AbstractFirst-generation expert systems have significant limitations, often attributed to their not being sufficiently deep. However, a generally accepted answer to “What is a deep expert system?” is still to be given. To answer this question one needs to answer “Why do first-generation systems exhibit the limitations they do?” thus identifying what is missing from first-generation systems and therefore setting the design objectives for second-generation (i.e. deep) systems. Several second-generation architectures have been proposed; inherent in each of these architectures is a definition of deepness. Some of the proposed architectures have been designed with the objective of alleviating a subset, rather than the whole set, of the first-generation limitations. Such approaches are prone to local, non-robust solutions.
In this paper we analyze the limitations (under the categories: human-computer interaction, problem-solving flexibility, and extensibility) of the first-generation expert systems thus setting design goals for second-generation systems. On the basis of this analysis proposed second-generation architectures are reviewed and compared. The paper concludes by presenting requirements for a generic second-generation architecture.
Reviews: The Psychology of Human—Computer Interaction, Eye Movements: Cognition and Visual Perception, Eye Movements and Psychological Functions: International Views, Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition
