variables (attributes) will be
represented as tuples of the same relation (as dis-
cussed in the context of relational databases), with
those shared attributes as relation schemes. In Ta-
bles 1 and 2, some tuples (which involve destination
Orlando) in two relations are shown.
Suppose backward chaining is used for reasoning,
and our goal is "package = X" without known desti-
nation. If we use 0.6 as the threshold (namely, c~-cut),
there are 5 x 3 possible combinations of rule firing.
In general, if there is no meta-rule used, there may
be up to nl x n2 number of combinations of possible
firings; each combination is associated with a fuzzy
priority vector which is calculated from the involved
rules. For instance, the firing of rule r2-1 followed by
rule rl-1 produces a fuzzy priority vector
(rain(1.0,0.8), rain(0.3,0.8), min(1.0, 0.4))
= 0.8,0.3,0.4).
170 Z. Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163-173
Now let us describe how the fuzzy inference con-
troller is used in the vacation example. Suppose a user
is a family vacationer. A meta-rule stored in the fuzzy
inference controller will be fired, which forms a fuzzy
priority vector Vmetaz(0, 0, CON) (since family va-
cationer is the 3rd dimension in the vector). The rule
r2-1 provides its own fuzzy priority vector Vr~, =
(0.8, 0.8, 0.4). The result of vector multiplication gives
max(O 0 1)(0.8 0.8 0.4)' = max(O 0 0 . 4 ) = 0.4.
Meta rules can be applied to other domain rules in
a similar manner. If we still use threshold (a-cut) =
0.6, then after meta-rules are fired and fuzzy concen-
tration operator (CON) is applied on the rules, only
the following rules survive:
R1 Season Interest Destination Fuzzy priority for F
rl - 1 Spring for kids Orlando 1.0
rl -4 Winter for sun Orlando 0.8
R2 DestinationC o s t Package Fuzzypriority for F
r2- 2 Orlando Economy 2 1.0
In addition to the concentration operator CON, other
operators (such as INT) may also be used by meta-
rules.
5.3. An expert system for orthopedics
As an example for real-world problems, we now
briefly describe an expert system for orthopedics in the
medical domain. The emphasis of our discussion will
be on how the use of fuzzy inference controller can
provide efficient search in real-world applications. Or-
thopedics is the surgical specialty dealing with bones
and joints. The need for having such a system can
be explained below. There are two camps of physi-
cians: those who practice medicine and those who
practice surgery. Not many expert systems have been
developed for those who practice surgery, because the
diagnosis part of the surgeons' work is seen as mini-
mal. Being as it is, an expert system would assist the
surgeon to diagnosis so that he or she can focus on
the operations. This system is to be used in a clinic or
emergency room.
There is a bulk of knowledge which should be
acquired to build the knowledge base. For example,
to diagnose knee pain, it can be one of the follow-
ing six categories: medial meniscus tear, ligament
tear, fracture, arthritis, Patella femural pain, Os-
good Schlauter's disease, and cartilage injury. The
size of the knowledge requires an efficient search-
ing mechanism. In addition, it has been noticed
that for the domain of medicine and diagnosis, spe-
cial considerations need to be taken into account in
knowledge acquisition. Experts gather evidence for
diagnosis over time, reevaluating current informa-
tion on a patient's condition at various points in the
workup. In different cases, the physician performs
different sequences of actions. In attempting to build
a knowledge-based system for this task, general-
purpose control strategies fall short [ 10]. In our ortho-
pedics system this problem is handled by introducing
multiple user environments so that a kind of flexibi-
lity of inference control can be supported using a
fuzzy inference controller. When the system performs
a consultation, the hypothesis examined can be tai-
lored to the population by which this system is served.
For example, if the system is used at a ski resort town,
since the anterior cruciate ligament tear and fracture
are common injuries, rules associated with these dis-
eases should be given higher priority. On the other
hand, if the system is used in a retirement commu-
nity, the arthritis diagnoses would be considered first.
Three user environments have been identified: resort
town, retirement community, ~,nd others. Meta-rules
have been developed to support flexible inference
control so that domain rules with different priorities
will be fired in different user environments.
The inference engine uses backward reason-
ing. Each rule may have up to six conditions and
one conclusion. Each rule is attached with a reg-
ular certainty factor (similar to what was used in
MYCIN [7]), along with the priorities of each
rule in three different user environments in the
order of: (resort town, retirement commu-
nity, o t h e r s ) . The following are some sample
rules:
If the patient has a swollen knee,
the patient is having fevers,
 Z. Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163-173
the knee has been aspirated,
bacteria was grown on the culture,
then the patient has septic arthritis. (1.0) (0.4, 0.9, 0.6)
If the patient has a ligament tear,
the patient has an MRI scan,
the patient has positive pivot shift,
then the patient has an anterior cruciate ligament tear.
(0.8) (0.9, 0.4, 0.4)
The meaning of these rules should be clear. For
example, in the second sample rule, there are three
conditions and one conclusion. The uncertainty factor
is 0.8, while the fuzzy priority vector is (0.9, 0.4, 0.4).
The system works in a very similar manner as in the
first example (namely, the travel agency), although
the knowledge base is now much more complicated.
Since we have already used the first example to explain
the basic ideas of the top level algorithm, details are
omitted. An examination on the contents of the know-
ledge base indicates that the portion of the knowledge
base to be searched is now reduced to about half when
flexible inference control is used. Although the use of
fuzzy inference control itself introduced some over-
head, it will be paid offby the efficient search. Overall,
a 30% of saving of average response time is expected.
6. Relationship with other approaches:
A comparison and a taxonomy
In order to explain how our consideration of
applying fuzzy set theory to expert systems is related
to and different from existing approaches, here we
provide a brief summary of some related work. The
notion of fuzzy expert systems was first discussed by
Zadeh [26] and Negoita [21]. Fuzzy logic forms the
basis for fuzzy expert systems. Zadeh emphasized
that the employment of fuzzy logic as a framework
for the management of uncertainty in expert systems
makes it possible to consider issues like the following:
(1) the fuzziness of antecedents and/or consequences
in rules, (2) partial match between the antecedent
of a rule and fact supplied by the user, and (3) the
presence of fuzzy quantifiers in the antecedent and/or
the consequent of a rule. Fuzzy logic provides a nat-
ural framework for the management of uncertainty in
expert systems because its main purpose is to pro-
vide a systematic basis for representing and inferring
171
from imprecise knowledge. In effect, in fttzzy logic
everything is allowed to be a matter of degree [26].
A more detailed model of fuzzy expert system was
given by Buckley et al. [3] where a fuzzy expert sys-
tem (based on OPS5) was described. Such a system
accepts as input a fuzzy vector and produces as out-
put a fuzzy set of conclusions; internally, all data are
considered fuzzy. A fuzzy set of fireable rules is de-
fined for each state of the system's working memory;
this set is executed recursively until a null c~-cut set of
fireable rules is encountered. In the fuzzy rule based
expert system, an action around the inference engine
may be make or modify data (thus modifying working
memory), make modify rules (thus updating know-
ledge base), or producing output (fuzzy set of con-
clusions). To obtain crisp output, a threshold is used.
A particular form of system studied has been the
fuzzy controller. Buckley and Ying [4] argued that
there are three reasons for basing a fuzzy controller
on a fuzzy expert system shell: fuzzy controllers are
special purpose fuzzy expert systems; more complex
fuzzy control rules are possible; the fuzzy expert sys-
tem shell can be used in designing an optimal fuzzy
controller. According to Buckley [5], in the theory of
the fuzzy controller what one is interested is the func-
tional relationship between the defuzzified output and
all inputs to the fuzzy controller. The basic notation is
to fuzzify the input, from the output to form rules and
then defuzzify it to get crisp result. More discussion
can be found in Maeda and Murakami [16] and Matia
et al. [17].
Recent progress on fuzzy expert systems can be
found in a special issue of this joumal [19], as well
as a monograph [13]. Turksen [24] suggested that in
second generation expert systems, both fuzzy knowl-
edge representation and fuzzy inference methods will
be used. Instead of considering a set of rules of the
form " I f X is Ak then Y is Bk" (where Ak's and Bk's
are linguistic values of linguistic variables), we can
consider its fuzzified version " I f X is A' then Y is B " ;
since A~ and B' can represent many linguistic vari-
ation of linguistic values and since the approximate
reasoning can cope with such variations, we need to
identify only a set of basic anchor rules in the design
and implementation of the second generation expert
systems, thus limiting the rule explosion on the one
hand and providing an added form of intelligence that
can handle various linguistic variations.
172 Z. Chen/Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163 173
In contrast to the work summarized above, the ap-
proach to be described in this paper is mainly driven
from the considerations of conflict resolution and more
efficient searching in knowledge bases. The theme of
our study is to show that fuzzy set theory can be ap-
plied to attack intrinsic (inherent) problems of expert
systems. Instead of dealing with fuzzy controller as
mentioned before, we have set our task to investigate
the fuzzy inference controller in expert systems.
We can now summarize several different ways of
employing fuzzy set theory in expert systems by in-
troducing a taxonomy. We are not trying to provide
a complete listing of all possible ways of applying
fuzzy set theory into expert systems. Instead, we just
want to illustrate how diverse the application may be,
because at least the following different perspectives
exist.
Following the notations used in an earlier section,
we use I for inference control and K for knowledge
base (since I and K are now treated as system com-
ponents, we will not use bold face character to dis-
tinguish an operator from an operand, as we did ear-
lier). We also use overline with one horizontal bar to
indicate a partly fuzzified component, and overlines
with two horizontal bars to indicate a fully Juzzified
component. A crisp component is thus indicated by a
character without overlines. Here, by partly fuzzified
we mean that the knowledge base consists of rules
which are fuzzified while by fully fuzzified we mean
that the entire unit is by itself fuzzified (as discussed
in Turksen's second generation expert systems). We
also use the notation × to denote Cartesian product.
These notations provide a convenient way to describe
how fuzzy set theory is used in expert systems. For
instance,
I × K denotes a conventional (namely, non-fuzzy)
expert system;
I × K or I × K denotes a fuzzy expert system with a
fully or partly fuzzified knowledge-base, and a partly
fuzzified inference engine;
x K or ~ x K denotes fuzzy inference on a conven-
tional expert system or a conventional expert system
with a partly fuzzified knowledge base (this approach
is exemplified by the model presented in the current
paper);
I × K or I x K denotes Turksen's second generation
expert systems.
Other combinations can be established to denote yet
different types of expert systems. In addition, although
in the present paper we have only discussed fuzzy in-
ference control on conventional (namely, non-fuzzy)
expert systems, the basic idea employed here may be
generalized to fuzzy expert systems.
7. Concluding remarks
Flexible inference control for complex problem
solving for expert systems is an important issue in
applied artificial intelligence (AI). As the result of
this study is a revised model of expert systems. Our
study has been motivated by enhancing conventional
architecture of expert systems; and our approach has
focused on the issue of using fuzzy techniques to deal
with problems inherent in expert systems, such as
those related to conflict resolution. In particular, we
examined the aspect of using meta-rules to provide
fuzzy inference operator.
This paper has addressed one fundamental issue of
reasoning: the uncertainty of the inference itself and
its impact on the architecture of expert systems. In
particular, the contribution of this paper can be jus-
tified from the following features as involved in our
work: an analysis on fuzzy set theory for flexible in-
ference control; a more advanced model of expert
systems incorporating such a kind of flexible con-
trol; as well as a comparative study and a taxon-
omy of employing fuzzy set theory in expert systems.
Since our motivation has been to seek help from fuzzy
set theory to cope with inherent problems in expert
systems rather than finding applications or extending
fuzzy set theory to expert systems, our research is
complementary to existing approaches in fuzzy ex-
pert systems. Therefore, although this paper does not
make direct contribution to the fuzzy set theory it-
self, it does introduce a novel approach to extend the
use of fuzzy set theory, which may have profound
impact on the architecture of the rule-based expert
systems.
A new concept or a new approach may need many
years of research and practice before it reaches its
maturity. The history of fuzzy set theory itself has
 Z. ChenlFuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 163 173
proved this. For the approach introduced in this paper,
extensive research and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n are needed.
In addition, we can offer the following remarks for
future directions o f study. These remarks extend the
importance o f flexible inference control in real-world
applications.
(1) Instead o f using discrete variables to form fuzzy
priority factor to achieve fuzzy inference control, con-
tinuous variables can be used to distinguish different
user e n v i r o n m e n t s or stereotypes. W h e n continuous
variables are used, the vectors will be replaced by con-
tinuous functions.
(2) Furthermore, flexible inference control m a y be
needed not due to the different types or e n v i r o n m e n t
o f h u m a n users, but due to different types o f other
factors. For example, an expert system developed for
diagnosing automobile problems m a y be adjusted by
the different makes or models o f the cars. The basic
idea introduced in this section can be generalized to
these scenarios.
(3) So far we have focused on the use o f fuzzy in-
ference control in conflict resolution. More generally,
other forms o f fuzzy inference control m a y be used.
Acknowledgements
Critical c o m m e n t s from a n o n y m o u s reviewers
on an earlier version o f this paper have helped the
author to improve the presentation. The author thanks
S. Arroyo for knowledge acquisition and partial im-
plementation in the orthopedic example.
References
[1] P. Biswas and A. Kandel, imprecise object models: A key
to conceptualizing knowledge based management systems,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 58 ( 1993) 143 - 153.
[2] B.G. Buchanan and R.G. Smith, Fundamentals of expert
systems, in: A. Barr, P.R. Cohen and E.A. Feigenbaum,
Eds., The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. IV,
149-192.
[3] J.J. Buckley, W. Siler and D. Tucker, A fuzzy expert system,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986) 1-16.
[4] J.J. Buckley and H. Ying, Expert fuzzy controller, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 44 (1991) 373-390.
173
[5] J.J. Buckley, Theory of the fuzzy controller: an introduction,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 51 (1992) 249-258.
[6] Z. Chen, User modeling for flexible inference control and its
relevance to economics and management, Comput. Econom.
6 (1993) 163-175.
[7] R. Davis, Meta-rules: reasoning about control, Artificial
Intelligence 15 (1980) 179-222.
[8] B. De Baets and E.E. Kerre, The generalized modus ponens
and the triangular fuzzy data model, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
59 (3) (1993) 305-317.
[9] J. Giarratano and G. Riley, Expert Systems: Principles and
Programming (PWS-KENT, Boston, 1989).
[10] T. Gruber, Learning why by being told what, 1EEE Expert
6 (4) 65-75 (1991).
[11] J.W. Grzymala-Busse, Managing Uncertainty in Expert
Systems (Kluwer, Boston, 1991).
[12] F.F. Ingrand, MP. Georgeff and A.S. Rao, An architecture
for real-time reasoning and system control, IEEE Expert 7
(1992) 34-44.
[13] A. Kandel, Fuzzy Expert Systems (CRC Press, Boca Roton,
FL, 1992).
[14] R. Kass and T. Finin, The role of user models in cooperative
interactive systems, Int..L InteL Sys., 4 (1989) 81-112.
[15] K.S. Leung and W. Lam, Fuzzy concepts in expert systems,
IEEE Computer 21 (1988) 43-56.
[16] M. Maeda and S. Murakami, A self-tuning fuzzy controller,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 51 (1992) 29-40.
[17] F. Maria, A. Jimenez, R. Galan and R. Sanz, Fuzzy
controllers: lifting the linear-nonlinear frontier, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 52 (1992) 113 128.
[18] K.R. McKeown, User modeling and user interfaces, in: Proc.
AAAI-90 (1990) 1138-1139.
[19] M. Mizumoto (Guest ed.), Special issue on fuzzy expert
systems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 44 (1991) 339-468.
[20] T. Murayama, K. Kushima and S. lshigaki, An inference
mechanism suited for real-time control, Proc. IEA/AIE-89,
Vol. I (1989) 245-253.
[21] C. Negoita, Expert Systems and Fuzz), Systems (Benjamin
Cummings Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1985).
[22] M.E. Pollack, J. Hirschberg and B. Webber, User participation
in the reasoning processes of expert systems, Proc. AAAI-
1982, 358 361.
[23] J.C. Sanborn, Coping with control in rule-based programs,
Heuristics. J. Knowledge Eng. 3 (1990) 50-58.
[24] I.B. Turksen, Fuzzy expert systems for IE/OR/MS, Fuzz),
Sets and Systems 51 (1992) 1-27.
[25] F. van Harmelen, Meta-level Inference Systems (Pitman,
London, 1991).
[26] L.A. Zadeh, The role of fuzzy logic in the management of
uncertainty in expert systems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11
(1983) 199-227.
[27] H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Sets, Decision Making, and
Expert Systems (Kluwer, Boston, 1987).