Case-Based Reasoning : An Overview

Ramon López de Mántaras and Enric Plaza

IIIA-Artificial Intelligence Research Institute

CSIC-Spanish National Research Council

ABSTRACT
This paper contains a brief overview of case-based reasoning (CBR) with an emphasis on
European activities in the field. The main objective was to have a balance between brevity
and expressiveness and providing helpful pointers to the field. It identifies major open
problems of CBR associated with: retrieval/selection, memory organization, matching,
adaptation/evaluation, forgetting and, finally, integration with other techniques. It is
intended for readers with knowledge in the area and contains a list of almost one hundred
references in the field.

KEY WORDS : case-based reasoning, learning, problem solving.

1. Introduction

Case-based reasoning is a major paradigm in automated reasoning

and machine learning. In case-based reasoning, a reasoner solves a new
problem by noticing its similarity to one or several previously solved
problems and by adapting their known solutions instead of working out a
solution from scratch.

Case-based reasoning (CBR) can mean different things depending on

the intended use of the reasoning: adapt and combine old solutions to solve
a new problem, explain new situations according to previously experienced
similar situations, critique new solutions based on old cases, reason from
precedents to understand a new situation, or build a consensued solution
based on previous cases. However, these different aspects can be classified
into two major types: interpretative CBR, and problem solving CBR
(Kolodner, 1992). In interpretative CBR the key aspect is arguing whether or
not a new situation should be treated like previous ones based on
similarities and differences among them. In problem solving CBR, the goal
is to build a solution to a new case based on the adaptation of solutions to
past cases. This division, though it is useful to present the field, is not
always clear in practice because many problems have components of both
types of CBR and certainly the most effective case-based learners will use a
combination of both methods. For example, the labour mediation
application (Sycara, 1987) needs both interpreting the situation and then
deriving a solution based on precedents. Furthermore, many systems use
interpretative CBR to evaluate the solutions reached since evaluation is one
of the basic operations in any case-based reasoner.

In short, given a case to solve, case-based reasoning involves the

following steps :

retrieving relevant cases from the case memory (this requires

indexing the cases by appropriate features);
 selecting a set of best cases;

deriving a solution;

evaluating the solution (in order to make sure that poor solutions are
not repeated);

storing the newly solved case in the case memory.

According to these steps, Aamodt and Plaza in (Aamodt and Plaza,

1994) describe a Case-Based reasoner as a cyclic process comprising "the 4
R's" i.e. Retrieve, Reuse, Revise and Retain.

2. Case-Based Reasoning : A short description of selected early work

The case-based approach to reasoning and learning (Kolodner 83) has

been growing impressively during the last few years. Today there are more
than one hundred CBR systems reported in the literature. Kolodner in her
very recent book (Kolodner 1993a) reports about 82 CBR systems in the USA
(surprisingly, in a 650 page book, she does not report any work being done in
Europe!!). Furthermore, there are specialized workshops held every year
both in the US and in Europe with a quite large number of participants. In
all major conferences in AI one can find several sessions devoted to this
topic. The pioneering work in this field is that of Schank on Dynamic
Memory (Schank, 1982), Carbonell on Analogy (Carbonell, 1983), Kolodner
(Kolodner, 1983) and Rissland's (Rissland 1983) work on legal reasoning.
After these pioneering works, the development of CBR continued with
further work by Kolodner and students (Kolodner, Simpson and Sycara,
1985; Kolodner, 1987; and Sycara, 1988), the work of Hammond and others
on case-based planning (Hammond, 1986, 1987; Collins, 1987) and the work
of Ashley and Rissland with the HYPO System for legal reasoning (Ashley
& Rissland, 1987), among others.

More recently, within the problem solving type of CBR, several

systems have been built to do case-based planning and design, among them
let us mention JULIA (Hinrichs 1988, 1989) that plans meals; CYCLOPS
(Navinchandra, 1988) for landscape design; KRITIK (Goel 1989, Goel and
Chandrasekaran 1989) that combines case-based and model-based reasoning
for the design of mechanical assemblies; CLAVIER (Barletta and Hennessy,
1989) to lay out pieces made of composite materials in an autoclave; SMART
memory model (Veloso, 1992) whose goal is to increase the planning
efficiency (speed-up learning) of the system PRODIGY (Carbonell et al., 1991);
and ARCHIE (Pearce et al. 1992) and CADRE (Dave et al., 1994) to help
architects understand and solve conceptual design problems.

