Integrating rule induction and case-based reasoning to enhance problem solving

  • Aijun An
  • Nick Cercone
  • Christine Chan
Scientific Papers Integrated Approaches
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1266)


We present a new method that integrates rule induction and case-based reasoning. The method is new in two aspects. First, it applies a novel feature weighting function for assessing similarities between cases. By using this weighting function, optimal case retrieval is achieved in that the most relevant cases can be retrieved from the case base. Second, the method handles both classification and numeric prediction tasks under a mixed paradigm of rule-based and case-based reasoning. Before problem solving, rule induction is performed to induce a set of decision rules from a set of training data. The rules are then employed to determine some parameters in the new weighting function. The induced rules are also used to detect possible noise in the training set so that noisy cases are not used in case-based reasoning. For classification tasks, rules are applied to make decisions; if there is a conflict between matched rules, case-based reasoning is performed. The method was implemented in ELEM2-CBR, a learning and problem solving system. We demonstrate the performance of ELEM2-CBR by comparing it with other methods on a number of designed and real-world problems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Althoff, K., Wess, S. and Traphoner, R. 1995. “INRECA — A Seamless Integration of Induction and Case-Based Reasoning for Decision Support Tasks”. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop of the German Special Interest Group on Machine Learning.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    An, A. 1997. Integrated Analysis Tools for Enhanced Problem Solving. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Regina, Regina, Canada. To appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, W.S. 1973. “On Selecting a Measure of Retrieval Effectiveness.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Vol. 24, pp. 87–100.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Creecy, R.H., Masand, B.M., Smith, S.J. and Waltz, D.L. 1992. “Trading MIPS and Memory for Knowledge Engineering”. Communications of the ACM, 35, pp. 48–64.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domingos, P. 1995. “Rule Induction and Instance-Based Learning: A Unified Approach.” IJCAI-95. Montreal, Canada. pp.1226–1232.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quinlan, J.R. 1993. C4-5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson, S.E. and Sparck Jones, K. 1976. “Relevance Weighting of Search Terms”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Vol. 27, pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robertson, S.E. 1977. “The Probability Ranking Principle in IR”. Journal of Documentation. Vol. 33, No.4, pp. 294–304.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang, J. 1990. “A Method That Combines Inductive Learning with Exemplar-Based Learning”, Proceedings of the 2nd International IEEE Conference on Tools for Artificial Intelligence, Herndon, VA. pp.31–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aijun An
    • 1
  • Nick Cercone
    • 1
  • Christine Chan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations