Michael Kohlhase (born 13 September 1964, in Erlangen) is a German computer scientist and professor at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, where he is head of the KWARC research group (Knowledge Adaptation and Reasoning for Content). == Academic Positions == Michael Kohlhase is president of the OpenMath Society and a trustee of the Interest Group for Mathematical Knowledge Management (MKM). He was a trustee of the Conference on Automated Deduction and the CALCULEMUS Interest Group. He has been Conference Chair of CADE-21 and Program Chair of the KI-2006, MKM-2005, and CALCULEMUS-2000 conferences and has served on the Programme Committees of more than three dozen international conferences. Kohlhase holds an adjunct associate professorship at Carnegie Mellon University and was (2006–2008) vice director of the Department of Safe and Secure Cognitive Systems at German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) Lab Bremen. In 2014, he became a member of the Global Digital Mathematics Library Working Group of the IMU. == Academic career == Michael Kohlhase obtained a degree in Mathematics (1989) from University of Bonn, a doctorate (1994) and habilitation (1999) in Computer Science at Saarland University. He has pursued his doctoral and post-doctoral research in extended research visits at Carnegie Mellon University, University of Amsterdam, the University of Edinburgh, and SRI International. From 2000–2003, he has conducted research and taught at the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, where he was appointed to an adjunct associate professor. In September 2003 he was appointed as Professor of Computer Science at Jacobs University Bremen (International University Bremen until 2007), and 2006–2008 he was vice director of the Department of Safe and Secure Cognitive Systems of the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) Bremen. Since September 2016 he holds the Professorship for Knowledge Representation and Processing at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg. He has authored or edited four books and published almost 100 peer-reviewed papers. == Awards and Scholarships == 2000 3-year Heisenberg-Stipend of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). 1996 AKI-prize, dissertation prize of the "Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher KI-Institute (AKI)" 1991 dissertation stipend of the Studienstiftung (German National Academic Foundation) 1986 masters stipend of Studienstiftung == Research interests == Michael Kohlhase's current research interests include Automated theorem proving and knowledge representation for mathematics, inference-based techniques for natural language processing and semantics, and computer-supported education. Much of his concrete work is based on web-based content markup formats like MathML, OpenMath, and OMDoc and systems for managing this data, e.g. semantic search engines for mathematical formulae, semantic extensions to LaTeX, or converting legacy LaTeX documents from the arXiv.
Morphing
Morphing is a special effect in motion pictures and animations that changes (or morphs) one image or shape into another through a seamless transition. Traditionally such a depiction would be achieved through dissolving techniques on film. Since the early 1990s, this has been replaced by computer software to create more realistic transitions. A similar method is applied to audio recordings, for example, by changing voices or vocal lines. == Early transformation techniques == Long before digital morphing, several techniques were used for similar image transformations. Some of those techniques are closer to a matched dissolve – a gradual change between two pictures without warping the shapes in the images – while others did change the shapes in between the start and end phases of the transformation. === Tabula scalata === Known since at least the end of the 16th century, Tabula scalata is a type of painting with two images divided over a corrugated surface. Each image is only correctly visible from a certain angle. If the pictures are matched properly, a primitive type of morphing effect occurs when changing from one viewing angle to the other. === Mechanical transformations === Around 1790 French shadow play showman François Dominique Séraphin used a metal shadow figure with jointed parts to have the face of a young woman changing into that of a witch. Some 19th century mechanical magic lantern slides produced changes to the appearance of figures. For instance a nose could grow to enormous size, simply by slowly sliding away a piece of glass with black paint that masked part of another glass plate with the picture. === Matched dissolves === In the first half of the 19th century "dissolving views" were a popular type of magic lantern show, mostly showing landscapes gradually dissolving from a day to night version or from summer to winter. Other uses are known, for instance Henry Langdon Childe showed groves transforming into cathedrals. The 1910 short film Narren-grappen shows a dissolve transformation of the clothing of a female character. Maurice Tourneur's 1915 film Alias Jimmy Valentine featured a subtle dissolve transformation of the main character from respected citizen Lee Randall into his criminal alter ego Jimmy Valentine. The Peter Tchaikovsky Story in a 1959 TV-series episode of Disneyland features a swan automaton transforming into a real ballet dancer. In 1985, Godley & Creme created a "morph" effect using analogue cross-fades on parts of different faces in the video for "Cry". === Animation === In animation, the morphing effect was created long before the introduction of cinema. A phenakistiscope designed by its inventor Joseph Plateau was printed around 1835 and shows the head of a woman changing into a witch and then into a monster. Émile Cohl's 1908 animated film Fantasmagorie featured much morphing of characters and objects drawn in simple outlines. == Digital morphing == In the early 1990s, computer techniques capable of more convincing results saw increasing use. These involved distorting one image at the same time that it faded into another through marking corresponding points and vectors on the "before" and "after" images used in the morph. For example, one would morph one face into another by marking key points on the first face, such as the contour of the nose or location of an eye, and mark where these same points existed on the second face. The computer would then distort the first face to have the shape of the second face at the same time that it faded the two faces. To compute the transformation of image coordinates required for the distortion, the algorithm of Beier and Neely can be used. === Concerns === In 1993 concerns were raised about the authenticity of digitally altered images arising from morphing. Images of fake "tween" people found half way between two morphed people created a skeptical media long before AI. === Early examples === In or before 1986, computer graphics company Omnibus created a digital animation for a Tide commercial with a Tide detergent bottle smoothly morphing into the shape of the United States. The effect was programmed by Bob Hoffman. Omnibus re-used the technique in the movie Flight of the Navigator (1986). It featured scenes with a computer generated spaceship that appeared to change shape. The plaster cast of a model of the spaceship was scanned and digitally modified with techniques that included a reflection mapping technique that was also developed by programmer Bob Hoffman. The 1986 movie The Golden Child implemented early digital morphing effects from animal to human and back. Willow (1988) featured a more detailed digital morphing sequence with a person changing into different animals. A similar process was used a year later in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to create Walter Donovan's gruesome demise. Both effects were created by Industrial Light & Magic, using software developed by Tom Brigham and Doug Smythe (AMPAS). In 1991, morphing appeared notably in the Michael Jackson music video "Black or White" and in the movies Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The first application for personal computers to offer morphing was Gryphon Software Morph on the Macintosh. Other early morphing systems included ImageMaster, MorphPlus and CineMorph, all of which premiered for the Amiga in 1992. Other programs became widely available within a year, and for a time the effect became common to the point of cliché. For high-end use, Elastic Reality (based on MorphPlus) saw its first feature film use in In The Line of Fire (1993) and was used in Quantum Leap (work performed by the Post Group). At VisionArt Ted Fay used Elastic Reality to morph Odo for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The Snoop Dogg music video "Who Am I? (What's My Name?)", where Snoop Dogg and the others morph into dogs. Elastic Reality was later purchased by Avid, having already become the de facto system of choice, used in many hundreds of films. The technology behind Elastic Reality earned two Academy Awards in 1996 for Scientific and Technical Achievement going to Garth Dickie and Perry Kivolowitz. The effect is technically called a "spatially warped cross-dissolve". The first social network designed for user-generated morph examples to be posted online was Galleries by Morpheus. In late 1991 Yeti Productions employed a young Stephen Regelous to run it's 486 computer graphics system in Wellington New Zealand. After producer Barry Thomas showed him Michael Jackson's "Black or White", Regelous wrote 10,000 lines of C++ code of triangle-based digital morphing software. Together they created morphing based TV commercials for The NZ Cancer Society, Fit food, Salvation Army and others. The Fit food commercial employed morphing with 35mm, pin registered, digitally controlled motion control designed and made by Russell Collins with software by Stephen Regelous. In Taiwan, Aderans, a hair loss solutions provider, did a TV commercial featuring a morphing sequence in which people with lush, thick hair morph into one another, reminiscent of the end sequence of the "Black or White" video. === Present use === Morphing algorithms continue to advance and programs can automatically morph