Another important application field of problem solving CBR is

diagnosis. In diagnosis, just as in planning or design, it is often necessary to
adapt an old case to fit a new problem. CASEY (Koton, 1988) is a well known
case-based system for diagnosing heart problems of patients by adaptation of
the known diagnoses of previous patients. Another early Case-based
diagnosis system is PROTOS (Bareiss et al. 1988). PROTOS diagnoses hearing
disorders using a learning apprentice approach. The difficulty of this
diagnosis is that many different diagnoses have similar manifestations and
the relevant differences are so subtle that novices miss them. In such a
situation, PROTOS starts as a novice and when it makes a mistake, a teacher
explains the mistake and as a result PROTOS learns such subtle differences
by putting difference pointers in its memory that allow the system to switch
from apparently easy but incorrect diagnose to the correct ones. Other recent
representative applications to diagnosis for maintenance are CASELINE
(Magaldi, 1994) for aeroplane maintenance and a system for maintenance of
telecommunication networks (Deter, 1994).

In interpretative CBR, the first works are those of Rissland and

Ashley with the development of a system for legal reasoning called HYPO
(Ashley & Rissland 1987, Ashley 1991). HYPO retrieves cases pro and con a
legal raised in a new fact situation. It uses the former to argue in support of
the claim and the latter to make counter-arguments. The result is a set of
three-ply arguments: arguments supporting a proposed solution, responses
opposing those arguments, and a rebuttal. Many other works in
interpretative CBR are also in the legal domain (Bain 1986, Branting 1988).

The latest field where CBR seems to be also useful is creativity

(Turner 1993, Kolodner, 1993b). The main working hypothesis is that much
creativity stems from using old solutions in novel ways or combining old
solutions in a different way. A creative artificial system would need to be
able to identify analogies (Boden, 1995). Kolodner in (Kolodner, 1993b)
suggests that since Case-Based Reasoning offers computational tools
techniques to deal with: remembering, adapting known ideas, reinterpreting
an idea, specializing an abstract idea, elaborating known ideas, merging
pieces of ideas, explaining and evaluating and these aspects seem to play a
major role in creative processes, then case-based reasoning can be a research
paradigm for exploring creativity.

In Europe the early work on CBR includes that of Sharma and

Sleeman on a case-based aide for knowledge acquisition and refinement
(Sharma and Sleeman, 1988), that of Richter and Althoff (Althoff, 1989) on
complex diagnosis issues, that of Plaza and Lopez de Mantaras on a case-
based learning apprentice capable of dealing with imprecise examples (Plaza
and Lopez de Mantaras, 1990), that of Aamodt on knowledge intensive case-
based reasoning (Aamodt, 1990) and that of Faltings in case-based
representation of architectural design knowledge (Faltings et al. 1991).
Due to the late European start in CBR research, almost all the work
performed in Europe addresses very open issues; for this reason, most of the
European work referred to in this paper appears in the "open problems"
section.

3. Case Based Reasoning as a Learning Paradigm

 Learning in AI is usually taken to mean generalizing through
induction or explanation. Learning is in fact inherent to any case-based
reasoner not only because it induces generalizations based on the detected
similarities between cases but mostly because it accumulates and indexes
cases in a case memory for later use. Besides, case-based reasoning as a
learning paradigm has several technical advantages. One advantage has
already been stated and concerns the fact that since each new solved case is
stored in the memory for later use, instead of deriving new solutions from
scratch a CBR system remembers and adapts old ones. If such solutions have
been adapted or combined in novel ways, then in the future, when solving
another similar case, these circumstances will be remembered but not
recomputed. Other advantages are that a case-based reasoner becomes more
competent over time, can avoid previously made mistakes, and can focus
on the most important parts of a problem first. Finally, according to DARPA
: Machine Learning Program Plan, 1989, since a lot of efforts in CBR address
the problem of finding techniques to analyze and select cases, perhaps some
of these techniques could be used by the rest of the machine learning
community to help in the selection of training instances. Inductive learning
systems, for example, must rely on good training instances whose selection
is often overlooked. This is a major bias that can have dramatic
consequences on the behaviour of the learning system. In domains where a
large number of training instances already exists one could use techniques to
analyze and select instances inspired on the CBR techniques for analyzing
and selecting cases. Perhaps the most important advantage of the case-based
approach to learning is its affinity to human learning: people take into
account and use past experiences to take future decisions.

Case-based learning algorithms have been applied to a large variety of

tasks, including the following: predicting power load levels for the Niagara
Mohawk Power Co. (Jabbour et al. 1987); speech recognition (Bradshaw 1987);
evaluating oil prospecting sites in the North Sea (Clark 1989); robotic control
(Moore 1990); molecular biology (Cost and Salzberg 1990); architectural
design (Schmidt-Belz and Voss 1993); and medicine (Plaza and Lopez de
Mantaras 1990, Salzberg 1990, Aha et al. 1991, Lopez and Plaza 1993, Malek
and Rialle 1994).

