Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Case-Based Reasoning via Comparing the Strength Order of Features

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Explainable and Transparent AI and Multi-Agent Systems (EXTRAAMAS 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13283))

  • 738 Accesses

Abstract

Case-based reasoning (CBR) is broadly speaking a method of giving a verdict/decision on a new case query by comparing it with verdicts/decisions of known similar cases. Similarity of cases is determined either by best distance of the query case from the known cases and recently also using argumentation. The approach of this paper is not to rely on similarity or argumentation, but to use the entire set of known cases and their known verdicts to define the relative strength and importance of all the features involved in these cases. We then decide the verdict for the new case based on the strength of the features appearing in it.

Liuwen Yu has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie ITN EJD grant agreement. No 814177.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Talmudic law, conspiring witnesses are witnesses whose testimony was found to be false testimony, the testimony of false witnesses given in court is refuted - demonstrating how they were not at the scene of the purported crime - they are then sentenced to the identical punishment that was to have been meted out onto the intended victim (Devarim 19:15-20).

  2. 2.

    Intuitively, \(+\) and \(+\) cannot make a − and similarly − and − cases joined cannot make a \(+\).

  3. 3.

    Note if we have a case \(E= \{c,a\}\), we may have a paradox, is the verdict guilty or not? This depends on the legal systems, some may say an alibi can be wrong but a signed confession is stronger, while other legal systems may say we do not accept confession, they can be obtained by torture.

  4. 4.

    For example, if the set of elements stronger or weaker than x are more in number than the set of stronger or smaller than y, we say that \(x>_{\mathbb {K}}y\).

  5. 5.

    This case will depend on the application area. For example, in legal murder cases, where verdict − means not guilty, we can say that if Case 1 does not hold, we enforce −, because it gives us “shadow of a doubt”.

  6. 6.

    According to Talmudic law, \(W_1\) and \(W_2\) should be punished.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reason. 29(2), 125–169 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021603608656

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonissone, P.P., Cheetham, W.: Fuzzy case-based reasoning for residential property valuation. In: Handbook of Fuzzy Computation, pp. G14–1. CRC Press (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Calegari, R., Sartor, G.: Burdens of persuasion and standards of proof in structured argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds.) CLAR 2021. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 13040, pp. 40–59. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Cyras, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation for case-based reasoning. In: Fifteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Čyras, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F.: Explanation for case-based reasoning via abstract argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument, pp. 243–254. IOS Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Finnie, G., Sun, Z.: Similarity and metrics in case-based reasoning. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 17(3), 273–287 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Finnie, G.R., Wittig, G.E., Desharnais, J.M.: A comparison of software effort estimation techniques: using function points with neural networks, case-based reasoning and regression models. J. Syst. Softw. 39(3), 281–289 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kampik, T., Gabbay, D., Sartor, G.: The burden of persuasion in abstract argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds.) CLAR 2021. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 13040, pp. 224–243. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim, G.H., An, S.H., Kang, K.I.: Comparison of construction cost estimating models based on regression analysis, neural networks, and case-based reasoning. Build. Environ. 39(10), 1235–1242 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Leake, D., Ye, X., Crandall, D.J.: Supporting case-based reasoning with neural networks: an illustration for case adaptation. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Combining Machine Learning with Knowledge Engineering, vol. 2 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Perner, P.: Case-based reasoning – methods, techniques, and applications. In: Nyström, I., Hernández Heredia, Y., Milián Núñez, V. (eds.) CIARP 2019. LNCS, vol. 11896, pp. 16–30. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33904-3_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. In: Sartor, G., Branting, K. (eds.) Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 127–183. Springer, Dordrecht (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Prakken, H., Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. J. Log. Comput. 25(5), 1141–1166 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Wyner, A.Z., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Three senses of “argument’’. In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4884, pp. 146–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Zheng, H., Grossi, D., Verheij, B.: Case-based reasoning with precedent models: preliminary report. In: Computational Models of Argument, pp. 443–450. IOS Press (2020)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Liuwen Yu & Dov Gabbay

  2. University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Liuwen Yu

  3. King’s College London, London, UK

    Dov Gabbay

Authors
  1. Liuwen Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dov Gabbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liuwen Yu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland, Sierre, Switzerland

    Davide Calvaresi

  2. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Amro Najjar

  3. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Michael Winikoff

  4. Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Kary Främling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Yu, L., Gabbay, D. (2022). Case-Based Reasoning via Comparing the Strength Order of Features. In: Calvaresi, D., Najjar, A., Winikoff, M., Främling, K. (eds) Explainable and Transparent AI and Multi-Agent Systems. EXTRAAMAS 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13283. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15565-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15565-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15564-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15565-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics