The utility of similarity-based learning in a world needing explanation

A large portion of the research in machine learning has involved a paradigm of comparing many examples and analyzing them in terms of similarities and differences. The assumption is made, usually tacitly, that the resulting generalizations will have applicability to new examples. While such research has been very successful, it is by no means obvious why similarity-based generalizations should be useful, since they may simply reflect coincidences. Proponents of explanation-based learning—a knowledge-intensive method of examining single examples to derive generalizations based on underlying causal models—could contend that their methods are more fundamentally grounded, and that there is no need to look for similarities across examples. In this chapter, we present the issues, and then show why similarity-based methods are important. We include a description of the similarity-based system UNIMEM and present four reasons why robust machine learning must involve the integration of similarity-based and explanation-based methods. We argue that: (1) it may not always be practical or even possible to determine a causal explanation; (2) similarity usually implies causality; (3) similarity-based generalizations can be refined over time; (4) similarity-based and explanation-based methods complement each other in important ways.

[1]  Michael Lebowitz,et al.  Integrated Learning: Controlling Explanation , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Michael Lebowitz,et al.  Generalization From Natural Language Text , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  Learning structural descriptions from examples , 1970 .

[4]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  Learning and reasoning by analogy , 1980, CACM.

[5]  Thomas Ellman,et al.  Generalizing Logic Circuit Designs by Analyzing Proofs of Correctness , 1985, IJCAI.

[6]  G. Cox,et al.  The Rule of Five , 1979 .

[7]  Mark A. Gluck,et al.  Information, Uncertainty and the Utility of Categories , 1985 .

[8]  Michael Lebowitz Categorizing numeric information for generalization , 1985 .

[9]  Pat Langley,et al.  Approaches to Conceptual Clustering , 1985, IJCAI.

[10]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  An Intelligent Aid for Circuit Redesign , 1983, AAAI.

[11]  Ronald J. Brachman,et al.  "I Lied About the Trees", Or, Defaults and Definitions in Knowledge Representation , 1985, AI Mag..

[12]  Ryszard S. Michalski,et al.  Automated Construction of Classifications: Conceptual Clustering Versus Numerical Taxonomy , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[13]  E. A. Feigenbaum,et al.  The simulation of verbal learning behavior , 1899, IRE-AIEE-ACM '61 (Western).

[14]  Steven Minton,et al.  Constraint-Based Generalization: Learning Game-Playing Plans From Single Examples , 1984, AAAI.

[15]  Michael Lebowitz,et al.  UNIMEM, a General Learning System: An Overview , 1986, European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  Michael Lebowitz Classifying Numeric Information for Generalization , 1983 .

[17]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  Learning and Problem Solving , 1983, IJCAI.

[18]  Ryszard S. Michalski,et al.  A Theory and Methodology of Inductive Learning , 1983, Artificial Intelligence.

[19]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  Learning to Predict Sequences , 1985 .

[20]  Ryszard S. Michalski,et al.  Pattern Recognition as Rule-Guided Inductive Inference , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[21]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

[22]  Gerald DeJong,et al.  Explanation-Based Learning: An Alternative View , 2005, Machine Learning.

[23]  Michael Lebowitz,et al.  Concept Learning in a Rich Input Domain: Generalization-Based Memory , 1984 .