Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20180. 	[Title] Learning Indices for Schema Selection [Abstract] In addition to learning new knowledge, a system must be able to learn when the knowledge is likely to be applicable. An index is a piece of information which, when identified in a given situation, triggers the relevant piece of knowledge (or schema) in the system's memory. We discuss the issue of how indices may be learned automatically in the context of a story understanding task, and present a program that can learn new indices for existing explanatory schemas. We discuss two methods using which the system can identify the relevant schema even if the input does not directly match an existing index, and learn a new index to allow it to retrieve this schema more efficiently in the future. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1152896. 	[Title] Abstract [Abstract] Self-selection of input examples on the basis of performance failure is a powerful bias for learning systems. The definition of what constitutes a learning bias, however, has been typically restricted to bias provided by the input language, hypothesis language, and preference criteria between competing concept hypotheses. But if bias is taken in the broader context as any basis that provides a preference for one concept change over another, then the paradigm of failure-driven processing indeed provides a bias. Bias is exhibited by the selection of examples from an input stream that are examples of failure; successful performance is filtered out. We show that the degrees of freedom are less in failure-driven learning than in success-driven learning and that learning is facilitated because of this constraint. We also broaden the definition of failure, provide a novel taxonomy of failure causes, and illustrate the interaction of both in a multistrategy learning system called Meta-AQUA. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20193. 	[Title] The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples [Abstract] This paper describes the Structure-Mapping Engine (SME), a program for studying analogical processing. SME has been built to explore Gentner's Structure-mapping theory of analogy, and provides a "tool kit" for constructing matching algorithms consistent with this theory. Its flexibility enhances cognitive simulation studies by simplifying experimentation. Furthermore, SME is very efficient, making it a useful component in machine learning systems as well. We review the Structure-mapping theory and describe the design of the engine. We analyze the complexity of the algorithm, and demonstrate that most of the steps are polynomial, typically bounded by O (N 2 ). Next we demonstrate some examples of its operation taken from our cognitive simulation studies and work in machine learning. Finally, we compare SME to other analogy programs and discuss several areas for future work. This paper appeared in Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1989, pp 1-63. For more information, please contact forbus@ils.nwu.edu Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28265. 	[Title] Using Introspective Reasoning to Select Learning Strategies [Abstract] In order to learn effectively, a system must not only possess knowledge about the world and be able to improve that knowledge, but it also must introspectively reason about how it performs a given task and what particular pieces of knowledge it needs to improve its performance at the current task. Introspection requires a declaratflive representation of the reasoning performed by the system during the performance task. This paper presents a taxonomy of possible reasoning failures that can occur during this task, their declarative representations, and their associations with particular learning strategies. We propose a theory of Meta-XPs, which are explanation structures that help the system identify failure types and choose appropriate learning strategies in order to avoid similar mistakes in the future. A program called Meta-AQUA embodies the theory and processes examples in the domain of drug smuggling. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #91852. 	[Title] Model-Based Learning of Structural Indices to Design Cases [Abstract] A major issue in case-basedsystems is retrieving the appropriate cases from memory to solve a given problem. This implies that a case should be indexed appropriately when stored in memory. A case-based system, being dynamic in that it stores cases for reuse, needs to learn indices for the new knowledge as the system designers cannot envision that knowledge. Irrespective of the type of indexing (structural or functional), a hierarchical organization of the case memory raises two distinct but related issues in index learning: learning the indexing vocabulary and learning the right level of generalization. In this paper we show how structure-behavior-function (SBF) models help in learning structural indices to design cases in the domain of physical devices. The SBF model of a design provides the functional and causal explanation of how the structure of the design delivers its function. We describe how the SBF model of a design provides both the vocabulary for structural indexing of design cases and the inductive biases for index generalization. We further discuss how model-based learning can be integrated with similarity-based learning (that uses prior design cases) for learning the level of index generalization. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1116397. 	[Title] Design, Analogy, and Creativity [Abstract] : Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #91853. 	[Title] GIT-CC-92/60 A Model-Based Approach to Analogical Reasoning and Learning in Design [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #943. 	[Title] Indexing, Elaboration and Refinement: Incremental Learning of Explanatory Cases [Abstract] This article describes how a reasoner can improve its understanding of an incompletely understood domain through the application of what it already knows to novel problems in that domain. Case-based reasoning is the process of using past experiences stored in the reasoner's memory to understand novel situations or solve novel problems. However, this process assumes that past experiences are well understood and provide good "lessons" to be used for future situations. This assumption is usually false when one is learning about a novel domain, since situations encountered previously in this domain might not have been understood completely. Furthermore, the reasoner may not even have a case that adequately deals with the new situation, or may not be able to access the case using existing indices. We present a theory of incremental learning based on the revision of previously existing case knowledge in response to experiences in such situations. The theory has been implemented in a case-based story understanding program that can (a) learn a new case in situations where no case already exists, (b) learn how to index the case in memory, and (c) incrementally refine its understanding of the case by using it to reason about new situations, thus evolving a better understanding of its domain through experience. This research complements work in case-based reasoning by providing mechanisms by which a case library can be automatically built for use by a case-based reasoning program. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #940. 	[Title] Decision Models: A Theory of Volitional Explanation [Abstract] This paper presents a theory of motivational analysis, the construction of volitional explanations to describe the planning behavior of agents. We discuss both the content of such explanations, as well as the process by which an understander builds the explanations. Explanations are constructed from decision models, which describe the planning process that an agent goes through when considering whether to perform an action. Decision models are represented as explanation patterns, which are standard patterns of causality based on previous experiences of the understander. We discuss the nature of explanation patterns, their use in representing decision models, and the process by which they are retrieved, used and evaluated. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #941. 	[Title] Incremental Learning of Explanation Patterns and their Indices [Abstract] This paper describes how a reasoner can improve its understanding of an incompletely understood domain through the application of what it already knows to novel problems in that domain. Recent work in AI has dealt with the issue of using past explanations stored in the reasoner's memory to understand novel situations. However, this process assumes that past explanations are well understood and provide good "lessons" to be used for future situations. This assumption is usually false when one is learning about a novel domain, since situations encountered previously in this domain might not have been understood completely. Instead, it is reasonable to assume that the reasoner would have gaps in its knowledge base. By reasoning about a new situation, the reasoner should be able to fill in these gaps as new information came in, reorganize its explanations in memory, and gradually evolve a better understanding of its domain. We present a story understanding program that retrieves past explanations from situations already in memory, and uses them to build explanations to understand novel stories about terrorism. In doing so, the system refines its understanding of the domain by filling in gaps in these explanations, by elaborating the explanations, or by learning new indices for the explanations. This is a type of incremental learning since the system improves its explanatory knowledge of the domain in an incremental fashion rather than by learning new XPs as a whole. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20178. 	[Title] Discovery of Physical Principles from Design Experiences [Abstract] One method for making analogies is to access and instantiate abstract domain principles, and one method for acquiring knowledge of abstract principles is to discover them from experience. We view generalization over experiences in the absence of any prior knowledge of the target principle as the task of hypothesis formation, a subtask of discovery. Also, we view the use of the hypothesized principles for analogical design as the task of hypothesis testing, another subtask of discovery. In this paper, we focus on discovery of physical principles by generalization over design experiences in the domain of physical devices. Some important issues in generalization from experiences are what to generalize from an experience, how far to generalize, and what methods to use. We represent a reasoner's comprehension of specific designs in the form of structure-behavior-function (SBF) models. An SBF model provides a functional and causal explanation of the working of a device. We represent domain principles as device-independent behavior-function (BF) models. We show that (i) the function of a device determines what to generalize from its SBF model, (ii) the SBF model itself suggests how far to generalize, and (iii) the typology of functions indicates what method to use. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20179. 	[Title] Use of Mental Models for Constraining Index Learning in Experience-Based Design [Abstract] The power of the case-based method comes from the ability to retrieve the "right" case when a new problem is specified. This implies that learning the "right" indices to a case before storing it for potential reuse is crucial for the success of the method. A hierarchical organization of the case memory raises two distinct but related issues in index learning: learning the indexing vocabulary, and learning the right level of generalization. In this paper we show how the use of structure-behavior-function (SBF) models constrains index learning in the context of experience-based design of physical devices. The SBF model of a design provides the functional and causal explanation of how the structure of the design delivers its function. We describe how the SBF model of a design, together with a specification of the task for which the design case might be reused, provides the vocabulary for indexing the design case in memory. We also discuss how the prior design experiences stored in case-memory help to determine the level of index generalization. The KRITIK2 system implements and evaluates the model-based method for learning indices to design cases. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3828. 	[Title] A theory of questions and question asking [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110579. 	[Title] Modeling Invention by Analogy in ACT-R [Abstract] We investigate some aspects of cognition involved in invention, more precisely in the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell. We propose the use of the Structure-Behavior-Function (SBF) language for the representation of invention knowledge; we claim that because SBF has been shown to support a wide range of reasoning about physical devices, it constitutes a plausible account of how an inventor might represent knowledge of an invention. We further propose the use of the ACT-R architecture for the implementation of this model. ACT-R has been shown to very precisely model a wide range of human cognition. We draw upon the architecture for execution of productions and matching of declarative knowledge through spreading activation. Thus we present a model which combines the well-established cognitive validity of ACT-R with the powerful, specialized model-based reasoning methods facilitated by SBF. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #129558. 	[Title] A Goal-Based Approach to Intelligent Information Retrieval [Abstract] Intelligent information retrieval (IIR) requires inference. The number of inferences that can be drawn by even a simple reasoner is very large, and the inferential resources available to any practical computer system are limited. This problem is one long faced by AI researchers. In this paper, we present a method used by two recent machine learning programs for control of inference that is relevant to the design of IIR systems. The key feature of the approach is the use of explicit representations of desired knowledge, which we call knowledge goals. Our theory addresses the representation of knowledge goals, methods for generating and transforming these goals, and heuristics for selecting among potential inferences in order to feasibly satisfy such goals. In this view, IIR becomes a kind of planning: decisions about what to infer, how to infer and when to infer are based on representations of desired knowledge, as well as internal representations of the system's inferential abilities and current state. The theory is illustrated using two case studies, a natural language understanding program that learns by reading novel newspaper stories, and a differential diagnosis program that improves its accuracy with experience. We conclude by making several suggestions on how this machine learning framework can be integrated with existing information retrieval methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1116410. 	[Title] METHOD-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE COMPILATION: TOWARDS PRACTICAL DESIGN SUPPORT SYSTEMS [Abstract] Modern knowledge systems for design typically employ multiple problem-solving methods which in turn use different kinds of knowledge. The construction of a heterogeneous knowledge system that can support practical design thus raises two fundamental questions: how to accumulate huge volumes of design information, and how to support heterogeneous design processing? Fortunately, partial answers to both questions exist separately. Legacy databases already contain huge amounts of general-purpose design information. In addition, modern knowledge systems typically characterize the kinds of knowledge needed by specific problem-solving methods quite precisely. This leads us to hypothesize method-specific data-to-knowledge compilation as a potential mechanism for integrating heterogeneous knowledge systems and legacy databases for design. In this paper, first we outline a general computational architecture called HIPED for this integration. Then, we focus on the specific issue of how to convert data accessed from a legacy database into a form appropriate to the problem-solving method used in a heterogeneous knowledge system. We describe an experiment in which a legacy knowledge system called Interactive Kritik is integrated with an ORACLE database using IDI as the communication tool. The limited experiment indicates the computational feasibility of method-specific data-to-knowledge compilation, but also raises additional research issues. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #20180 has the title `Learning Indices for Schema Selection  
` and the abstract `In addition to learning new knowledge, a system must be able to learn when the knowledge is likely to be applicable. An index is a piece of information which, when identified in a given situation, triggers the relevant piece of knowledge (or schema) in the system's memory. We discuss the issue of how indices may be learned automatically in the context of a story understanding task, and present a program that can learn new indices for existing explanatory schemas. We discuss two methods using which the system can identify the relevant schema even if the input does not directly match an existing index, and learn a new index to allow it to retrieve this schema more efficiently in the future.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #20180 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #20180 has the title `Learning Indices for Schema Selection  
` and the abstract `In addition to learning new knowledge, a system must be able to learn when the knowledge is likely to be applicable. An index is a piece of information which, when identified in a given situation, triggers the relevant piece of knowledge (or schema) in the system's memory. We discuss the issue of how indices may be learned automatically in the context of a story understanding task, and present a program that can learn new indices for existing explanatory schemas. We discuss two methods using which the system can identify the relevant schema even if the input does not directly match an existing index, and learn a new index to allow it to retrieve this schema more efficiently in the future.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #20180 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Case_Based