Incremental concept learning and case-based reasoning: For a co-operative approach

  • Isabelle Bichindaritz
Theoretical Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1020)


In case-based reasoning systems, the hierarchical memory organization presents the same set of problems as conceptual clustering learnt hierarchies. The co-operation between these two artificial intelligence methodologies gives several advantages. In case-based reasoning, memory and reasoning are closely linked. So the quality of the reasoning process is highly dependent upon that of the memory. Incremental concept learning permits to optimize the memory structures and organization. It also enlarges the application range of case-based reasoning. In incremental concept learning, case-based reasoning proposes its whole architecture, and above all its memory, from which the learning process can benefit, particularly for remedying the problem of the dependence upon the order of presentation of the instances, which is a crucial problem for this type of learning. It also permits the use of theoretical knowledge to explain the concepts learnt. This article presents a case-based reasoning system taking advantage from this co-operative approach.


Cognitive Task Reasoning Process Dynamic Memory Conceptual Cluster Description Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7(1) (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bichindaritz, I.: A case-based reasoning system using a control case-base. In: Proceedings ECAI-94, T. Cohn (Edt.) (1994) 38–42Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bichindaritz, I.: A case-based assistant for clinical psychiatry expertise. In: Proceedings 18th Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, AMIA, Washington DC (1994) 673–677Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bichindaritz, I.: Apprentissage de concepts dans une mémoire dynamique: raisonnement à partir de cas adaptable à la tâche cognitive. Ph.D. thesis of University René Descartes Paris (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bichindaritz, I.: A case-based reasoner adaptive to different cognitive tasks. In: Proceedings ICCBR, A. Aamodt and M. Veloso (Edts.), Springer-Verlag LNCS/LNAI (to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callan, J., Fawcett T., Rissland E.: CABOT: an adaptive approach to case-based search. In: Proceedings of AAAI-92, Cambridge, MA (1992) 803–808Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clancey, W.: Heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence 27 (1985) 289–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cornuéjols, A.: Getting order independence in incremental learning. In: Proceedings of the European Working Session on Learning (1993) 196–212Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher, D.: Knowledge acquisition via incremental conceptual clustering. Machine Learning 2 (1987) 139–172Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gennari, J., Langley P., Fisher D.: Models of incremental concept formation. Artificial Intelligence 40 (1989) 11–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Houdé, O.: Catégorisation et développement cognitif. Presses Universitaires de France Paris (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kodratoff, Y., Michalski, R. (Edts.): Machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach volume 3. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Mateo CA (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolodner, J.: Maintaining organization in a dynamic long-term memory. Cognitive Science 7 (1983) 243–280Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kolodner, J.: Reconstructive memory: a computer model. Cognitive Science 7 (1983) 281–328Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kolodner, J.: Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers San Mateo California (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolodner, J., Riesbeck, C. (Edts.): Experience, memory and reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale New Jersey (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lebowitz, M.: Generalization from natural language text. Cognitive Science 7 (1983) 1–40Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lebowitz, M.: Concept learning in a rich input domain: generalization-based memory. In: machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach Vol 2, Michalski, R., Carbonell, J., Mitchell, T. (Edts.) Morgan Kaufmann Los Altos CA (1986)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lebowitz, M.: Experiments with incremental concept formation: UNIMEM. Machine learning 2 (1987) 103–138Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lebowitz, M.: Deferred commitment in UNIMEM: waiting to learn. In: Proceedings 5th Machine Learning Conference. Ann Arbor Michigan (1988) 80–86Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medin, D.: Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist Vol. 44 No. 12 (1989) 1461–1481Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ram, A.: Indexing, elaboration and refinement: incremental learning of explanatory cases. In: Case-based learning, Kolodner J. (Edt.) Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston (1993) 7–54Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schank, R.: Conceptual information processing. North-Holland Amsterdam (1975)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schank, R.: Dynamic memory. A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Camdridge University Press Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schank, R., Abelson, R.: Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale New Jersey (1977)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woo-Kyoung, A., Medin, D.: A two-stage model of category construction. Cognitive Science 16 (1992) 81–121Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Bichindaritz
    • 1
  1. 1.LIAP-5, U.F.R. de Mathématiques et InformatiqueParis Cedex 06France

Personalised recommendations