images that correspond closely enough with relatively little instruction from the user. This has led to the use of morphing techniques to create convincing slow-motion effects where none existed in the original film or video footage by morphing between each individual frame using optical flow technology. Morphing has also appeared as a transition technique between one scene and another in television shows, even if the contents of the two images are entirely unrelated. The algorithm in this case attempts to find corresponding points between the images and distort one into the other as they crossfade. While perhaps less obvious than in the past, morphing is used heavily today. Whereas the effect was initially a novelty, today, morphing effects are most often designed to be seamless and invisible to the eye. A particular use for morphing effects is modern digital font design. Using morphing technology, called interpolation or multiple master tech, a designer can create an intermediate between two styles, for example generating a semibold font by compromising between a bold and regular style, or extend a trend to create an ultra-light or ultra-bold. The technique is commonly used by font design studios. == Software == After Effects Animate Elastic Reality FantaMorph Gryphon Software Morph Morph Age Morpheus Nuke SilhouetteFX
Dominance-based rough set approach
The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes. == Multicriteria classification (sorting) == Multicriteria classification (sorting) is one of the problems considered within MCDA and can be stated as follows: given a set of objects evaluated by a set of criteria (attributes with preference-order domains), assign these objects to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes, such that each object is assigned to exactly one class. Due to the preference ordering, improvement of evaluations of an object on the criteria should not worsen its class assignment. The sorting problem is very similar to the problem of classification, however, in the latter, the objects are evaluated by regular attributes and the decision classes are not necessarily preference ordered. The problem of multicriteria classification is also referred to as ordinal classification problem with monotonicity constraints and often appears in real-life application when ordinal and monotone properties follow from the domain knowledge about the problem. As an illustrative example, consider the problem of evaluation in a high school. The director of the school wants to assign students (objects) to three classes: bad, medium and good (notice that class good is preferred to medium and medium is preferred to bad). Each student is described by three criteria: level in Physics, Mathematics and Literature, each taking one of three possible values bad, medium and good. Criteria are preference-ordered and improving the level from one of the subjects should not result in worse global evaluation (class). As a more serious example, consider classification of bank clients, from the viewpoint of bankruptcy risk, into classes safe and risky. This may involve such characteristics as "return on equity (ROE)", "return on investment (ROI)" and "return on sales (ROS)". The domains of these attributes are not simply ordered but involve a preference order since, from the viewpoint of bank managers, greater values of ROE, ROI or ROS are better for clients being analysed for bankruptcy risk . Thus, these attributes are criteria. Neglecting this information in knowledge discovery may lead to wrong conclusions. == Data representation == === Decision table === In DRSA, data are often presented using a particular form of decision table. Formally, a DRSA decision table is a 4-tuple S = ⟨ U , Q , V , f ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle U,Q,V,f\rangle } , where U {\displaystyle U\,\!} is a finite set of objects, Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is a finite set of criteria, V = ⋃ q ∈ Q V q {\displaystyle V=\bigcup {}_{q\in Q}V_{q}} where V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} is the domain of the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} and f : U × Q → V {\displaystyle f\colon U\times Q\to V} is an information function such that f ( x , q ) ∈ V q {\displaystyle f(x,q)\in V_{q}} for every ( x , q ) ∈ U × Q {\displaystyle (x,q)\in U\times Q} . The set Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is divided into condition criteria (set C ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle C\neq \emptyset } ) and the decision criterion (class) d {\displaystyle d\,\!} . Notice, that f ( x , q ) {\displaystyle f(x,q)\,\!} is an evaluation of object x {\displaystyle x\,\!} on criterion q ∈ C {\displaystyle q\in C} , while f ( x , d ) {\displaystyle f(x,d)\,\!} is the class assignment (decision value) of the object. An example of decision table is shown in Table 1 below. === Outranking relation === It is assumed that the domain of a criterion q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is completely preordered by an outranking relation ⪰ q {\displaystyle \succeq _{q}} ; x ⪰ q y {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y} means that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is at least as good as (outranks) y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} . Without loss of generality, we assume that the domain of q {\displaystyle q\,\!