# An Evaluation Survey of Knowledge-Based Approaches in Telecommunication Applications
## 3 Evaluation of Different Knowledge-Based Approaches
### Assessment Results  
Table 2 provides a comparative overview of how the listed formalisms generally align with the given criteria. It is important to note that each formalism has its own strengths and weaknesses, and its suitability varies depending on the specific use case, problem complexity, available data, and the expertise of practitioners. The evaluation should consider specific requirements and context when choosing an appropriate knowledge representation approach. Consequently, the ratings in the table are generalized and the assessment is based on a general perspective on how some of the formalisms might align with the criteria based on their typical characteristics and may not reflect the nuances of individual applications. Different implementations or variations in each formalism may have different levels of support for the listed criteria. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{284.5 pt}} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Relevant Assessment Defining Questions** \\ \hline _Formalism_ & What formal language or representation framework is used to express knowledge? What is its expressive power and semantic clarity? Is knowledge represented in a clear, unambiguous, and straightforward manner? \\ \hline _Accuracy_ & How accurate is the representation of knowledge in reflecting the true state of the world? Can the knowledge base be evaluated for its overall correctness or accuracy? How many times is the knowledge overall correct? \\ \hline _Precision_ & Does the representation allow for precise and detailed domain descriptions? Does the same input give the same output? Can it capture fine-grained distinctions and nuances? Does it support the representation of explicit constraints to enforce precision? \\ \hline _Coverage_ & Is everything covered? How comprehensive is the representation in covering the relevant aspects of the domain? Does it handle missing or incomplete knowledge gracefully? Are there mechanisms to handle uncertainty or partial knowledge gaps? \\ \hline _Generalizability_ & Does it generalize properly or stand for a specialized objective? To what degree results can apply to a broader context? \\ \hline _Explainability_ & How transparent and explainable is the reasoning process and the conclusions drawn from the knowledge base? Does the representation provide mechanisms for generating explanations, justification, or evidence to support the derived conclusions? \\ \hline _Certainty_ & Does the representation support the encoding of uncertainty or degrees of belief? How certain is the representation of knowledge in the reasoning process? Is there a mechanism to quantify and reason with uncertain or probabilistic knowledge? \\ \hline _Consistency_ & Does the representation allow for the detection and resolution of conflicts between facts/conclusions? How sufficient are conflicting facts/conclusions resolved? Is there a mechanism to handle inconsistencies and ensure coherence in the knowledge base? \\ \hline _Confidence_ & Can the representation assign confidence levels to the conclusions drawn from the knowledge base? What are the levels of confidence? Are there mechanisms to assess the reliability or trustworthiness of the knowledge sources and inference results? \\ \hline _Expandability_ & Does the representation support the derivation of new knowledge from existing facts or rules? Are there mechanisms for logical inference or induction to generate new knowledge? Can the representation accommodate the evolution of knowledge over time? \\ \hline _Scalability_ & Can the representation handle complexity and scalability in time and space? Can it effectively handle large amounts of knowledge, complex relationships, or domains? Does it provide mechanisms for efficient storage, retrieval, and reasoning with knowledge? \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Questions defining the assessment criteria. For the analysis, we assume that knowledge presentations are not allowed to be excessive in size.