Skip to main content

Loose coupling of failure explanation and repair: Using learning goals to sequence learning methods

  • Scientific Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development (ICCBR 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1266))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Because learning methods (i.e., knowledge repairs) can negatively interact, the arbitrary ordering of knowledge repairs can lead to worse system performance than no learning at all. Therefore, the problem of choosing appropriate learning methods given a performance failure is a significant problem for learning systems. Traditional case-based reasoners index learning or repair methods by specific failure characteristics so that once a failure is detected, a learning method can be brought to bear. Such tight coupling can be contrasted to a loose coupling in which the interaction between failure explanation and learning is mediated by the presence of learning goals generated by the learner. In an empirical study, the Meta-AQUA implementation performed significantly better under the guidance of learning goals (loose coupling) than under a condition in which learning goals were ablated (tight coupling). The conclusion is that unless repair interactions are known not to exist, a loose coupling is necessary for effective learning.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cox, M. T.. (1996). Introspective multistrategy learning: Constructing a learning strategy under reasoning failure. Doctoral dissertation, Tech. Rep. No. GIT-CC-96-06, Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Computing, Atlanta. (Available at URL ftp://ftp.cc.gatech.edu/pub/ai/ram/git-cc-96-06.html)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cox, M. T. (1997). An explicit representation of reasoning failures. This volume.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cox, M. T., & Ram, A. (1995). Interacting learning-goals: Treating learning as a planning task. In J.-P. Haton, M. Keane & M. Manago (Eds.), Advances in case-based reasoning: Second European Workshop, EWCBR-94 (pp. 60–74). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hammond, K. J. (1989). Case-based planning: Viewing planning as a memory task. Vol. 1. of Perspectives in artificial intelligence. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kass, A. (1986). Modifying explanations to understand stories. In Proceedings of Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 691–696). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kass, A. (1990). Developing creative hypotheses by adapting explanations. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Owens, C. (1990a). Indexing and retrieving abstract planning knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Owens, C. (1990b). Representing abstract plan failures. In Proceedings of Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 277–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ram, A. (1994). AQUA: Questions that drive the understanding process. In R. C. Schank, A. Kass, & C. K. Riesbeck (Eds.), Inside case-based explanation (pp. 207–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ram, A., & Cox, M. T. (1994). Introspective reasoning using meta-explanations for multistrategy learning. In R. S. Michalski & G. Tecuci (Eds.), Machine learning IV: A multistrategy approach (pp. 349–377). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ram, A., & Leake, D. (1995). Learning, goals, and learning goals. In A. Ram & D. Leake (Eds.), Goal-driven learning (pp. 1–37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Redmond, M. A. (1992). Learning by observing and understanding expert problem solving (Tech. Rep. No. GIT-CC-92/43). Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Computing, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schank, R. C., Kass, A., & Riesbeck, C. K. (1994). Inside case-based explanation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sussman, G. J. (1975). A computer model of skill acquisition. New York: American Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

David B. Leake Enric Plaza

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cox, M.T. (1997). Loose coupling of failure explanation and repair: Using learning goals to sequence learning methods. In: Leake, D.B., Plaza, E. (eds) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development. ICCBR 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1266. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63233-6_512

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63233-6_512

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63233-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69238-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics