Object-oriented case representations require approaches for similarity assessment that allow to compare two differently structured objects, in particular, objects belonging to different object classes. Currently, such similarity measures are developed more or less in an ad-hoc fashion. It is mostly unclear, how the structure of an object-oriented case model, e.g., the class hierarchy, influences similarity assessment. Intuitively, it is obvious that the class hierarchy contains knowledge about the similarity of the objects. However, how this knowledge relates to the knowledge that could be represented in similarity measures is not obvious at all. This paper analyzes several situations in which class hierarchies are used in different ways for case modeling and proposes a systematic way of specifying similarity measures for comparing arbitrary objects from the hierarchy. The proposed similarity measures have a clear semantics and are computationally inexpensive to compute at run-time.
When problems are solved through reasoning from cases, the primary kind of knowledge is contained in the specific cases which are stored in the case base. However, in many situations additional background-knowledge is required to cope with the requirements of an application. We describe an approach to integrate such general knowledge into the reasoning process in a way that it complements the knowledge contained in the cases. This general knowledge itself is not sufficient to perform any kind of model-based problem solving, but it is required to interpret the available cases appropriately. Background knowledge is expressed by two different kinds of rules that both must be formalized by the knowledge engineer: Completion rules describe how to infer additional features out of known features of an old case or the current query case. Adaptation rules describe how an old case can be adapted to fit the current query. This paper shows how these kinds of rules can be integrated into an object-oriented case representation.
This paper presents a brief overview of the INRECA-II methodology for building and maintaining CBR applications. It is based on the experience factory and the software process modeling approach from software engineering. CBR development and maintenance experience is documented using software process models and stored in a three-layered experience packet.
Although several systematic analyses of existing approaches to adaptation have been published recently, a general formal adaptation framework is still missing. This paper presents a step into the direction of developing such a formal model of transformational adaptation. The model is based on the notion of the quality of a solution to a problem, while quality is meant in a more general sense and can also denote some kind of appropriateness, utility, or degree of correctness. Adaptation knowledge is then defined in terms of functions transforming one case into a successor case. The notion of quality provides us with a semantics for adaptation knowledge and allows us to define terms like soundness, correctness and completeness. In this view, adaptation (and even the whole CBR process) appears to be a special instance of an optimization problem.
For defining attribute types to be used in the case representation, taxonomies occur quite often. The symbolic values at any node of the taxonomy tree are used as attribute values in a case or a query. A taxonomy type represents a relationship between the symbols through their position within the taxonomy-tree which expresses knowledge about the similarity between the symbols. This paper analyzes several situations in which taxonomies are used in different ways and proposes a systematic way of specifying local similarity measures for taxonomy types. The proposed similarity measures have a clear semantics and are easy to compute at runtime.
This paper motivates the necessity for support for negotiation during Sales Support on the Internet within Case-Based Reasoning solutions. Different negotiation approaches are discussed and a general model of the sales process is presented. Further, the tradition al CBR-cycle is modified in such a way that iterative retrieval during a CBR consulting session is covered by the new model. Several gen eral characteristics of negotiation are described and a case study is shown where preliminary approaches are used to negotiate with a cu stomer about his demands and available products in a 'CBR-based' Electronic Commerce solution.
Planning means constructing a course of actions to achieve a specified set of goals when starting from an initial situation. For example, determining a sequence of actions (a plan) for transporting goods from an initial location to some destination is a typical planning problem in the transportation domain. Many planning problems are of practical interest.
Paris (Plan Abstraction and Refinement in an Integrated System) [4, 2] is a domain independent case-based planning system which allows the flexible reuse of planning cases by abstraction and refinement. This approach is mainly inspired by the observation that reuse of plans must not be restricted to a single description level. In domains with a high variation in the problems, the reuse of past solutions must be achieved at various levels of abstraction.
In this paper, we propose the PARIS approach for improving complex problem solving by learning from previous cases. In this approach, abstract planning cases are learned from given concrete cases. For this purpose, we have developed a new abstraction methodology that allows to completely change the representation language of a planning case, when the concrete and abstract languages are given by the user. Furthermore, we present a learning algorithm which is correct and complete with respect to the introduced model. An empirical study in the domain of process planning in mechanical engineering shows significant improvements in planning efficiency through learning abstract cases while an explanation-based learning method only causes a very slight improvement.
Case-based problem solving can be significantly improved by applying domain knowledge (in opposition to problem solving knowledge), which can be acquired with reasonable effort, to derive explanations of the correctness of a case. Such explanations, constructed on several levels of abstraction, can be employed as the basis for similarity assessment as well as for adaptation by solution refinement. The general approach for explanation-based similarity can be applied to different real world problem solving tasks such as diagnosis and planning in technical areas. This paper presents the general idea as well as the two specific, completely implemented realizations for a diagnosis and a planning task.