4. Commercial Tools

Tools are needed in order to facilitate case collection, indexing,

evaluation, adaptation, and for case library maintenance. Current
commercial tools are mainly oriented towards acquisition and retrieval of
cases and also simple adaptation and evaluation. The best known are
REMIND by Cognitive Systems Inc. (USA), which is an interactive generic
tool for rapid prototyping and development of CBR applications oriented to
classification, prediction, and data mining tasks, and reCall by ISoft S.A.
(France) which is also a generic tool that has been applied to develop
applications on fault diagnosis, bank loan analysis, teaching, risk analysis,
control and supervision. An interesting aspect of ReCall is that the object
oriented representation language used to represent the cases allows one to
represent fuzzy knowledge. Other existing tools are S3-Case by tecInno
GmbH (Germany) oriented to diagnostic problem solving and CBR-
EXPRESS (see Schult, 1992 as well as Watson and Marir, 1994 for further
details on software and commercial tools).

5. Open Problems

5.1. Retrieval/Selection

The most basic problems in CBR are the retrieval and selection of
cases since the remaining operations of adaptation and evaluation will
succeed only if the past cases are the relevant ones. The retrieval of relevant
cases depends on a good indexing of the cases that select an appropriate set of
indices. One way to do it is to fix the indices a priori for a given domain but
the problem is a loss in generality. Among the techniques being explored to
solve this problem we can mention using explanation-based techniques to
identify relevant features, using instance-based learning to learn feature
importance or using introspective reasoning to learn features for indexing.
Explanation-based techniques are used to justify the actions of a case with
respect to those features known when the case was originally executed.
Demonstrably relevant features are generalized to form primary indices,
inconsistencies between the domain theory and the actual case are used to
determine irrelevant features and the remaining features are marked as
secondary indices that are subject to refinement using similarity-based
inductive techniques (Barletta and Mark, 1988). In learning feature
importance, each feature is associated with a weight that is adjusted after
each prediction attempt during the training process by comparing the
current case with its most similar stored cases (Aha et al., 1991). The
introspective approach of (Fox and Leake, 1995) consists in providing the
CBR system with an introspective reasoning capability to detect poor
retrievals, identify features which would retrieve more adaptable cases and
refine the indexing criteria to avoid future failures.

Heuristic search techniques and Qualitative Models are also

promising approaches to the indexing/retrieval problem. Heuristic search
techniques (Rissland et al., 1993) are used in a graph of cases and domain
knowledge to look for support for a legal argument in Rissland et al. system.
The rationale is to narrow the gap that exists between an available indexing
scheme and the requirements of arguments through the use of best-first
search guided by evaluation functions. Richards has used the qualitative
model of a physical system (a two-stage sewage treatment plant) (Richards,
1994) to derive the minimal sets of control parameters relevant to each of
the desired inputs. This reduces the number of features used for indexing
the cases in a case-based system that suggests the settings of the control
parameters based on past experience controlling the plant.

5.2. Memory Organization

Another basic problem is that of memory organization. A good

indexing is not enough. When the case memory is large, a good
organization of the memory is a must because a simple linear organization,
like a list, is very inefficient for retrieval. A hierarchical organization is
necessary. The most commonly used approach consists in having a
hierarchical structure where internal nodes are generalizations of
individual cases like in the system CYRUS (Kolodner, 1983), based on
Schank's dynamic memory model (Schank, 1982). The case memory in the
dynamic memory model is a hierarchical structure of "episodic memory
organization packets". The basic idea is to organize specific cases which share
similar properties under a more general structure called a "generalized
episode" (GE). A GE contains norms, cases and indices. Norms are features
common to all cases, indexed under a GE and indices are features which
discriminate between the cases of a GE. An index is composed of an index
name and an index valued. The entire case memory is in fact a
discrimination network where a node is either a generalized episode, an
index or a case. When a new case description input is given and the best
matching is searched, the input case structure is "pushed down" the
discrimination network structure, starting at the root node. When one or
more features of the input case match one or more features of a GE, the case
is further discriminated based on its remaining features. A case is retrieved
by finding the GE with most norms in common with the problem
description, and the indices under that GE are then traversed in order to
find the case which contains most of the remaining problem features. In
case storing, when a feature of the case matches a feature of an existing case,
a GE is created. The two cases can be discriminated by indexing them under
different indices below the GE. If two cases or two GEs end up under the
same index, a new GE is automatically created. Hence, the memory structure
is dynamic in the sense that similar parts of the two cases are dynamically
generalized into a GE.

In PROTOS (Porter, 1986) an alternative hierarchical organization is

used. The case memory is embedded in a network structure of categories,
semantic relations, cases, and index pointers. Each case is associated with a
category and indices may point to a case or a category. The indices are of
three types: Feature links pointing from problem features to cases or
categories (called remindings), case links pointing from categories to its
associated cases (called exemplars) that are sorted according to their degree of
typicality in the category, and difference links pointing from cases to "near
cases" that only differ in a small number of features. Furthermore, the
categories are inter-linked within a semantic network which represents
domain knowledge and enables to provide an explanatory support to some
of the CBR tasks.

Finding a case in memory that matches an input description is done

by combining the input features of a problem case into a pointer to the case
or category that shares most of the features. If a reminding points directly to
a category, the links to its most prototypical cases are traversed and these
cases are retrieved. The semantic network of domain knowledge is used to
enable matching of features that are semantically similar. A new case is
stored by searching for a matching case and by establishing the appropriate
feature indices. If a case is found with only minor differences to the input
case, the input case may not be retained or the two cases may be merged by
generalizing some features according to the taxonomic links in the semantic
network.

Almost all the existing CBR systems use memory organizations

inspired either in Schank's dynamic memory or in Porter's approach or in
some combination of these two seminal approaches. This is the case of the
BOLERO System (López, 1993) that uses the generalized episodes of Schank
together with the exemplar links, difference links, and prototypes of Porter.
The structure of the cases themselves is also an important issue. While
most case-based systems store each case as a unit, others break the cases and
store them into pieces along with pointers for later reconstruction (Hinrichs
1988, Lopez 1993). The advantage of this last approach is that it allows one to
solve complex problems by combining partial solutions of several other
problems.

Another approach, based on metaphors taken from the human

immune system, is proposed in (Hunt et al., 1995). The main point is that
the immune system is inherently case based and relies on its content
addressable memory to identify new antigeus (new cases) which are similar
to old antigeus (old cases).

5.3. Matching

Selecting the best case requires being able to match cases together. In
general the match is not perfect because on the one hand, the values of the
features of the new case and previous cases are not exactly the same and on
the other hand there are usually missing values for some or many of the
features. The usual approach, therefore, is to define some similarity metric.

The matching problem is being studied by many researchers (Bento

and Costa 1993, Borner, 1993, Rougegrez 1993, etc.). An additional difficulty
is that the similarity metrics must take into account that not all the features
have the same importance. While it would seem that some sort of weighted
similarity measure could do, in fact this is not always possible because the
importance of some features is context dependent. Often, however, the
context are the cases already in memory and therefore they determine which
features of the new case are the most important ones. There are some
methods based on this observation: the preference heuristics (Kolodner,
1988), the dimensional analysis (Rissland and Ashley, 1988), the use of
dynamically changing weighted evaluation functions (Stanfill, 1987), or
using domain specific knowledge to influence similarity judgements (Cain
et al. 1991, Sebag and Schoenauer 1993, Surma 1994). A similar approach
(Bento and Costa, 1993) uses a CBR+EBL similarity metric that is able to
assign a relevance measure to each matching fact.

Up to now, practically all the existing similarity measures assume that

cases are represented just by collections of attribute-value pair. However we
have started to see the need for more structured representations in complex
domains and therefore for new similarity measures, like for example graph
similarity measures already used in pattern recognition. These measures
have already started to be considered in CBR (Bunke and Messner 1993,
Poole 1993).

Finally, let us mention a very interesting approach (Veloso and

Carbonell, 1991) that allows one to learn incrementally better similarity
metrics by interpreting the behaviour of the problem solver PRODIGY
replaying retrieved cases. To do so, the problem solver provides
information about the utility of the candidate cases suggested as similar.
This information is used to refine the case library organization and the
similarity metric. This process starts with a simple metric that is refined by
analysing the derivational trace produced by the analogical problem solver.

5.4. Adaptation/Evaluation

A good adaptation of old cases to fit the new case can reduce
significantly the amount of work needed to solve it. The works of
Hammond, Sycara, and others in case-based planning had early addressed
this important issue, however afterwards it received less attention. More
recently the interest in adaptation seems to have increased. For example,
quite a few papers in the first European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning
addressed this problem (see, for example Chatterji and Campbell 1993, Zeyer
and Weiss 1993) and was the subject of many discussions. The existing
techniques are limited to the use of generalization and refinement
heuristics. An example is the plausible design adaptation (for design tasks)
(Hinrichs and Kolodner, 1991). This adaptation is a process that takes a
source concept, a set of constraints and constraint violations and a set of
adaptation transformations and returns a new concept that satisfies the
constraints. The relations between case adaptation and the case retrieval
problem are also being studied (Smyth and Keane, 1993).

Evaluation consists in giving to the case-based reasoner feedback

about whether or not the new case was solved adequately. If the solution is
not adequate, the retrieval of additional cases may be required which may
result in the need of an additional adaptation called repair. Some of the
major issues involved include strategies for evaluating the cases and the
assignment of blame or credit to old cases (Kolodner, 1993a).

5.5. Forgetting

Even assuming that we have solved the basic problems of retrieval

and indexing there is still an additional problem resulting from an
uncontrolled growth of the case memory which may result in the
degradation of the performance of the system as a direct consequence of the
increased cost in accessing memory. Existing approaches to this problem
include: storing new cases selectively (for example only when the existing
cases in memory lead to a classification error) and deleting cases occasionally
(Kibler and Aha, 1987); and incorporating a restricted expressiveness policy
into the indexing scheme by placing an upper bound on the size of a case
that can be matched (Francis and Ram, 1993). Finally, let us mention the
often proposed solution of using massive parallelism for both the parallel
matching of cases and indices (Kolodner 1988, Mylymaki and Tirri, 1993). In
respect to this, it is worth noticing that Thinking Machines has built a
memory-based reasoning software that runs on the Connection Machine
(Stanfill and Waltz, 1988).

5.6. Integration with other techniques

In some application domains there is a need to combine CBR with

other reasoning techniques (Rissland and Skalak, 1989) such as model-based
or rule-based reasoning. Some examples are CABARET (Rissland and
Skalak, 1991) that integrates rule-based and case-based reasoning to facilitate
applying rules containing ill-defined terms; CREEK (Aamodt, 1991) that
integrates rules and cases and a top level control strategy decides whether to
activate rules or cases to achieve a given goal; GREBE (Branting and Porter,
1991) integrating also rules and cases; PATDEX/MOLTKE (Althoff and Wess,
1991) integrating models, cases and compiled knowledge; JULIA (Hinrichs,
1988) integrating case-based reasoning and constraints for design tasks;
MoCas (Pews and Wess, 1993) that combines case-based and model-based
reasoning for technical diagnosis applications; Portinale (Portinale et al.
1993) who also uses a combination of models and cases for diagnosis
problem solving; IKBALS (Zeleznikow et al. 1993) that integrates rule-based
and case-based reasoning with intelligent information retrieval; A LA
CARTE (Nakatani and Israel, 1993) that use cases to tune rules in a KBS;
BOLERO (Lopez, 1993) integrating rule-based reasoning at the domain level
with case-based reasoning at the meta-level in such a way that the cases
guide the inference process at the domain level, allowing the system to
learn control knowledge by experience; and MMA (Plaza and Arcos, 1993) a
reflective architecture capable of integrating different inference and learning
methods. Very recent efforts are also attempting to integrate Case-based and
Inductive learning (Connolly et al. 1993, Banberger and Goos 1993, Manago
et al. 1993, Armengol and Plaza 1994).

Finally, we believe that the use of Fuzzy Logic techniques may be

relevant in case representation (to allow for imprecise and uncertain values
in features, case retrieval by means of fuzzy matching techniques (Dubois et
al. 1988) and also for case adaptation by using the concept of gradual rules
(Dubois and Prade 1992). Existing work on fuzzy case-based reasoning is
represented by (Plaza and Lopez de Mantaras 1990, Bonissone and Ayub
1992, Salotti 1992 and Jacinski and Trousse 1994).

6. Concluding Remarks

We have tried to give a brief overview of the main aspects of case-

based reasoning both from the point of view of its short but rich history of
existing systems and the main open issues for further research. Concerning
this last point, although it is clear that CBR has produced very promising
techniques, we want to highlight that further research is needed in all the
open problems commented above, particularly in how to index cases in
order to optimize their reuse, in methods for generating new indices
dynamically, in structural and quantitative similarity metrics matching
methods, in mechanisms for determining relevant features, in forgetting
mechanisms and in the integration with other paradigms. Another missing
aspect is that of the non-trivial comparison of the case-based method with
other methods although there is some work addressing this aspect (Smyth
1994). A promising comparison methodology is through a knowledge-level
analysis of the different systems in order to highlight differences and
similarities like in (Armengol and Plaza, 1993).

Finally, perhaps the most severe limitation of existing systems is the

feature-value representation that is being used for cases (Branting, 1989).
The consequence is that case-based algorithms cannot be applied to
knowledge-rich applications that require much more complex case
representations, for example cases with higher-order relations between
features. In the near future we will see fast growing research activity in such
enriched representations.
References

Aamodt A. (1990). Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning and sustained learning.

Poceedings European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

Aamodt A. (1991). A knowledge-intensive approach to problem solving and sustained

learning. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Trondheim, Norwegian Institute of Technology.

Aamodt A. and Plaza E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological

variations and System approaches. AI Communications 7(1), 39-59.

Aha D., Kibler D., Albert M.K. (1991). Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning
Journal 6, 37-66.

Althoff K.D. (1989). Knowledge acquisition in the domain of CBC machine centres: the
MOLTKE approach. In EKAW-89, 180-195.

Althoff K.D. and Wess S. (1991). Case-based knowledge acquisition, learning and problem
solving in diagnostic real world tasks. Proceedings European Knowledge Acquisition
Workshop.

Armengol E. and Plaza E. (1993). Case-based reasoning at the knowledge level: An analysis of
CHEF. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on
Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 290-295.

Armengol E. and Plaza E. (1994). Integrating induction in a case-based reasoner. Proceedings

Second European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 243-252.

Ashley K.D. (1988). Arguing by analogy in Law: A case-based model. In (Helman ed.)
Analogical Reasoning: Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, and
Philosophy. Reidel.

Ashley K.D. (1991). Modelling legal arguments: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals.
MIT Press.

Ashley K.D., Rissland E.L. (1987). Compare and contrast: A test experience. Proceedings
AAAI'87.

Bain W. (1986). Case-based reasoning: A computer model of subjective assessment. Ph.D.

Thesis. Yale University.

Bamberger S.K. and Goos K. (1993). Integration of case-based reasoning and inductive learning
methods. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on
Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 296-300.

Bareiss E.R. (1989). Exemplar-based knowledge acquisition: A unified approach to concept

representation, classification and learning. Boston, Academic Press.

Bareiss E.R., Porter B., Weir C.C. (1988). PROTOS: An exemplar-based learning apprentice.
Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies 29, 549-561.

Barletta R. and Hennessy D. (1989). Case adaptation in autoclave layout design. In Hammond
(ed.): Proceedings Second Workshop on case-based reasoning, Pensacola Beach, Florida,
Morgan-Kauffman.

Barletta R., Mark W. (1988). Explanation-based indexing of cases. Proceedings AAAI-88,

Cambridge.
Bento C., Costa E. (1993). A similarity metric for retrieval of cases imperfectly described and
explained. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on
Case-Based Reasoning. Vol. 1, 8-13.

Borner K. (1993). Structural similarity as guidance in case-based design. In (Richter, Wess,

Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.
1, 14-19.

Bradshaw G. (1987). Learning about speech sounds: The NEXUS project. Proceedings Fourth
Int. Workshop on Machine Learning, Irvine, Morgan Kauffmann, 1-11.

Branting L.K. (1988). The role of explanation in reasoning from legal precedent. In Kolodner
(ed.): Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, San Mateo, California, Morgan-
Kauffman Publ.

Branting L.K. (1989). Integrating generalizations with exemplar-based reasoning. Proceedings

11th. Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 139-146.

Branting L.K. and Porter B.W. (1991). Rules and precedents as complementary warrants.
Proceedings AAAI-91.

Bunke H., Messmer B.T. (1993). Similarity measures for structured representations. In
(Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on Case-Based
Reasoning. Vol. 1, 26-31.

Cain T., Pazzani M.J., Silverstein G. (1991). Using domain knowledge to influence similarity
judgment. Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington. 191-202.

Carbonell J. (1983). Learning by analogy: Formulating and generalizing plans from past
experience. In (Michalski, Carbonel and Mitchell, eds) : Machine Learning: An Artificial
Intelligence Approach, Tioga, Palo Alto.

Carbonell J., Knoblock C.A., Minton S. (1991). PRODIGY: An integrated architecture for
planning and learning. In (Kurt Van Lehn ed.) Architectures for Intelligence, The Twenty-
Second Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Cognition. Erlbaum Publ.

Clark P.E. (1989). Exemplar-based reasoning in geological prospect appraisal. Technical

Report 89-034, University of Stratchclyde, Turing Institute.

Collins G. (1987). Plan creation: Using strategies as blueprints. Ph.D. Thesis. Yale University.

Connolly D.and Christey S.(1993). Learning representation by integrating case-based and

inductive learning. Proceedings AAAI Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington, 157.

Cost S., Salzberg S. (1990). A weighted nearest neighbor algorithm for learning with symbolic
features. Technical Report JHU-90/11, The John Hopkins University Dept. of Computer
Science.

Chatterjee N.and Campbell J.A. (1993). Adaptation through interpolation for time-critical
case-based reasoning. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European
Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol. 1, 103-107.

Dave B., Schmitt G., Shih S-G., Bendel L., Faltings B., Smith I., Hua K., Bailey S., Ducret
J.M., Jent K. (1994). Case-based spatial design reasoning. Proceedings Second European
Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 115-124.

Deters R.D. (1994). CBR for maintenance of telecommunication networks. Proceedings Second
European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.23-32.
Faltings B., Hua K., Schmitt G., Shih S.G. (1991). Case-based representation of architectural
design knowledge. Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington. 307-316.

Fox S., Leake D.B. (1995). Learning to refine indexing by introspective reasoning. In (Veloso
and Aamodt, eds.) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, Proceedings First Int.
Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR-95, LNAI 1010, Springer, 431-440.

Francis A.G. and Ram A. (1993). The utility problem in case-based reasoning. Proceedings
AAAI Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington, 160.

Goel A. (1989). Integration of case-based reasoning and model-based reasoning for adaptive
design problem solving. Ph.D. Thesis. The Ohio State University.

Goel A. and Chandrasekaran B. (1989). Use of device models in adaptation of design cases. In
Hammond (ed.): Proceedings Second Workshop on case-based reasoning, Pensacola Beach,
Florida, Morgan-Kauffman.

Hammond K. (1986). CHEF: A model of case-based planning. Proceedings of AAAI-86.

Hammond K. (1987). Explaining and repairing plans that fail. IJCAI-87, 109-114.

Hammond K. (1989). Case-based planning. Academic Press.

Hinrichs T.R. (1988). Towards an architecture for open world problem solving. In Kolodner
(ed.): Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, San Mateo, California, Morgan-
Kauffman Publ.

Hinrichs T.R. (1989). Strategies for adaptation and recovery in a design problem solver. In
Hammond (ed.): Proceedings Second Workshop on case-based reasoning, Pensacola Beach,
Florida, Morgan-Kauffman.

Hinrichs T.R. and Kolodner J. (1991). The roles of adaptation in case-based design.
Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington, 121-132.

Hofstadter D.R., Mitchell M. (1991). An overview of the Copycat project. In K.J. Holyvak & J.
Barnden (eds.), Connectionist Approaches to Analogy Metaphor and Case-Based Reasoning.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hunt J.E., Cooke D.E., Holstein H. (1995). Case memory and retrieval based on the immune
system. In (Veloso and Aamodt, eds.) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development,
Proceedings First Int. Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR-95, LNAI 1010, Springer,
205-216.

Jabbour K., Riveros J.F., Landsbergen D., Meyer W. (1987). ALFA : Automated load forecasting
assistant. Proceedings IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting. San Francisco.

Jaczynski M. and Trousse B. (1994). Fuzzy Logic for the retrieval step of a case-based reasoner.
Proceedings Second European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 313-322.

Kibler D. and Aha D. (1988). Case-based classification. Procedings of the AAAI Case-Based
Reasoning Workshop, Minneapolis.

Kolodner J. (1983). Reconstructive memory, a computer model. Cognitive Science 7, 281-328.

Kolodner J. (1987). Capitalizing on failure through case-based inference. Proceedings Ninth

Annual Conference of the Cogntive Science Society. Erlbaum.
Kolodner J. (1988). Retrieving events from a case memory: A parallel implementation. In
Kolodner (ed.): Case-Based Reasoning. Proceedings from a Workshop, Clearwater Beach,
Florida, Morgan-Kauffman Publ.

Kolodner J. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review 6,

3-34.

Kolodner J. (1993a). Case-based Reasoning. Morgan-Kauffman.

Kolodner J. (1993b). Understanding Creativity: A Case-Based Approach. In: S. Wess, R-D.

Althoff & M.M. Richter (eds.) Topics in Case-Based Reasoning: Proceedings First European
Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. LNCS 837, Springer, 3-20.

Kolodner J., Simpson R.L., Sycara K. (1985). A process model of case-based reasoning in
problem solving. IJCAI-85.

Koton P. (1988). Using experience in learning and problem solving. Ph.D. Thesis. Computer
Science Dept. MIT.

Lebowitz M. (1987). Experiments with incremental concept formation: UNIMEM. Machine

Learning 2, 103-138.

Lopez B. (1993). Reactive planning through the integration oof a case-based system and a
rule-based system. In (Sloman et al. ed.) Prospects for Artificial Intelligence, IOS Press, 189-
198.

Lopez B. and Plaza E. (1993). Case-based learning of strategic knowledge. In (Kodratoff ed.)
Machine Learning EWSL-91, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 398-
411.

Magaldi R. (1994). Maintaining airplanes using CBR. Proceedings Second European Workshop
on Case-Based Reasoning. 1-12.

Malek M. and Rialle V. (1994). A Case-based reasoning system applied to neuropathy

diagnosis. Proceedings Second European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 329-336.

Manago M., Althoff K-D., Auriol E., Traphoner R., Wess S., Conruyt N., Maurer F. (1993).
Induction and reasoning from cases. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First
European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 313-318.

Moore A.W. (1990). Acquisition of dynamic control knowledge for a robotic manipulator.
Proceedings Seventh Int. Confrence on Machine Learning,Austin, Morgn Kauffmann, 244-252.

Mylymaki P. and Tirri H. (1993). Massively parallel case-based reasoning with probabilistic
similarity metrics. Proceedings AAAI Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington, 48-53.

Nakatani Y. and Israel D. (1993). Tuning rules by cases. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer,
eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 319-324.

Navinchandra D. (1988). Case-based reasoning in CYCLOPS, a design problem solver. In

Kolodner (ed.): Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, San Mateo, California,
Morgan-Kauffman Publ.

Pearce M., Goel A., Kolodner J., Zimring C., Sentosa L., Billington R. (1992). Case-based
design support: A case study in architectural design. IEEE EXPERT 7, 14-20.
Pews G. and Wess S. (1993). Combining casebased and model-based approaches for diagnostic
applications in technical domains. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First
European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 325-328.

Plaza E. and Arcos J-L. (1993). A reflective architecture for integrated memory-based learning
and reasoning. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European
Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 329-334.

