Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3095. 	[Title] Constructive Similarity Assessment: Using Stored Cases to Define New Situations [Abstract] A fundamental issue in case-based reasoning is similarity assessment: determining similarities and differences between new and retrieved cases. Many methods have been developed for comparing input case descriptions to the cases already in memory. However, the success of such methods depends on the input case description being sufficiently complete to reflect the important features of the new situation, which is not assured. In case-based explanation of anomalous events during story understanding, the anomaly arises because the current situation is incompletely understood; consequently, similarity assessment based on matches between known current features and old cases is likely to fail because of gaps in the current case's description. Our solution to the problem of gaps in a new case's description is an approach that we call constructive similarity assessment. Constructive similarity assessment treats similarity assessment not as a simple comparison between fixed new and old cases, but as a process for deciding which types of features should be investigated in the new situation and, if the features are borne out by other knowledge, added to the description of the current case. Constructive similarity assessment does not merely compare new cases to old: using prior cases as its guide, it dynamically carves augmented descriptions of new cases out of memory. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1955. 	[Title] In Machine Learning: A Multistrategy Approach, Vol. IV  Macro and Micro Perspectives of Multistrategy Learning [Abstract] Machine learning techniques are perceived to have a great potential as means for the acquisition of knowledge; nevertheless, their use in complex engineering domains is still rare. Most machine learning techniques have been studied in the context of knowledge acquisition for well defined tasks, such as classification. Learning for these tasks can be handled by relatively simple algorithms. Complex domains present difficulties that can be approached by combining the strengths of several complementing learning techniques, and overcoming their weaknesses by providing alternative learning strategies. This study presents two perspectives, the macro and the micro, for viewing the issue of multistrategy learning. The macro perspective deals with the decomposition of an overall complex learning task into relatively well-defined learning tasks, and the micro perspective deals with designing multistrategy learning techniques for supporting the acquisition of knowledge for each task. The two perspectives are discussed in the context of Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1956. 	[Title] INFERENTIAL THEORY OF LEARNING: Developing Foundations for Multistrategy Learning [Abstract] The development of multistrategy learning systems should be based on a clear understanding of the roles and the applicability conditions of different learning strategies. To this end, this chapter introduces the Inferential Theory of Learning that provides a conceptual framework for explaining logical capabilities of learning strategies, i.e., their competence. Viewing learning as a process of modifying the learners knowledge by exploring the learners experience, the theory postulates that any such process can be described as a search in a knowledge space, triggered by the learners experience and guided by learning goals. The search operators are instantiations of knowledge transmutations, which are generic patterns of knowledge change. Transmutations may employ any basic type of inferencededuction, induction or analogy. Several fundamental knowledge transmutations are described in a novel and general way, such as generalization, abstraction, explanation and similization, and their counterparts, specialization, concretion, prediction and dissimilization, respectively. Generalization enlarges the reference set of a description (the set of entities that are being described). Abstraction reduces the amount of the detail about the reference set. Explanation generates premises that explain (or imply) the given properties of the reference set. Similization transfers knowledge from one reference set to a similar reference set. Using concepts of the theory, a multistrategy task-adaptive learning (MTL) methodology is outlined, and illustrated b y an example. MTL dynamically adapts strategies to the learning task, defined by the input information, learners background knowledge, and the learning goal. It aims at synergistically integrating a whole range of inferential learning strategies, such as empirical generalization, constructive induction, deductive generalization, explanation, prediction, abstraction, and similization. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #337766. 	[Title] Learning to Refine Indexing by Introspective Reasoning [Abstract] A significant problem for case-based reasoning (CBR) systems is deciding what features to use in judging case similarity for retrieval. We describe research that addresses the feature selection problem by using introspective reasoning to learn new features for indexing. Our method augments the CBR system with an introspective reasoning component which monitors system performance to detect poor retrievals, identifies features which would lead to retrieving cases requiring less adaptation, and refines the indices to include such features in order to avoid similar future failures. We explore the benefit of introspective reasoning by performing empirical tests on the implemented system. These tests examine the benefits of introspective index refinement and the effects of problem order on case and index learning, and show that introspective learning of new index features improves overall performance across the range of different problem orders. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10183. 	[Title] Concept Learning and Heuristic Classification in Weak-Theory Domains 1 [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3112. 	[Title] Supporting Combined Human and Machine Planning: An Interface for Planning by Analogical Reasoning [Abstract] Realistic and complex planning situations require a mixed-initiative planning framework in which human and automated planners interact to mutually construct a desired plan. Ideally, this joint cooperation has the potential of achieving better plans than either the human or the machine can create alone. Human planners often take a case-based approach to planning, relying on their past experience and planning by retrieving and adapting past planning cases. Planning by analogical reasoning in which generative and case-based planning are combined, as in Prodigy/Analogy, provides a suitable framework to study this mixed-initiative integration. However, having a human user engaged in this planning loop creates a variety of new research questions. The challenges we found creating a mixed-initiative planning system fall into three categories: planning paradigms differ in human and machine planning; visualization of the plan and planning process is a complex, but necessary task; and human users range across a spectrum of experience, both with respect to the planning domain and the underlying planning technology. This paper presents our approach to these three problems when designing an interface to incorporate a human into the process of planning by analogical reasoning with Prodigy/Analogy. The interface allows the user to follow both generative and case-based planning, it supports visualization of both plan and the planning rationale, and it addresses the variance in the experience of the user by allowing the user to control the presentation of information. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1120713. 	[Title] A Computational Model of Ratio Decidendi [Abstract] This paper proposes a model of ratio decidendi as a justification structure consisting of a series of reasoning steps, some of which relate abstract predicates to other abstract predicates and some of which relate abstract predicates to specific facts. This model satisfies an important set of characteristics of ratio decidendi identified from the jurisprudential literature. In particular, the model shows how the theory under which a case is decided controls its precedential effect. By contrast, a purely exemplar-based model of ratio decidendi fails to account for the dependency of prece-dential effect on the theory of decision. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3085. 	[Title] MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-based Retrieval [Abstract] We present a model of similarity-based retrieval which attempts to capture three psychological phenomena: (1) people are extremely good at judging similarity and analogy when given items to compare. (2) Superficial remindings are much more frequent than structural remindings. (3) People sometimes experience and use purely structural analogical re-mindings. Our model, called MAC/FAC (for "many are called but few are chosen") consists of two stages. The first stage (MAC) uses a computationally cheap, non-structural matcher to filter candidates from a pool of memory items. That is, we redundantly encode structured representations as content vectors, whose dot product yields an estimate of how well the corresponding structural representations will match. The second stage (FAC) uses SME to compute a true structural match between the probe and output from the first stage. MAC/FAC has been fully implemented, and we show that it is capable of modeling patterns of access found in psychological data. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #110162. 	[Title] Case-Based Similarity Assessment: Estimating Adaptability from Experience [Abstract] Case-based problem-solving systems rely on similarity assessment to select stored cases whose solutions are easily adaptable to fit current problems. However, widely-used similarity assessment strategies, such as evaluation of semantic similarity, can be poor predictors of adaptability. As a result, systems may select cases that are difficult or impossible for them to adapt, even when easily adaptable cases are available in memory. This paper presents a new similarity assessment approach which couples similarity judgments directly to a case library containing the system's adaptation knowledge. It examines this approach in the context of a case-based planning system that learns both new plans and new adaptations. Empirical tests of alternative similarity assessment strategies show that this approach enables better case selection and increases the benefits accrued from learned adaptations. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #110163. 	[Title] Learning to Integrate Multiple Knowledge Sources for Case-Based Reasoning [Abstract] The case-based reasoning process depends on multiple overlapping knowledge sources, each of which provides an opportunity for learning. Exploiting these opportunities requires not only determining the learning mechanisms to use for each individual knowledge source, but also how the different learning mechanisms interact and their combined utility. This paper presents a case study examining the relative contributions and costs involved in learning processes for three different knowledge sources|cases, case adaptation knowledge, and similarity information|in a case-based planner. It demonstrates the importance of interactions between different learning processes and identifies a promising method for integrating multiple learning methods to improve case-based reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #110164. 	[Title] A Case Study of Case-Based CBR [Abstract] Case-based reasoning depends on multiple knowledge sources beyond the case library, including knowledge about case adaptation and criteria for similarity assessment. Because hand coding this knowledge accounts for a large part of the knowledge acquisition burden for developing CBR systems, it is appealing to acquire it by learning, and CBR is a promising learning method to apply. This observation suggests developing case-based CBR systems, CBR systems whose components themselves use CBR. However, despite early interest in case-based approaches to CBR, this method has received comparatively little attention. Open questions include how case-based components of a CBR system should be designed, the amount of knowledge acquisition effort they require, and their effectiveness. This paper investigates these questions through a case study of issues addressed, methods used, and results achieved by a case-based planning system that uses CBR to guide its case adaptation and similarity assessment. The paper discusses design considerations and presents empirical results that support the usefulness of case-based CBR, that point to potential problems and tradeoffs, and that directly demonstrate the overlapping roles of different CBR knowledge sources. The paper closes with general lessons about case-based CBR and areas for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #22869. 	[Title] Applying Case-Based Reasoning to Control in Robotics [Abstract] The proposed architecture is experimentally evaluated on two real world domains and the results are compared to other machine learning algorithms applied to the same problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #218682. 	[Title] How to Retrieve Relevant Information? [Abstract] The document presents an approach to judging relevance of retrieved information based on a novel approach to similarity assessment. Contrary to other systems, we define relevance measures (context in similarity) at query time. This is necessary if since without a context in similarity one cannot guarantee that similar items will also be relevant. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #83449. 	[Title] Context-Based Similarity Applied to Retrieval of Relevant Cases [Abstract] Retrieving relevant cases is a crucial component of case-based reasoning systems. The task is to use user-defined query to retrieve useful information, i.e., exact matches or partial matches which are close to query-defined request according to certain measures. The difficulty stems from the fact that it may not be easy (or it may be even impossible) to specify query requests precisely and completely resulting in a situation known as a fuzzy-querying. It is usually not a problem for small domains, but for a large repositories which store various information (multifunctional information bases or a federated databases), a request specification becomes a bottleneck. Thus, a flexible retrieval algorithm is required, allowing for imprecise query specification and for changing the viewpoint. Efficient database techniques exists for locating exact matches. Finding relevant partial matches might be a problem. This document proposes a context-based similarity as a basis for flexible retrieval. Historical bacground on research in similarity assessment is presented and is used as a motivation for formal definition of context-based similarity. We also describe a similarity-based retrieval system for multifunctinal information bases. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #22874. 	[Title] A Similarity-Based Retrieval Tool for Software Repositories [Abstract] In this paper we present a prototype of a flexible similarity-based retrieval system. Its flexibility is supported by allowing for an imprecisely specified query. Moreover, our algorithm allows for assessing if the retrieved items are relevant in the initial context, specified in the query. The presented system can be used as a supporting tool for a software repository. We also discuss system evaluation with concerns on usefulness, scalability, applicability and comparability. Evaluation of the T A3 system on three domains gives us encouraging results and an integration of TA3 into a real software repository as a retrieval tool is ongoing. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3101. 	[Title] Acquiring Case Adaptation Knowledge: A Hybrid Approach [Abstract] The ability of case-based reasoning (CBR) systems to apply cases to novel situations depends on their case adaptation knowledge. However, endowing CBR systems with adequate adaptation knowledge has proven to be a very difficult task. This paper describes a hybrid method for performing case adaptation, using a combination of rule-based and case-based reasoning. It shows how this approach provides a framework for acquiring flexible adaptation knowledge from experiences with autonomous adaptation and suggests its potential as a basis for acquisition of adaptation knowledge from interactive user guidance. It also presents initial experimental results examining the benefits of the approach and comparing the relative contributions of case learning and adaptation learning to reasoning performance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10430. 	[Title] Rules and Precedents as Complementary Warrants Complementarity of Rules and Precedents for Classification In a [Abstract] This paper describes a model of the complementarity of rules and precedents in the classification task. Under this model, precedents assist rule-based reasoning by operationalizing abstract rule antecedents. Conversely, rules assist case-based reasoning through case elaboration, the process of inferring case facts in order to increase the similarity between cases, and term reformulation, the process of replacing a term whose precedents only weakly match a case with terms whose precedents strongly match the case. Fully exploiting this complementarity requires a control strategy characterized by impartiality, the absence of arbitrary ordering restrictions on the use of rules and precedents. An impartial control strategy was implemented in GREBE in the domain of Texas worker's compensation law. In a preliminary evaluation, GREBE's performance was found to be as good or slightly better than the performance of law students on the same task. A case is classified as belonging to a particular category by relating its description to the