On the role of abstraction in case-based reasoning

  • Ralph Bergmann
  • Wolfgang Wilke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1168)

Abstract

This paper addresses the role of abstraction in case-based reasoning. We develop a general framework for reusing cases at several levels of abstraction, which is particularly suited for describing and analyzing existing and designing new approaches of this kind. We argue that in synthetic tasks (e.g. configuration, design, and planning), abstraction can be successfully used to improve the efficiency of similarity assessment, retrieval, and adaptation. Furthermore, a case-based planning system, called Paris, is described and analyzed in detail using this framework. An empirical study done with Paris demonstrates significant advantages concerning retrieval and adaptation efficiency as well as flexibility of adaptation. Finally, we show how other approaches from the literature can be classified according to the developed framework.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Aamodt and E. Plaza. Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications, 7(1):39–59, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Bergmann. Effizientes Problemlösen durch flexible Wiederverwendung von Fällen auf verschiedenen Abstraktionsebenen. PhD thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Bergmann, G. Pews, and W. Wilke. Explanation-based similarity: A unifying approach for integrating domain knowledge into case-based reasoning. In S. Wess, K.-D. Althoff, and M.M. Richter, editors, Topics in Case-Based Reasoning, volume 837 of Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence, pages 182–196. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Bergmann and W. Wilke. Building and refining abstract planning cases by change of representation language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 3:53–118, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Branting and D. Aha. Stratified case-based reasoning: Reusing hierarchical problem solving episodes. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 384–390, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Cunningham, D. Finn, and S. Slattery. Knowledge engineering requirements in derivational analogy. volume 1 of LNAI, pages 234–245. Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2:189–208, 1971.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. G. Francis and A. Ram. The utility problem in case-based reasoning. In Proceedings AAAI-93 Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Giunchiglia and T. Walsh. A theory of abstraction. Artificial Intelligence, 57:323–389, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Hanney, M. Keane, B. Smyth, and P. Cunningham. Systems, tasks and adaptation knowledge: Revealing some revealing dependencies. In M. Veloso and A. Aamodt, editors, Case-based Reasoning Research and Development, volume 1010 of Lecture Notes in AI, pages 461–470, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. C. Holte, T. Mkadmi, R. M. Zimmer, and A. J. MacDonald. Speeding up problem solving by abstraction: A graph-oriented approach. Technical report, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Kambhampati and J. Hendler. A validation-structure-based theory of plan modifications. Artificial Intelligence, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. L. Kolodner. Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Minsky. Steps toward artificial intelligence. In E. Feigenbaum, editor, Computers and Thought. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1963.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. M. Mitchell, R. M. Keller, and S. T. Kedar-Cabelli. Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning, 1(1):47–80, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerd Pews and Stefan Wess. Combining case-based and model-based approaches for diagnostic applications in technical domains. In Proceedings EWCBR93, volume 2, pages 325–328, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E.D. Sacerdoti. Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces. Artificial Intelligence, 5:115–135, 1974.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. C. Schank. Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Smyth and P. Cunningham. Deja vu: A hierarchical case-based reasoning system for software design. In ECAI-92, pages 587–589, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Smyth and M. Keane. Retrieving adaptable cases. In S. Wess, K.-D. Althoff, and M. M. Richter, editors, Topics in Case-Based Reasoning, pages 209–220. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Smyth and M. Keane. Remembering to forget: A competence-preserving case deletion policy for case-based reasoning systems. In Chris S. Mellish, editor, Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 377–383. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Tambe and A. Newell. Some chunks are expensive. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 451–458, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Veloso, H. Munioz, and R. Bergmann. Case-based planning: Selected methods and systems. AI Communications, 1996. (in press).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Voss. Exploiting previous solutions — made easy. ftp://ftp.gmd.de//GMD/airesearch/Publications/Fabel/Prev-sol-voss.ps.gz, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph Bergmann
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Wilke
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Learning Systems and Applications (LSA), Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations