1 Up votes0 Down votes

15 views10 pagesa fuzzy integral based query dispatching model in collaborative case-based reasoning.

Jan 12, 2009

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

a fuzzy integral based query dispatching model in collaborative case-based reasoning.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

15 views

a fuzzy integral based query dispatching model in collaborative case-based reasoning.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Business Proposal
- Artificial Intelligence in Cyber Defense
- Alice vs Sophie
- pdf (90)
- Montesorri Method
- Assessing You
- Maths Probability lec1/8.pdf
- Lecture 5
- Design Thinking
- exploration 4
- A1 soln
- A production-repairing inventory model with fuzzy rough coefficients under inflation and time value of money
- JobSatisfactionQuestionnaire[1]
- Overview 541 Probability Theory
- Characterizing convexity of a function by its Fréchet and limiting second-order subdifferentials.pdf
- sample lesson plan algebra
- Ergodic Theory Number Theory
- Proposal of Research
- Scored Discussion
- PG_Tier II Manual

You are on page 1of 10

c 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The United States.

Case-Based Reasoning

Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China

csckshiu@comp.polyu.edu.hk

csyli@comp.polyu.edu.hk

cszhangf@comp.polyu.edu.hk

Abstract. In a collaborative (distributed) Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) environment, an input query case could

be compared with the old cases that are resided in many different CBR agents in the network. How to obtain

the best solution effectively and efficiently from this distributed CBR network depends on a carefully designed

query dispatching strategy. In this paper, we propose a fuzzy integral based approach to measure the competence

of different CBR agents in the network and suggest three query dispatching policies which could be used to fulfill

this task. They are: To-Top policy, Strong-Strong policy and Best-Committee policy. The experimental result shows

that our proposed policies are comparatively better than the existing ones developed by Plaza and Ontañón.

ation among CBR agents (i.e. Distributed Case-based

Traditionally, intelligent systems are developed in a Reasoning (DistCBR) and Collective Case-based Rea-

standalone and insolated manner. However, the recent soning (ColCBR)). DistCBR means that a problem can

growth of the World Wide Web and multi-agent sys- be dispatched to any agent for solving, disregarding

tems triggers the need of designing intelligent systems who generates the problem. ColCBR means that the

in a distributed and collaborative manner. Being a suc- owner of the problem tries to collect the useful cases

cessful intelligent system technology, Case-Based Rea- and methods from other agents, and decide how to solve

soning (CBR) also has the need to develop its applica- the problem. Three collaboration policies (i.e. Commit-

tions into a full fledged and distributed environment. tee policy, Peer-Counsel Policy and Bounded-Counsel

Currently, there are two main approaches for select- Policy) were developed for the DistCBR framework by

ing CBR agents, the first one is proposed by Nagendra Plaza and Ontañón [4]. However, these policies are all

Prasad et al. [1] based on the concept of task decom- based on a random selection of the agents, therefore in

position, and the second one is proposed by Plaza and most cases, it is very time consuming to get the best

Arcos [2] based on the random selection of agents. The solution.

use of task decomposition is only effective when the Instead of having random selection of agents, we

problem can be nicely decomposed into a set of sub- propose our policies based on the concept of “compe-

problems, and each sub-problem can be solved by an tence”, which could be defined as the range of prob-

individual CBR agent. However if conflicts exist (e.g. lems that a particular agent (or case) could solve. Since

the solutions from two sub-problems could not be in- these policies are based on “competence”, they are

tegrated), additional heuristics from the users may be comparatively better than the previous ones. The struc-

needed. Sometimes this way of collaboration may be ture of this paper is as follows: Section two reviews

even worse than a single and isolated system [3]. two methods of calculating the cases competence. The

302 Shiu, Li and Zhang

first one is proposed by Smyth and Keane [5] while where GroupDensity is defined as the average

the second one is proposed by the authors. The CBR CaseDensity of the group (see Eq. (2)), and |G| means

agents competence computation and ranking policy are the size of the competence group G, i.e. the number of

given in Section 3. In Section 4, three policies for cases in the group G.

dispatching a new query case are proposed. Each of

these policies is based on a different assumption of GroupDensity(G) = CaseDensity(c, G)/|G|

how to obtain the best solution. An experimental com- c∈G

parison of our approaches to the existing ones is pro- (2)

vided in Section 5. Finally, the conclusion is given in

Section 6. where CaseDensity is defined by Eq. (3)

CaseDensity(c, G)

2. Case-Base Competence Modeling

= Simlarity(c, c∗ )/(|G| − 1). (3)

c∗ ∈G−{c}

The concept of case-based competence was first pro-

posed by Smyth and Keane [5], (i.e. refer as the S-K Different ways of computing Similarity can be used de-

model in this paper), and subsequently it has been de- pending on the problem on hand. For a given case-base,

veloped further to a whole range of concepts which with competence groups G = {G 1 , G 2 , . . . , G n }, n =

are useful for measuring the problem solving abil- 1, 2 . . . , the total coverage is defined by Eq. (4).

ity of case-bases. In the S-K model, many statistical

properties of a case base, such as the size and den- Coverage(G) = GroupCoverage(G i ) (4)

sity of cases, are used as input parameters for mea- G i ∈G

suring competence. However, this model assumes that

there is no overlap among different group of cases (e.g. 2.2. Problem of the S-K Model

features interaction [6] is a common cause of over-

laps). Therefore, if simply taking the group compe- Suppose that in some problem domain, we have a group

tence as the sum of the individual case competence, of non-uniformly distributed cases as depicted in Fig. 1,

and each individual case competence is computed inde- it can be shown that the S-K model is not a good pre-

pendently without considering the overlapping effects, dictor of the group competence because this model as-

the resulting group competence may be over- or under- sumes that the cases are distributed uniformly such

exaggerated. This feature overlap problem has been as those shown in Fig. 2. Assuming that Size(G) =

tackled by Shiu et al. [7] using fuzzy integral (refer as Size(G ), i.e. |G| = |G |, and GroupDensity(G) =

the S-L model in this paper). These two models will be GroupDensity(G ). Then, from Eq. (1), we have

used as the basis to develop our query case dispatch- GroupCoverage(G) = GroupCoverage(G ) where G

ing strategies. Details are explained in the following is an arbitrary competence group in a case-base, so sim-

sections. ilar results can be obtained between two case-bases, in

which one has its cases non-uniformly distributed and

the other uniformly distributed.

2.1. The S-K Model

However, from Figs. 1 and 2, it is obvious that the

coverage of the two competence groups cannot pos-

In this model, two key fundamental concepts are used:

sibly be the same. There are coverage holes in Fig. 1

coverage and reachability. Coverage of a case refers to

compared with that of Fig. 2. If we calculate the com-

the set of problems that the case can solve. Reachability

petence of the groups in Fig. 1 using the S-K model,

of a case is the set of cases that can be used to provide

then the actual competence will be over-exaggerated.

solutions to a case. Furthermore, the competence of a

It is because, the S-K model only considers the group

group of cases (G) (i.e. group coverage of G) depends

density, but ignores their distribution. There are possi-

on the number of cases in the group and their density

bly many ways of cases distributions, therefore a more

(see Eq. (1)).

accurate way of modeling of case-base competence is

required.

GroupCoverage(G) To further illustrate this point, we use the following

= 1 + |G| · (1 − GroupDensity(G)) (1) example:

A Fuzzy Integral Based Query Dispatching Model 303

Figures 1 and 2. (1) Non-uniformly distributed case base. (2) Uniformly distributed case base.

Suppose that the densities of the groups G 1 and also resulted with a computing error that cannot be

G 2 in Fig. 1 are both 0.8 and they are assumed to ignored.

have uniform distribution (i.e. the case density of each In cases distribution such as Fig. 1, the difference

case, in either G 1 or G 2 , is 0.8). The density of the between GroupCoverage1 and GroupCoverage2 can

whole group is 0.2, and the coverage of c∗ is three be further investigated as follows:

cases. The overlap coverage of c∗ and G 1 ∪ G 2 is

two, and c∗ is a pivotal case. It is rather straightfor- GroupCoverage2 − GroupCoverage1

ward to get the coverage of the whole competence = {1 + [|G| · (1 − GroupDensity(G))]}

group G as follows: (note that GroupCoverage1 means − {1 + [|G1| · (1 − GroupDensity(G1))] + 1

the computed group coverage in Fig. 1 while Group-

Coverage2 means the computed group coverage in + [|G2| · (1 − GroupDensity(G2))] + 1}

Fig. 2): = |G| · [(GroupDensity(G1)

− GroupDensity(G)) − 1 − GroupDensity(G1)]

GroupCoverage1(G) = GroupCoverage(G 1 )

(5)

+ GroupCoverage(G 2 ) + [coverage(c∗ )

≥ |G| · [(GroupDensity(G1)

− coverage(c∗ ) ∩ Coverage(G 1 ∪ G 2 )]

− GroupDensity(G)) − 2] (6)

= 1 + [|G1|(1 − GroupDensity(G))] + 1

Given the above Eqs. (5) and (6), if the number of

+ [|G2|(1 − GroupDensity(G))] + 1

cases increases and tends to ∞ (in the extreme case),

= 1 + 5(1 − 0.8) + 1 + 7(1 − 0.8) + 1 the value [GroupDensity(G 1 )−GroupDensity(G)] also

= 5.4 increases at the same time. As a result, the computing

error also tends to ∞. Therefore, the precision error of

However, according to the S-K competence model Smyth and Keane’s competence model can be arbitrar-

(Eq. (1)), the result becomes: ily large in some case-bases.

· (1 − GroupDensity(G))]

In both Figs. 1 and 3, we can easily see that the case

= 1 + 12(1 − 0.2)

c∗ or c∗∗ has an important role to play because they

= 10.6 will affect the overall competence distribution in the

group. Therefore, it is important to detect such cases

The above two results are very different and the prob- (which are called weak-links in this paper) for possible

lem is caused by the inaccurate assumption that group identification of smaller competence groups which are

G is uniformly distributed, which is not true. This having more evenly distributed cases. These smaller

304 Shiu, Li and Zhang

Coverage(c∗ ) is small, we can see that it is Group

Density which leads to the competence error.

problem of non-uniformly distributed cases, we should

first identify the weak links in each competence group.

The definition of weak link as well as several related

concepts are more directly related to the competence

of the group in question, and are defined as follows:

Definition Let G = {c1 , c2 , . . . , cn } be a given com-

petence group in a case-base C, c∗ ∈ G is called a weak

link if

Figure 3. An example of non-uniform distribution of cases in a

case-base. CompetenceError(c∗ )

= |G|GroupDensity − GroupDensity(G i )

groups’ competence can then be computed using the − RelativeCoverage(c∗ )

S-K model. A new way of computing the group com-

petence (referred as the S-L model in the paper) is then ≥ α

developed to tackle the above problem. Details are as

follows. where α is a parameter which depends on the ques-

In general, competence groups, such as G 1 and G 2 in tion on hand. If ∃c∗ ∈ G, and c∗ is a weak link, then

Fig. 1, are not necessarily having strictly uniform dis- the competence group G is called a non-uniform dis-

tribution, and the weak link case c∗ is not necessarily a tributed competence group. Otherwise, if for ∀c ∈ G,

pivotal case. To deal with this situation, without influ- CompetenceError(M) ≤ α, then G is called a quasi-

encing the results in Eq. (5), GroupDensity(G 1 ) can be uniform distributed competence

group.

replaced by the average group density of group G 1 and It is obvious that G i = G − {c∗ }. With this def-

G 2 , which can be denoted by GroupDensity(G i ) i ∈ inition, we propose a recursive method to detect the

{1, 2}, So [GroupDensity(G 1 ) − GroupDensity(G)] weak links in a given competence group G, which is

is equal to [GroupDensity(G i ) − GroupDensity(G)] described as follows:

which is denoted by GroupDensity. A concept called

quasi-uniform distribution can be used to describe the Weak-link Detection Algorithm:

distribution which is near to uniform distribution. As 1. W -SET← { }, G-SET ← { }, i = |G|;

mentioned, the other assumption that c∗ is a pivotal case 2. If (i = 0) {Consider each given competence

in the example is not necessarily true in many cases. To group G in the S-K competence model, compute

address this problem, just consider the individual com- CompetenceError(c), ∀c ∈ G; i = i − 1}

petence of c∗ as its relative coverage, which is defined 3. If there is no weak link, add G to G-SET, end;

as follows (Eq. (7)): 4. If there is a weak link c∗ , identify the competence

groups G 1 , . . . , G n , (n ≥ 1) in G −{c∗ }using the S-

RelativeCoverage(c)

K competence model, add c∗ to the set of weak-links

1

= (7) W -SET.

c ∈CoverageSet(c)

|ReachabilitySet(c )| 5. For (1 ≤ i ≤ n){G ← G i ; repeat Steps 1 to 4}.

Thus, we can obtain the set of weak links W -SET in

Competence-error(c∗ ) a given competence group G and the set of new compe-

= |G|GroupDensity − Gr oup Densit y(G i ) tence groups G-SET. Then, a given competence group

G is repartitioned (i.e. divided into smaller groups) by

− RelativeCoverage(c∗ ) ≥ |G|GroupDensity identifying the weak links in it. The groups in G-SET

− (RelativeCoverage(c∗ ) + 1) (8) are called new competence groups.

A Fuzzy Integral Based Query Dispatching Model 305

2.3.2. Computing the Overall Coverage Using Fuzzy spective importance, which indicates the two sets are

Integral. After detecting the weak links in a com- resisting each other.

petence group G, several new competence groups In our problem, consider X = {G 1 , . . . , G n } as the

G 1 , . . . , G n (n ≥ 1) are produced. According to the factor space. There are weak links among the compe-

definition of a weak link, each newly produced group tence groups, linking them to one group G. Here, weak

is said to be quasi-uniformly distributed. The next task links such as c∗ and c∗∗ are enhancing the overall cov-

is to compute the overall coverage of G. In the example erage of G. Hence, the important measure µ defined

described in Fig. 1, we simply sum the competence of on the power set (X ) is a super-additive measure. So

G i (1 ≤ i ≤ n) and the relative coverage of c∗ , but this here we have

method is only suitable in simple situations. There are

more complicated scenarios, such as the one given in

µ(A ∪ B) ≥ µ(A) + µ(B) for A, B ∈ (X ).

Fig. 3. It is difficult to clearly identify the contribution

of each weak link, (i.e. it is difficult to tell whether c∗

has more influence on the coverage of G than c∗∗ or vice For example, in Fig. 3, c∗ enhances the importance of

versa.) To describe this complex relationship, we apply G 1 ∪ G 2 , c∗∗ enhances the contribution of G 2 ∪ G 3 , and

a powerful tool called fuzzy integral (or non-linear in- there is no case to enhance or reduce the contribution

tegral) with respect to a fuzzy measure (a non-additive of G 1 ∪ G 3 , so we have

set function). Details are described in the next section.

µ(G 1 ∪ G 2 ) ≥ µ(G 1 ) + µ(G 2 )

2.3.3. Non-Additive Set Function. Let X be a µ(G 2 ∪ G 3 ) ≥ µ(G 2 ) + µ(G 3 )

nonempty set and (X ) be the power set of X . We

use the symbol µ to denote a non-negative set func- µ(G 1 ∪ G 3 ) = µ(G 1 ) + µ(G 3 )

tion defined on (X )with the properties µ() = 0. If

µ(X ) = 1, µ is said to be regular. When X is finite, µ is When using the fuzzy integral to compute the over-

usually called a fuzzy measure if it satisfies monotonic- all coverage of the original competence group G, we

ity, i.e., A ⊆ B ⇒ µ(A) ≤ µ(B) for A, B ∈ (X ). should determine the importance measure µ in ad-

For a non-negative set function µ, there are some as- vance. However, for a factor space including n factors,

sociate concepts. µ is said to be additive if µ(A ∪ B) = there are (2n − 1) parameters to decide. In the situa-

µ(A) + µ(B) for A, B ∈ (X ); to be sub-additive tion of Fig. 3, seven values of the importance measure

if µ(A ∪ B) ≤ µ(A) + µ(B) for A, B ∈ (X ); to should be determined, which are:

be super-additive if µ(A ∪ B) ≥ µ(A) + µ(B) for

A, B ∈ (X ).

Let X = {G 1 , . . . , G n } be the space of the new com- µ(G 1 ), µ(G 2 ), µ(G 3 ), µ(G 1 ∪ G 2 ), µ(G 1 ∪ G 3 ),

petence groups, and A and B two subsets of the power µ(G 2 ∪ G 3 ), µ(G 1 ∪ G 2 ∪ G 3 ).

set of X . Here, A and B can be a single new group G i or

the joint of several groups. If we consider µ(A) as the

To reduce the load, we apply a kind of fuzzy measure

importance of subset A, then the additivity of the set

called the λ-fuzzy measure, which takes the following

function means that the joint importance of the groups

form:

is just the sum of their respective importance, which

implies that there is no interaction among the compe-

tence groups. However, this is not true in the problem µ(A ∪ B) = µ(A) + µ(B) + λ · µ(A) · µ(B)

considered. In fact, most measures of importance are

λ ∈ (−1, ∞)

non-additive.

The sub-additivity and super-additivity are two spe-

cial types of non-additivity. Super-additivity means that If λ ≤ 0, µ is a sub-additive measure; if λ ≥ 0, µ is

the joint importance of the two sets is greater than or a super-additive measure; if and only if λ = 0, µ is

equal to the sum of their respective importance, which additive. So here we have λ ≥ 0. Applying the λ-fuzzy

indicates that the two sets are enhancing each other. In measure to determine the importance measure µ, we

contrast, sub-additivity means that the joint importance simply need to determine the importance of n on each

of two sets is less than or equal to the sum of their re- single factor and λ.

306 Shiu, Li and Zhang

2.3.4. Determining the λ-fuzzy Measure µ. In our where Fα = {x | f (x) ≥ α} for any α ∈ [0, ∞). When

model, we consider that the importance of each compe- X is finite, the Choquet integral can also be defined in

tence group is equal to 1, i.e. µ(G i ) = 1, (1 ≤ i ≤ n). the same way with respect to a non-negative set func-

This is a reasonable assumption because each group tion that is not necessarily monotone.

makes a unique contribution to the overall coverage, In our model, X = {G 1 , . . . , G n } is finite, f i =

that is, the status of each group is considered to be GroupCoverage(G i ), and importance measure µ satis-

equal. fies:

The next task is to determine the parameter λ, which

is critical to determine µ. It is obvious that the prop- µ(G i ) = 1(1 ≤ i ≤ n);

erties of the weak links between two groups are im- µ(A ∪ B) = µ(A) + µ(B) + λ · µ(A) · µ(B)(λ ≥ 0),

portant factors for determining λ. In our model, cover-

age of a group refers to the area of the target problem where λ is determined by Eq. (9).

space covered by the group. In this sense, the value The process of calculating the value of the Choquet

of λ is closely related to the coverage of weak links integral is as follows:

and the density of their coverage sets. Consider two

arbitrary new groups G i and G j , the W-SET between (1) Rearranging { f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f n } into a non-decrea-

them is C ∗ = {c1∗ , . . . , ch∗ }. We define Coverage(C ∗ ) sing order such that

and Density(C ∗ ) as follows:

f 1∗ ≤ f 2∗ ≤ · · · ≤ f n∗

h

Coverage(C ∗ ) = RelativeCoverage(ci∗ )

i=1

where ( f 1∗ , f 2∗ , . . . , f n∗ ) is a permutation of

( f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f n );

h

∗

Density(C ) = GroupDensity(Cov(ci∗ )) h (2) Computing

i=1

n

where Cov(ci∗ )

is the coverage set of one of the weak (c) fdµ = [ f j∗ − f j−1

∗

] · µ({G ∗j , G ∗j+1 , . . . , G ∗n })

j=1

links between G i and G j .

The coverage contribution of G i ∪ G j must be di-

where f (x0∗ ) = 0.

rectly proportional to Coverage(C ∗ ) and inversely pro-

portional to Density(C ∗ ). With these assumptions, the The value of the Choquet integral is considered as the

parameter λ is given by the formula in Eq. (8). coverage of the considered competence group. Each

competence group in the S-K model is considered in

the same way, and the sum of all group coverage is the

λ = Coverage(C ∗ ) · (1 − Density(C ∗ )) (9) overall coverage of the given case-base.

3. Competence of the CBR Agents

2.3.5. Using the Choquet Integral to Compute Com-

petence. Due to the non-additivity of the set function In the previous section, we have given the fuzzy integral

µ, some new types of integrals (known as non-linear approach for calculating the competence of each case

integrals) have to be used. A common type of nonlin- group, in this section, we can compute the competence

ear integrals with respect to non-negative monotone set of the CBR agents using the S-K and the S-L models

functions is the Choquet integral. respectively. The policies proposed here are based on

Let f be a nonnegative real-value measurable func- the DistCBR mode (see section one) in which different

tion defined on X , and µ be a non-negative monotone CBR agents are able to communicate and cooperate

set function introduced in the above section. The with one another for recommending a solution. For in-

Cho- stance, when agent Ai is unable to solve a problem,

quet integral of f on X with respect to µ, (c) f dµ,

is defined by the formula will delegate its authority of solving the problem toA j .

For a given Collaborative Case-Based Reasoning

∞

(CCBR) system, there are n(n ≥ 1) case-based reason-

(c) fdµ = µ(Fα ) dα, ers, denoted by CBR1 , CBR2 , . . . , CBRn . These CBRs

0

A Fuzzy Integral Based Query Dispatching Model 307

can be regarded as n agents A1 , A2 , . . . , An for prob- 2. Compute the competence of each CBR agent in

lem solving in a distributed manner. The corresponding the CCBR2 group according to the S-L model,

case-bases are CB1 , CB2 , . . . , CBn , with competence and rank them as C12 , C22 , . . . , Cm2 2 .

groups G 1 , G 2 , . . . , G n respectively.

Step 4. Rank the CBR agents according to the respective

competence of each CBR agent in the CCBR1 and

Compute the Group Competence

CCBR2:

In computing the competence, we define the similarity According to the competence, rank the CBR agents in

between two cases p and q by the following equation: the CCBR1 and CCBR2 system in a descending order

as {A11 , A12 , . . . , A1m 1 }, {A21 , A22 , . . . , A2m 2 }.

n

S M pq = 1/ 1 +

(x pj − xq j )2 ,

j=1

4. Query Dispatching Policies

where xi j corresponds to the value of feature F j (1 ≤

Three query dispatching policies based on the compe-

j ≤ n), (i = 1, . . . , n).

tence of the CBR agents are proposed here: To-Top

policy; Strong-Strong policy and Best Committee pol-

Step 1. Detecting the weak-links in the above compe-

icy. These are:

tence group G i (i = 1, 2, . . . , n):

If ∃c∗ ∈ G i , s.t. CompetenceError(c∗ ) ≥ α, then the

competence group G i is a non-uniform distributed 4.1. To-Top Policy

competence group. Otherwise, G i is a quasi-uniform

distributed competence group. The main idea of this policy is to choose the CBR

Step 2. Partition the CBR agents according to their com- agent which has the maximal competence in the cor-

petence: responding CCBR system, i.e. A11 or A21 in CCBR1 and

the CCBR2 system respectively. CCBR1 is chosen as

1. CCBR1 ← φ, CCBR2 ← φ, i = |G|; where

the problem-solving agent if there are no feature in-

CCBR1 consists of those agents who have no

teractions, otherwise CCBR2 is chosen. For example,

feature interactions (or no overlaps among com-

in a travel-planning problem which will be described

petence groups), while CCBR2 consists of those

in section five, the hotels are classified by the number

agents who have feature interactions (or over-

of stars, therefore when the user specify the type of

laps among competence groups).

accommodations (e.g. the number of stars), this will

2. If (i = 0), compute CompetenceError(c), ∀c ∈

limit the choices of the available hotels. In this case,

G, i = i − 1;

the features “accommodation” and “hotel” are inter-

3. If there is no weak-link in G, then G is called

acting. The dispatching procedure is as follow: if agent

a quasi-uniform distributed competence group,

Ai receives an input query, it will try to solve it. When

then add G to CCBR1, otherwise G is called

the solution is satisfactory (i.e. within a user defined

a non-uniform distributed competence group,

threshold of solution accuracy, and efficiency), it be-

then add G to CCBR2, end;

comes the answer to the input query. Otherwise, it will

4. For (1 ≤ j ≤ n), G ← G j ( j = 1, 2, . . . , n),

dispatch the problem to A11 or A21 for solving. If Ai

repeat the above Steps 1 to 3.

is one of the agents in CCBR1, then it dispatches the

Step 3. Compute the competence of each CBR agent in problem to the agent A11 , otherwise the problem will go

the CCBR1 & CCBR2: to A21 in CCBR2.

1. Compute the competence of each CBR agent in

the CCBR1 group according to the S-K model. 4.2. Strong-Strong Policy

Since the cases are distributed uniformly in

each CBR agent, we can get the competence In this policy, we assume that we could not determine

using the S-K competence model [5] directly. whether the features are having interactions or not.

They are then ranked in a descending order ac- Consider the travel-planning problem again, we are not

cording their competence, and are denoted as sure whether there are feature interactions or not be-

C11 , C21 , . . . , Cm1 1 . tween the features “season” and “hotel” or between

308 Shiu, Li and Zhang

the features “holiday duration” and “season”. Thus, it groups (i.e. each group represent one CBR agent, there-

is better to ask more than one agent to suggest the so- fore if 4 agents are used, each of them consists of 200

lutions. We will choose the most competent agent (i.e. cases, etc.). The feature “price” is chosen as the solu-

one from each collaborative CBR system). That is, if tion feature. The testing is based on the evaluation of

j

the agent Ai (i = 1, j = 1, 2) receives the prob- the solution accuracy and the mean cost of solving (i.e.

lem, and cannot solve it satisfactorily, it will ask the time consumption).

agents A11 in the CCBR1 and agent A21 in the CCBR2 The objective of the experiment is to determine the

to solve it in parallel. One of these suggested solutions “price” of each travel plan using our proposed policies.

will be used based on an earlier assessment of these A comparison of our approach to some exiting ones

two agents’ ability. (Note that these two agents belong [4] is also carried out. The mean relative error (i.e.

to the two CCBR systems, therefore the selection has the difference between the actual result and the pre-

already considered the feature interaction property). dicted result and divided by the actual result) is used

to compute the accuracy. For example in our experi-

ment, if four agents are used to predict the “price” of a

4.3. Best-Committee Policy particular testing case (such as Case number 987), our

three policies will give the following results respec-

If time is not critical, and getting better solution is the tively: $4,708.25, $3,536.72, and $4,561.35. The ac-

main concern, then the user can ask more agents for curacies are 84.94%, 86.43% and 88.26% respectively

suggested solutions. In general, the more the agents (see Fig. 4). The mean cost is the relative CPU time of

are involved, the more accurate the answer will be. the isolated agent, and assuming the mean time cost of

j

That is, if the agent Ai (i = 1, j = 1, 2) receives the isolated agent is ONE unit, then the mean time costs

the problem, it could follow the To-Top and Strong- of the collaborative policies are given in Fig. 5. We have

Strong policies first for solving the problem. However, conducted five testing runs, and each testing has dif-

if the solution is not satisfactory, it can ask the agents ferent number of agents. These agents are formed by

j j j

A1 , A2 , . . . , Ai−1 , (i.e. those agents that are better in randomly re-organize the 800 testing cases.

competence), to solve the problem. Each agent will of- The result shows that our policies use less time and

fer a solution to the problem, and the final solution is still can achieve the same accuracy as the other exist-

chosen according to the user’s preference, such as pre- ing ones. In details, Fig. 4 shows that all of six case

ferred accuracy. This policy provides the user a flexible dispatching policies are better than the isolated agent.

choice, when he wants to get the best solution, then he The Strong-Strong policy is better than the To-Top pol-

can ask all the agents for suggestions. This policy is icy and the Best-Committee policy is the best one.

the same as the “Committee” policy proposed by Plaza The Strong-Strong policy has similar accuracy to the

and Ontañón.

5. Experimental Evaluation

test cases that are available from AI-CBR web-site (i.e.

www.ai-cbr.org). This travel case-base contains 1470

cases, and we randomly selected 1100 cases for our ex-

periment. Each test case describes a holiday-package

tour from Europe/ North Africa, and consists of 9 fea-

tures. In dividing the cases into different groups for

measuring competence, we use a random selection ap-

proach. The reason is that because in real life, there

may be missing values in the cases, therefore a feature

based grouping of cases may not be possible. In the

experiment, 800 cases are chosen randomly as learn-

ing data, and 300 cases are chosen as testing data. The

learning data are further divided into 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Figure 4. The average accuracy of collaborative policies.

A Fuzzy Integral Based Query Dispatching Model 309

Acknowledgment

technic University research grant H-ZJ90 and CERG

research grant B-Q379.

References

in distributed case-bases,” Journal of Visual Communication and

Image Representation, Special Issue on Digital Libraries, vol. 7,

no. 1, pp. 74–87, 1996.

2. E. Plaza, J.L. Arcos, and F.J. Martı́n, “Cooperative case-based

reasoning,” in Distributed Artificial Intelligence Meets Machine

Learning: Learning in Multi-Agent Environments, edited by G.

Weiss, 1997, pp. 180–201.

Figure 5. The mean cost of the collaborative policies.

3. D.B. Leake and R. Sooriamurthi, “When two cases are better

than one: Exploiting multiple case-bases,” in Proc. of the 4th Int.

Bounded-Counsel policy and the Peer-Counsel policy. Conf. on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR 2001, Vancouver, BC,

Canada, 2001, pp. 321–335.

Here we did not include the Committee policy in the 4. E. Plaza and S. Ontañón, “Ensemble Case-Based Reasoning: Col-

experiment because it can be viewed as a special case laboration policies for multi-agent cooperative CBR,” in Proc.

of Best-Committee policy. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR 2001,

Some limitations of our experiment include: (1) Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2001, pp. 437–451.

since the number of cases is fixed, an increase of the 5. B. Smyth and E. McKenna, “Modeling the competence of case-

bases,” in Proc. of the 4th European Workshop, EWCBR 1998,

number of agents will decrease their competence cor- Dublin, Ireland, 1998, pp. 208–220.

respondingly, as the result, the experimental accuracy 6. X.Z. Wang and D.S. Yeung, “Using fuzzy integral to modeling

will decrease with the increasing number of the agents case-based reasoning with feature interaction,” IEEE Int. Conf.

and (2) a pre-processing of the agents’ competence is on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 5, pp. 3660–3665, 2000.

required. On the other hand, the merits of our method 7. S.C.K. Shiu, Y. Li, and X.Z. Wang, “Using fuzzy in-

tegral to model case-base competence,” in Proc. of Soft

are: (1) the computation time for finding a satisfac- Computing in Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, in conjunc-

tory solution is comparatively less than the current ap- tion with the 4th Int. Conf. in Case-Based Reasoning, IC-

proaches, (2) our three policies can provide alternative CBR 2001, Vancouver, Canada, 2001, pp. 206–212. Or

case dispatching methods to users according to their available from http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/papers/2001/AIC-01-

preference, and (3) our approach can be used to model 003/ws5/ws5toc6.pdf, 2002.

8. Z.Y. Wang and G.J. Klir, Fuzzy Measure Theory, Plenum: New

feature interaction among cases. York, USA, 1992, pp. 42–43.

6. Conclusions

patching query to different CBR agents. The policies

are based on the concept of case and group competence.

The problem of feature interaction among cases is also

tackled using the fuzzy integral model. Our approach

has been demonstrated empirically with some testing

cases from the travel domain, and the result shows that

our approach is better than the existing ones. Further Simon C.K. Shiu is an Assistant Professor at the Department of

research includes a more detail investigation of case Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. He

feature interactions, as well as their modeling in dis- received M.Sc. degree in Computing Science from University of

Newcastle Upon Tyne, U.K. in 1985, M.Sc. degree in Business Sys-

tributed CBR environments. Furthermore, a more the- tems Analysis and Design from City University, London in 1986

oretical analysis and evaluation of our approach will be and Ph.D. degree in Computing in 1997 from Hong Kong Polytech-

carried out. nic University. He worked as a system analyst and project manager

310 Shiu, Li and Zhang

between 1985 and 1990 in several business organizations in Hong the Department of Computing, the Hong Kong Polytechnic Univer-

Kong. His current research interests include Case-base Reasoning, sity. Her interests include fuzzy mathematics, case-based reasoning,

Machine Learning and Soft Computing. He has co-authored (with rough sets theory and information retrieval.

Professor Sankar K. Pal) a research monograph Foundations of Soft

Case-Based Reasoning published by John Wiley in 2004.

Dr. Shiu is a member of the British Computer Society and the

IEEE.

ics in 1998 and 2001 respectively from the College of Computer

and Mathematics, Hebei University, P.R. China. Currently, she is a

Yan Li received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Mathematics in 1998 Lecturer in the College of Computer and Mathematics, Hebei Uni-

and 2001 respectively from the College of Computer and Mathemat- versity. Her interests include fuzzy mathematics, neural networks,

ics, Hebei University, P.R. China. Currently, she is a Ph.D. student in case-based reasoning and information retrieval.

- Business ProposalUploaded byTine Dimaunahan
- Artificial Intelligence in Cyber DefenseUploaded byDOn Ad
- Alice vs SophieUploaded bySophie Eugenie Ro
- pdf (90)Uploaded bymehdi
- Montesorri MethodUploaded bymiatime
- Assessing YouUploaded byMikonbai
- Maths Probability lec1/8.pdfUploaded byeeshgarg
- Lecture 5Uploaded bysohail ali
- Design ThinkingUploaded byGiulio R Stefanica
- exploration 4Uploaded byapi-260814939
- A1 solnUploaded byMister Black
- A production-repairing inventory model with fuzzy rough coefficients under inflation and time value of moneyUploaded bySalvador Diaz
- JobSatisfactionQuestionnaire[1]Uploaded byalsaeed100
- Overview 541 Probability TheoryUploaded byAlbert Pang
- Characterizing convexity of a function by its Fréchet and limiting second-order subdifferentials.pdfUploaded byPham Duy Khanh
- sample lesson plan algebraUploaded byapi-440140260
- Ergodic Theory Number TheoryUploaded byRenato Castilho
- Proposal of ResearchUploaded byYogamalar Chandrasekaran
- Scored DiscussionUploaded byeva.benson
- PG_Tier II ManualUploaded byVENKI
- ac sa math prep count 1Uploaded byapi-352406220
- R&RframeworkUploaded byeducators9451
- problem solving unit planUploaded byapi-282730723
- Maths Standards Amended Vs3 (1)Uploaded byKirthana Sivaraman
- Fall_2010_STA630_1Uploaded bykashifmansooranwar
- Handout for WebquestUploaded bys
- funcnotesUploaded bygomson
- Reflective Practice SchonUploaded byLuis Enrique Urtubey
- TRANSLATE PAPER ANIS (translation).docxUploaded byRio
- Ente Pre NuerUploaded byRaj J Das

- Motivating Factors in Advertisement for Brand Recognition in Print MediaUploaded byspitraberg
- 03Uploaded byspitraberg
- 71413876605-تصميم گيري چند شاخصه در رتبه بندي طرحهاي تامين آب شهريUploaded byspitraberg
- 52613830510-ارائه يک مدل پشتيبان تصميم گيري جهت برنامه ريزي، ارزيابي و انتخاب تامين کنندگانUploaded byspitraberg
- Islamic Perspective of Emotional Intelligence and Significance of Its DevelopmentUploaded byspitraberg
- Strategic Selection of Problem-Solving Methodologies (PSMs( To Gain Lean Production SystemUploaded byspitraberg
- 337- طراحي آزمايشها در محيط فازي با استفاده از تصميم گيري چند هدفه فازيUploaded byspitraberg
- 323 -رتبه بندي صنايع ايران بر اساس تکنيک هاي تصميم گيري با معيارهاي چندگانهUploaded byspitraberg
- How to Find Relationship Between Performance Measurement System and TQM in Manufacturing OrganizationUploaded byspitraberg
- Measuring Service Quality at Hospitals affiliated to Iran Medical Sciences UniversityUploaded byspitraberg
- 224 - تحليل تصميم گيري چندشاخصي با گزينه هاي ترکيبيUploaded byspitraberg
- 20-establishing dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and valueUploaded byspitraberg
- Gender Differences in Communication Styles Among Employees of Service Sector: Age, Gender And Individual’s EducationUploaded byspitraberg
- Total Quality Management-an Approach towards Good overnanceUploaded byspitraberg
- 12-the choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision makingUploaded byspitraberg
- 11-multicriteria job evaluation for large organizationsUploaded byspitraberg
- Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage – Process Vs. Performance Benchmarking For Financial ResultsUploaded byspitraberg
- Emulative Leadership Qualities and Their Global RamificationUploaded byspitraberg
- 04570-فرايند تبيين و تدوين بيانيه رسالت سازمان (مطالعه موردي : آستان قدس رضوي)Uploaded byspitraberg
- 01480-اجراي استراتژي:سازمان مبتني بر نقاط مرجع استراتژيكUploaded byspitraberg
- Establishing Framework for Pakistan Quality AwardUploaded byspitraberg
- The Evolution of ExcellenceUploaded byspitraberg
- 820-نقش فرهنگ در انتخاب مدل استراتژيUploaded byspitraberg
- 127-برنامه ريزي راهبردي در آستان قدس رضويUploaded byspitraberg
- 0002-طراحي و پيادهسازي کارگزار فازي برای اولويت بندي راهبردي سهام بازارUploaded byspitraberg
- 0001-ارائة سیستم هوشمند تصمیم یار برای اولویت بندی استراتژیها با استفاده از فرایند تحليل سلسله مراتبی در حالت فازيUploaded byspitraberg
- Constructing Context in Quality Management ImplementationUploaded byspitraberg
- Knowledge Management in a BSC Project Experience of GIGUploaded byspitraberg
- Knowledge Management in SMEs – Current Practices and Potential BenefitsUploaded byspitraberg
- Weighted Quantum Management for School Teaching / Learning ProgramUploaded byspitraberg

- Challenges of Middle and Late Adolescents BitchUploaded byBrielle Perez
- Evaluation of the Risk and Security Overlay of ArchiMate to Model Information SystemUploaded byChristophe Feltus
- Don't Sweat the Small Stuff at WorkUploaded byAlvinFernandez
- wa-elp-standards-k12Uploaded byapi-280560025
- Proposal PenuhUploaded byUdo Mirzawan
- Megashifts Impacting Shipping and Ports in the Next 10 Years_Gerd LeonhardUploaded bydovedy
- reference interviewUploaded byapi-267019822
- Jin Shin JyutsuUploaded byibiaixm
- Schema TheoryUploaded byblackpaperrock
- CEP Lesson Plan 3Uploaded byMaureen K. Darcy
- Atg Wordsearch TakeUploaded bycecil0801
- 08 - agosto 17 2013 - material for test construction.pdfUploaded byEyouty Dhe
- Burke_About the PentadUploaded byFiktivni Fikus
- Developmental Psychology Chapter OneUploaded bySalih Hassen Anwar
- 5e lesson planUploaded byapi-299537438
- Articulo ESPECIFICO 2 Ollari, 2001Uploaded bysdíaz_923966
- Are adolescents less mature than adultsUploaded byMargarita E. García Moscoso
- 203382-cambridge-english-vocabulary-and-spelling-teaching-activities.pdfUploaded byTee Fle
- CRI Individual Assignment (v3.2)Uploaded byMikeyy Nzuzi
- DE BOLLE, Leen (org.). Deleuze and Psychoanalysis.pdfUploaded byFofinho
- Hand Out NCM 107Uploaded byPhelenaphie Menodiado Panlilio
- Assertiveness Power PointUploaded byAndrew E. Schwartz
- (Open UP Study Skills) Vernon Trafford_ Shosh Leshem-Stepping Stones to Achieving Your Doctorate _ Focusing on Your Viva From the Start-McGraw-Hill (2008)Uploaded byvictorbirkner
- Parental Meta Emotion Philosophy and the Emotional Life of Families Theoretical Models and Preliminary DataUploaded byJoão Paulo
- senticnet-5Uploaded byHassina Aliane
- american dream reality promise or illusionUploaded byapi-315341156
- Cultural Sociology 2011 Licoppe 367 84Uploaded byNguyen Trung Kien
- Reading Teacher ExamUploaded bycboosalis
- Dynamic Discussions for GA/TA Instructors by Carol Reader, Christine Rossi and Emily D'Alimonte, UWindsorUploaded bycandacenast
- Priya_S_50713001Uploaded byAkn Nanthan

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.