Plaza E. and Lopez de Mantaras R. (1990). A case-based apprentice that learns from fuzzy
examples. In (Ras, Zemankova and Emrich ed.) Methodologies for Intelligent Systems 5. 420-
427. Elsevier.

Poole J. (1993). Similarity in legal case-based reasoning as degree of matching between

conceptual graphs: Work in progress. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings
First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol. 1, 54-58.

Porter B. (1986). PROTOS; an experiment in knowledge acquisition fo heuristic classification

tasks. Proceedings First Int. Meeting on Advances in Learning, Les Arcs, France, 159-174.

Portinale L., Torasso P., Ortalda C., Giardino A. (1993). Using case-based reasoning to focus
model-based diagnostic problem solving. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.)
Proceedings First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 335-340.

Richards B.L. (1994). Qualitative models as a basis for case indices. Proceedings Second
European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 67-74.

Rissland E.L. (1983). Examples in legal reasoning: legal hypotheticals. Proceedings IJCAI'83,
Karlsruhe.

Rissland E.L. and Skalak D.B. (1989). Combining case-based and rule-based reasoning: A
heuristic approach. Proceedings IJCAI-89, 524-530.

Rissland E.L. and Skalak D.B. (1991). CABARET: Rule interpretation in a hybrid
architecture. Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies 34, 839-887.

Rissland E.L., Ashley K.D. (1988). Credit assignment and the problem ofcompeting factors in
case-based reasoning. In Kolodner (ed.): Case-Based Reasoning. Proceedings from a
Workshop, Clearwater Beach, Florida, Morgan-Kauffman Publ.

Rissland E.L., Skalak D.B., Timur Friedman M. (1993). Using heuristic search to retrieve
cases that support arguments. Proceedings AAAI Case-Based Reasoning Workshop,
Washington, 5-11.

Rougegrez S. (1993). A similarity-assessment algorithm based on comparisons between events.

In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on Case-
Based Reasoning. Vol. 1, 59-64.

Salotti S. (1992). Filtrage flou et representation centree objet pour raisonner par analogie : le
systeme FLORAN. PhD thesis, University of Paris VI.

Salzberg S. (1990). Learning with nested generalized exemplars. Kluwer.

Schank R. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A theory of learning in computers and people. Cambridge
University Press.

Schmidt-Belz B. and Voss A. (1993) Case-oriented knowledge acquisition for architectural

design. Proceedings AAAI Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 168.
Schult T.J. (1992). Tools for case-based systems. Kuntsliche Intelligenz 4, 52-53.

Sebag M., Schoenauer M. (1993). A rule-based similarity measure. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff,
Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol. 1, 65-70.

Sharma S. and Sleeman D. (1988). REFINER: A case-based differential diagnosis aide for
knowledge acquisition and knowledge refinement. Proceedings European Working Session on
Learning.

Smyth B. and Cunningham P. (1994). A comparison of incremental case-based reasoning and

inductive learning. Proceedings Second European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 357-
364.

Smyth B. and Keane M.T. (1993). Retrieving adaptable cases: The role of adaptation
knowledge in case retrieval. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings First
European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol. 1, 76-82.

Stanfill C. (1987). Memory-based reasoning applied to english pronunciation. Proceedings

AAAI-87, Seattle.

Stanfill C. , Waltz D. (1988). The memory-based reasoning paradigm. In Kolodner (ed.):

Case-Based Reasoning. Proceedings from a Workshop, Clearwater Beach, Florida, Morgan-
Kauffman Publ. 414-424.

Surma J. (1994). Enhancing similarity measures with domain specific knowledge. Proceedings
Second European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. 365-372.

Sycara E.P. (1987). Resolving adversarial conflicts: an approach to integrating case-based

and analytic methods. Ph. D. Thesis, Georgia Tech.

Sycara K. (1988). Using case-based reasoning for plan adaptation and repair. In Kolodner
(ed.): Case-Based Reasoning. Proceedings from a Workshop, Clearwater Beach, Florida,
Morgan-Kauffman Publ.

Turner S.R. (1993). A case-based model of creativity. Proceedings AAAI Spring Symposium on
Artificial Intelligence and Creativity. 137-144.

Veloso M. (1992). Learning by analogical reasoning in general problem solving. Ph.D. Thesis.
Carnegie Mellon University.

Veloso M. and Carbonell J. (1991). Variable-precision case retrieval in analogical problem

solving. Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington, 93-108.

Watson I. and Marir F. (1994). Case-based reasoning: A review. The Knowledge Engineering
Review 9(4). 327-354.

Zeleznikow J., Hunter D., Vossos G. (1993). Integrating rule-based and case-based reasoning
with information retrieval: The IKBALS project. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.)
Proceedings First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol.2, 341-346.

Zeyer F. and Weiss M. (1993). Similarity-based adaptation and its application to the case-
based redesign of local area networks. In (Richter, Wess, Althoff, Maurer, eds.) Proceedings
First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Vol. 1, 125-130.