} is a subset of reals, V q ⊆ R {\displaystyle V_{q}\subseteq \mathbb {R} } , and that the outranking relation is a simple order between real numbers ≥ {\displaystyle \geq \,\!} such that the following relation holds: x ⪰ q y ⟺ f ( x , q ) ≥ f ( y , q ) {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y\iff f(x,q)\geq f(y,q)} . This relation is straightforward for gain-type ("the more, the better") criterion, e.g. company profit. For cost-type ("the less, the better") criterion, e.g. product price, this relation can be satisfied by negating the values from V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} . === Decision classes and class unions === Let T = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle T=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\,\!} . The domain of decision criterion, V d {\displaystyle V_{d}\,\!} consist of n {\displaystyle n\,\!} elements (without loss of generality we assume V d = T {\displaystyle V_{d}=T\,\!} ) and induces a partition of U {\displaystyle U\,\!} into n {\displaystyle n\,\!} classes Cl = { C l t , t ∈ T } {\displaystyle {\textbf {Cl}}=\{Cl_{t},t\in T\}} , where C l t = { x ∈ U : f ( x , d ) = t } {\displaystyle Cl_{t}=\{x\in U\colon f(x,d)=t\}} . Each object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} is assigned to one and only one class C l t , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t},t\in T} . The classes are preference-ordered according to an increasing order of class indices, i.e. for all r , s ∈ T {\displaystyle r,s\in T} such that r ≥ s {\displaystyle r\geq s\,\!} , the objects from C l r {\displaystyle Cl_{r}\,\!} are strictly preferred to the objects from C l s {\displaystyle Cl_{s}\,\!} . For this reason, we can consider the upward and downward unions of classes, defined respectively, as: C l t ≥ = ⋃ s ≥ t C l s C l t ≤ = ⋃ s ≤ t C l s t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }=\bigcup _{s\geq t}Cl_{s}\qquad Cl_{t}^{\leq }=\bigcup _{s\leq t}Cl_{s}\qquad t\in T} == Main concepts == === Dominance === We say that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} dominates y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted by x D p y {\displaystyle xD_{p}y\,\!} , if x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is better than y {\displaystyle y\,\!} on every criterion from P {\displaystyle P\,\!} , x ⪰ q y , ∀ q ∈ P {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y,\,\forall q\in P} . For each P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , the dominance relation D P {\displaystyle D_{P}\,\!} is reflexive and transitive, i.e. it is a partial pre-order. Given P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} and x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , let D P + ( x ) = { y ∈ U : y D p x } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{+}(x)=\{y\in U\colon yD_{p}x\}} D P − ( x ) = { y ∈ U : x D p y } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{-}(x)=\{y\in U\colon xD_{p}y\}} represent P-dominating set and P-dominated set with respect to x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , respectively. === Rough approximations === The key idea of the rough set philosophy is approximation of one knowledge by another knowledge. In DRSA, the knowledge being approximated is a collection of upward and downward unions of decision classes and the "granules of knowledge" used for approximation are P-dominating and P-dominated sets. The P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≥ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≥ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\geq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ∩ C l t ≥ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\geq }\neq \emptyset \}} Analogously, the P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≤ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≤ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\leq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ∩ C l t ≤ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\leq }\neq \emptyset \}} Lower approximations group the objects which certainly belong to class union C l t ≥ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }} (respectively C l t ≤ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq }} ). This certainty comes from the fact, that object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} belongs to the lower approximation P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} (respectively P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underl
IBM Watsonx
Watsonx is a platform by IBM for building and managing artificial intelligence (AI) applications for business use. Released on May 9, 2023, the platform provides software tools and infrastructure for companies to work with both IBM's own AI models and models from third-party sources. The platform consists of three main components: watsonx.ai, a studio for training, validating, and deploying AI models; watsonx.data, a system for storing and managing data used by the models; and watsonx.governance, a toolkit to ensure AI applications are compliant with company policies and regulations. A key feature of the platform is that it can be trained on a company's private data to perform specialized tasks, a process known as fine-tuning. IBM states that this client-specific data is not used to train its own models. == History == Watsonx was introduced on May 9, 2023, at the annual IBM Think conference, as a platform that includes multiple services. Just like Watson AI computer with the similar name, Watsonx was named after Thomas J. Watson, IBM's founder and first CEO. On February 13, 2024, Anaconda partnered with IBM to embed its open-source Python packages into Watsonx. Watsonx is used at ESPN's Fantasy Football App for managing players' performance, and by Italian telecommunications company Wind Tre. It was employed to generate editorial content around nominees during the 66th Annual Grammy Awards. In 2025, Wimbledon integrated IBM watsonx generative AI into its app and website. Integrated with IBM Safer Payments, IBM watsonx has been used in banking sector fraud detection and anti-money laundering (AML) systems. == Services == === watsonx.ai === Watsonx.ai is a platform that allows AI developers to leverage a wide range of LLMs under IBM's own Granite series and others such as Facebook's LLaMA-2, free and open-source model Mistral, and many others present in the Hugging Face community. These models come pre-trained and optimized for various natural language processing (NLP) applications.The platform also allows fine-tuning with its Tuning Studio. === watsonx.data === Watsonx.data is a platform designed to assist clients in addressing issues related to data volume, complexity, cost, and governance.. The platform facilitates seamless data access, whether stored in the cloud or on-premises, through a single entry point. === watsonx.governance === Watsonx.governance is a platform that utilizes IBM's AI capabilities to implement AI lifecycle governance. This helps them manage risks and maintain compliance with evolving AI and industry regulations, while reducing AI bias through automated oversight.
Constrained clustering
In computer science, constrained clustering is a class of semi-supervised learning algorithms. Typically, constrained clustering incorporates either a set of must-link constraints, cannot-link constraints, or both, with a data clustering algorithm. A cluster in which the members conform to all must-link and cannot-link constraints is called a chunklet. == Types of constraints == Both a must-link and a cannot-link constraint define a relationship between two data instances. Together, the sets of these constraints act as a guide for which a constrained clustering algorithm will attempt to find chunklets (clusters in the dataset which satisfy the specified constraints). A must-link constraint is used to specify that the two instances in the must-link relation should be associated with the same cluster. A cannot-link constraint is used to specify that the two instances in the cannot-link relation should not be associated with the same cluster. Some constrained clustering algorithms will abort if no such clustering exists which satisfies the specified constraints. Others will try to minimize the amount of constraint violation should it be impossible to find a clustering which satisfies the constraints. Constraints could also be used to guide the selection of a clustering model among several possible solutions. == Examples == Examples of constrained clustering algorithms include: COP K-means PCKmeans (Pairwise Constrained K-means) CMWK-Means (Constrained Minkowski Weighted K-Means)
Case-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
Win–stay, lose–switch
In psychology, game theory, statistics, and machine learning, win–stay, lose–switch (also win–stay, lose–shift or Pavlov, named after Ivan Pavlov) is a heuristic learning strategy used to model learning in decision situations. It was first invented as an improvement over randomization in bandit problems. It was later applied to the prisoner's dilemma in order to model the evolution of altruism. In most versions, it starts either with a cooperate, then proceeds as always, or starts with a "probe" of cooperate-defect-cooperate to determine the other player's strategy. A mutual cooperation is regarded as a win. The learning rule bases its decision only on the outcome of the previous play. Outcomes are divided into successes (wins) and failures (losses). If the play on the previous round resulted in a success, then the agent plays the same strategy on the next round. Alternatively, if the play resulted in a failure the agent switches to another action. A large-scale empirical study of players of the game rock, paper, scissors shows that a variation of this strategy is adopted by real-world players of the game, instead of the Nash equilibrium strategy of choosing entirely at random between the three options.