Talk:Forward chaining

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rockytperez52.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I edited the example in the page two one that I see as better because:

1) both rule are required to come to a conclusion, and so 'inference' is truly required

2) it seems less open-ended/ambiguous to ask 'what color is fritz' than 'what is fritz'

3) these rules seem less contrived to me

--CH

Further edits (15th May 2006):

I added a similarly long explanation of the workings as there is for Backwards chaining.

I made only the first reference to 'frog' a wiki-word, but am still unsure whether even this is neccesary - who doesn't know what a frog is, and even then, how would that relevant to the example; Fritz might as well be a jabberwocky! (or jubjub bird etc.)

It would also be nice to expand on the 'dynamic' point, as I'm not sure it is that clear.

Finally, Both backwards *AND* Forwards chaining pages note that these methods are often used in expert systems; is this a contradiction?

--CH

I made the details of the same as for backward chaining with the same list of rules so it contrasts the inference algorithms better. I only have an issue with the analogy used with "top-down" and "bottom-up" -- IMO data driven is bottom up (because you start with the nitty-gritty detail and end at an abstraction) and goal driven is top-down (begin with abstraction and work your way to the detail.) Think of language parsers as special examples of it: if you work the grammar rules from sentence down to parts and try to match words, you do top-down parsing, goal-driven. If you start with the words finding rules which match the sequence you see, then you do bottom-up parsing, data driven. So I removed the bottom-up / top-down language altogether. Gschadow 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

--CH

(This is my first Wikipedia modification, sorry if I missed some policy.) I believe that the notion "optimal goal" is incorrect and should be changed to simply "goal". The reason is that a goal is defined only by a condition. The notion "optimal" is only permissible if there is a function that associates a value of the goal so that a goal with minimal/maximal value can be found. A priori only feasible solutions are searched by interence, not optimal. See also Optimization problem, Decision problem, Candidate solution. 82.127.61.43 (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on the question above: "Both backwards *AND* Forwards chaining pages note that these methods are often used in expert systems; is this a contradiction?" Its not a contradiction. Both forms are used. Some systems use one form only, forward chaining is probably the more typical but the more sophisticated rule systems (e.g., the one that was in KEE) could mix both forward and backward chaining with the same rule set. They are used for different purposes. When you want to assert everything that can asserted based on the current knowledge base you use forward chaining when you want to start with a conclusion and then find things that could be true in order to make your conclusion true (e.g., questions to ask the user) then you use backward chaining. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge

The articles are about computer science terms. If anything, they should be merged to Expert system. WLU 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree they should be merged. They are fundamentally different (but related) topics. Expert systems usually (but not always) use forward or backward chaining rule systems but there are other techniques for expert systems as well such as case based reasoning. And rule systems are also used for many different applications besides expert systems. If anything I think that is more common these days, the term Expert System is mostly no longer used and rule engines are used in all sorts of ways as part of large CRM, ERP, and Business Integration tools.--MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Couldn't AIMA, second edition, chapter 9.3 be a reference for this article?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forward chaining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907161909/http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/3304/forward-vs-backward-chaining to http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/3304/forward-vs-backward-chaining

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)