criteria for category membership. The justifications, or warrants [Toulmin, 1958], that can relate a case to a category, can vary widely in the generality of their antecedents. For example, consider warrants for classifying a case into the legal category "negligence." A rule, such as "An action is negligent if the actor fails to use reasonable care and the failure is the proximate cause of an injury," has very general antecedent terms (e.g., "breach of reasonable care"). Conversely, a precedent, such as "Dr. Jones was negligent because he failed to count sponges during surgery and as a result left a sponge in Smith," has very specific antecedent terms (e.g., "failure to count sponges"). Both types of warrants have been used by classification systems to relate cases to categories. Classification systems have used precedents to help match the antecedents of rules with cases. Completing this match is difficult when the terms in the antecedent are open-textured, i.e., when there is significant uncertainty whether they match specific facts [Gardner, 1984, McCarty and Sridharan, 1982]. This problem results from the "generality gap" separating abstract terms from specific facts [Porter et al., 1990]. Precedents of an open-textured term, i.e., past cases to which the term applied, can be used to bridge this gap. Unlike rule antecedents, the antecedents of precedents are at the same level of generality as cases, so no generality gap exists between precedents and new cases. Precedents therefore reduce the problem of matching specific case facts with open-textured terms to the problem of matching two sets of specific facts. For example, an injured employee's entitlement to worker's compensation depends on whether he was injured during an activity "in furtherance of employment." Determining whether any particular case should be classified as a compensable injury therefore requires matching the specific facts of the case (e.g., John was injured in an automobile accident while driving to his office) to the open-textured term "activity in furtherance of employment." The gap in generality between the case description and the abstract term makes this match problematical. However, completing this match may be much easier if there are precedents of the term "activity in furtherance of employment" (e.g., Mary's injury was not compensable because it occurred while she was driving to work, which is not an activity in furtherance of employment; Bill's injury was compensable because it occurred while he was driving to a house to deliver a pizza, an activity in furtherance of employment). In this case, John's driving to his office closely matches Mary's driving to work, so Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1951. 	[Title] Adaptive Similarity Assessment for Case-Based Explanation.* [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #3095 has the title `Constructive Similarity Assessment: Using Stored Cases to Define New Situations  
` and the abstract `A fundamental issue in case-based reasoning is similarity assessment: determining similarities and differences between new and retrieved cases. Many methods have been developed for comparing input case descriptions to the cases already in memory. However, the success of such methods depends on the input case description being sufficiently complete to reflect the important features of the new situation, which is not assured. In case-based explanation of anomalous events during story understanding, the anomaly arises because the current situation is incompletely understood; consequently, similarity assessment based on matches between known current features and old cases is likely to fail because of gaps in the current case's description. Our solution to the problem of gaps in a new case's description is an approach that we call constructive similarity assessment. Constructive similarity assessment treats similarity assessment not as a simple comparison between fixed new and old cases, but as a process for deciding which types of features should be investigated in the new situation and, if the features are borne out by other knowledge, added to the description of the current case. Constructive similarity assessment does not merely compare new cases to old: using prior cases as its guide, it dynamically carves augmented descriptions of new cases out of memory. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #3095 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #3095 has the title `Constructive Similarity Assessment: Using Stored Cases to Define New Situations  
` and the abstract `A fundamental issue in case-based reasoning is similarity assessment: determining similarities and differences between new and retrieved cases. Many methods have been developed for comparing input case descriptions to the cases already in memory. However, the success of such methods depends on the input case description being sufficiently complete to reflect the important features of the new situation, which is not assured. In case-based explanation of anomalous events during story understanding, the anomaly arises because the current situation is incompletely understood; consequently, similarity assessment based on matches between known current features and old cases is likely to fail because of gaps in the current case's description. Our solution to the problem of gaps in a new case's description is an approach that we call constructive similarity assessment. Constructive similarity assessment treats similarity assessment not as a simple comparison between fixed new and old cases, but as a process for deciding which types of features should be investigated in the new situation and, if the features are borne out by other knowledge, added to the description of the current case. Constructive similarity assessment does not merely compare new cases to old: using prior cases as its guide, it dynamically carves augmented descriptions of new cases out of memory. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #3095 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