Analogical Asides on Case-Based Reasoning

Mark T. Keane

Department of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, IRELAND



Abstract. This paper explores some of the similarities and differences
between cognitive models of analogy and case-based reasoning systems.
I first point out a paradox in the treatment of adaptation in analogy
and in case-based reasoning; a paradox which can be only resolved by
expanding the role of adaptation in cognitive models of analogy. Some
psychological research on the process of adaptation in human subjects
is reported and then the implications of this research are propagated
into analogy and then on into CBR. The argument is that some of the
existing stages in CBR should be integrated into a more stream-lined
architecture that would be more efficient than current schemes.
References

1.	Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (Whole
No. 270).
2.	Falkenhainer, B. (1987). An examination of the third stage in the analogy process:
Verification-based analogical learning. In Proceedings of the Tenth International
Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.
3.	Falkenhainer, B. (1990). A unified approach to explanation and theory formation.
In Shrager, J. & Langley, P. (Eds.), Computational Models of Scientific Discovery
and Theory Formation. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
4.	Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., & Gentner, D. (1986). Structure-mapping engine.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Association for Artificial
Intelligence.
5.	Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., & Gentner, D. (1989). Structure-mapping engine.
Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
6.	Forbus, K.D., Ferguson, R.W., & Gentner, D. (1994). Incremental structure mapping. 
In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive
Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
7.	Forbus, K.D. & Oblinger, D. (1990). Making SME greedy and pragmatic. Twelfth
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlhaum.
8.	Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive 
Science, 7,155-170.
9.	Gentner, D. (1989). Mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A.
Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. (pp. 267-297). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
10.	Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J., & Forbus, K.D. (1992). The roles of similarity in
transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
11.	Gick, ML., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
12.	Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction in analogical transfer.
Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
13.	Holyoak, K.J. (1985). The pragmatics of analogical transfer. The Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, 19, 59-87.
14.	Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P.R. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. 
Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.
15.	Keane, M. (1985). On drawing analogies when solving problems: A theory and
test of solution generation in an analogical problem solving task. British Journal
of Psychology, 76, 449-458.
16.	Keane, M.T. (1987). On retrieving analogues when solving problems. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 29-41.
17.	Keane, M.T. (1988). Analogical Problem Solving. Chichester: Ellis Horwood (Simon & 
Schuster in N.America).
18.	Keane, M.T. (1990). Incremental analogising: Theory and model. In K.J. Gilhooly,
M.T. Keane, R. Logie & G. Erdos (Eds.), Lines of Thinking: Reflections on the
Psychology of Thought. Vol. 1. Chichester: John Wiley.
19.	Keane, M.T. (1994). Adaptation as a selection constraint on analogical mapping.
In A. Ram & K. Biselt (Eds.), Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive
Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.	Keane, M.T., & Brayshaw, M. (1988). The Incremental Analogy Machine: A
computational model of analogy. In D. Sleeman (Ed.), Third European Working
Session on Learning. London: Pitman/San Mateo, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann.
21.	Keane, MT., Ledgeway, T. & Duff, 5. (1991). Constraints on analogical mapping.
In K.J. Hammond & D. Gentner (Eds.), Thirteenth Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.	Keane, M.T, Ledgeway, T. & Duff, S. (in press). Constraints on analogical mapping: 
A comparison of three models. Cognitive Science.
23.	Maier, N.R.F. (1931). Reasoning in humans II: The solution of a problem and its
appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181-194.
24.	Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
25.	Newell, A. (1990). Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard: Harvard University
Press.
26.	Novick, L.R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal 
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 14, 510-520.
27.	Novick, L.R. & Holyoak, K.J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 398-
415.
28.	OHara, S., & Indurkhya, B. (this volume). Incorporating (re)-interpretation into
Case-Based Reasoning. Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 
Amsterdam: Springer-Verlag.
29.	Palmer, SE. (1989). Levels of description in information processing theories of
analogy. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. 
(pp. 267-297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.	Smyth, B., Cunningham, P. (1992). Dj Vu: A Hierarchical Case-Based Reasoning 
System for Software Design. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on
Artificial Intelligence. (pp. 587 - 589). Vienna, Austria
31.	Smyth, B., & Keane, M.T. (this volume). Retrieving adaptable cases. Proceedings
of the First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Amsterdam: Springer-Verlag.
