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 #1114336. 	[Title] Four Challenges for a Computational Model of Legal Precedent [Abstract] Identifying the open research issues in a field is a necessary step for progress in that field. This paper describes four open research problems in computational models of precedent-based legal reasoning: relating case representation to precedent use; modeling the selection and construction of both arguments based on pairwise case comparison and multiple-precedent arguments; modeling the process whereby purposes, policies, and principles are used in case similarity assessment; and extending the applicability of precedents to tasks other than classification. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110947. 	[Title] Lazy Induction Triggered by CBR [Abstract] In recent years, case-based reasoning has been demonstrated to be highly useful for problem solving in complex domains. Also, mixed paradigm approaches emerged for combining CBR and induction techniques aiming at verifying the knowledge and/or building an efficient case memory. However, in complex domains induction over the whole problem space is often not possible or too time consuming. In this paper, an approach is presented which (owing to a close interaction with the CBR part) attempts to induce rules only for a particular context, i.e. for a problem just being solved by a CBR-oriented system. These rules may then be used for indexing purposes or similarity assessment in order to support the CBR process in the future. 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 #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 #10186. 	[Title] Learning Default Concepts [Abstract] Classical concepts, based on necessary and sufficient defining conditions, cannot classify logically insufficient object descriptions. Many reasoning systems avoid this limitation by using "default concepts" to classify incompletely described objects. We address the task of learning such default concepts from observational data. We model the underlying performance task | classifying incomplete examples | by a probabilistic process where random test examples are passed through a "blocker" that can hide object attributes from the classifier. We then address the task of learning accurate default concepts from random training examples. We survey the learning techniques that have been proposed for this task in the machine learning and knowledge representation literatures, investigate the relative merits of each, and show that a superior learning technique can be developed from well known statistical principles. Finally, we extend Valiant's pac-learning framework to this context and obtain a number of useful learnability results. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1108267. 	[Title] Cooperative Bayesian and Case-Based Reasoning for Solving Multiagent Planning Tasks [Abstract] We describe an integrated problem solving architecture named INBANCA in which Bayesian networks and case-based reasoning (CBR) work cooperatively on multiagent planning tasks. This includes two-team dynamic tasks, and this paper concentrates on simulated soccer as an example. Bayesian networks are used to characterize action selection whereas a case-based approach is used to determine how to implement actions. This paper has two contributions. First, we survey integrations of case-based and Bayesian approaches from the perspective of a popular CBR task decomposition framework, thus explaining what types of integrations have been attempted. This allows us to explain the unique aspects of our proposed integration. Second, we demonstrate how Bayesian nets can be used to provide environmental context, and thus feature selection information, for the case-based reasoner. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6378. 	[Title] Learning to coordinate without sharing information [Abstract] Researchers in the field of Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) have been developing efficient mechanisms to coordinate the activities of multiple autonomous agents. The need for coordination arises because agents have to share resources and expertise required to achieve their goals. Previous work in the area includes using sophisticated information exchange protocols, investigating heuristics for negotiation, and developing formal models of possibilities of conflict and cooperation among agent interests. In order to handle the changing requirements of continuous and dynamic environments, we propose learning as a means to provide additional possibilities for effective coordination. We use reinforcement learning techniques on a block pushing problem to show that agents can learn complimentary policies to follow a desired path without any knowledge about each other. We theoretically analyze and experimentally verify the effects of learning rate on system convergence, and demonstrate benefits of using learned coordination knowledge on similar problems. Reinforcement learning based coordination can be achieved in both cooperative and non-cooperative domains, and in domains with noisy communication channels and other stochastic characteristics that present a formidable challenge to using other coordination schemes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10798. 	[Title] Learning physical descriptions from functional definitions, examples, Learning from examples: The effect of different conceptual [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #47570. 	[Title] Justification Structures for Document Reuse [Abstract] Document drafting|an important problem-solving task of professionals in a wide variety of fields|typifies a design task requiring complex adaptation for case reuse. This paper proposes a framework for document reuse based on an explicit representation of the illocutionary and rhetorical structure underlying documents. Explicit representation of this structure facilitates (1) interpretation of previous documents by enabling them to "explain themselves," (2) construction of documents by enabling document drafters to issue goal-based specifications and rapidly retrieve documents with similar intentional structure, and (3) mainte nance of multi-generation documents. 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 #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 #54550. 	[Title] Analysis and Empirical Studies of Derivational Analogy [Abstract] Derivational analogy is a technique for reusing problem solving experience to improve problem solving performance. This research addresses an issue common to all problem solvers that use derivational analogy: overcoming the mismatches between past experiences and new problems that impede reuse. First, this research describes the variety of mismatches that can arise and proposes a new approach to derivational analogy that uses appropriate adaptation strategies for each. Second, it compares this approach with seven others in a common domain. This empirical study shows that derivational analogy is almost always more efficient than problem solving from scratch, but the amount it contributes depends on its ability to overcome mismatches Please summarise all the given information.

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 #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 #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 #259772. 	[Title] Reasoning with Portions of Precedents [Abstract] This paper argues that the task of matching in case-based reasoning can often be improved by comparing new cases to portions of precedents. An example is presented that illustrates how combining portions of multiple precedents can permit new cases to be resolved that would be indeterminate if new cases could only be compared to entire precedents. A system that uses of portions of precedents for legal analysis in the domain of Texas worker's compensation law, GREBE, is described, and examples of GREBE's analysis that combine reasoning steps from multiple precedents are presented. 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 #10430 has the title `Rules and Precedents as Complementary Warrants Complementarity of Rules and Precedents for Classification In a
` and the 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 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #10430 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #10430 has the title `Rules and Precedents as Complementary Warrants Complementarity of Rules and Precedents for Classification In a
` and the 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 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #10430 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