Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Based Reasoning Research and Development 28th International Conference ICCBR 2020 Salamanca Spain June 8 12 2020 Proceedings Ian Watson
Case Based Reasoning Research and Development 28th International Conference ICCBR 2020 Salamanca Spain June 8 12 2020 Proceedings Ian Watson
https://textbookfull.com/product/case-based-reasoning-research-
and-development-26th-international-conference-
iccbr-2018-stockholm-sweden-july-9-12-2018-proceedings-michael-t-
cox/
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-tutoring-
systems-16th-international-conference-its-2020-athens-greece-
june-8-12-2020-proceedings-vivekanandan-kumar/
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-information-systems-
engineering-32nd-international-conference-caise-2020-grenoble-
france-june-8-12-2020-proceedings-schahram-dustdar/
https://textbookfull.com/product/web-engineering-20th-
international-conference-icwe-2020-helsinki-finland-
june-9-12-2020-proceedings-maria-bielikova/
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-information-systems-
engineering-caise-forum-2020-grenoble-france-
june-8-12-2020-proceedings-nicolas-herbaut/
https://textbookfull.com/product/business-information-
systems-23rd-international-conference-bis-2020-colorado-springs-
co-usa-june-8-10-2020-proceedings-witold-abramowicz/
Ian Watson
Rosina Weber (Eds.)
Case-Based Reasoning
LNAI 12311
Research
and Development
28th International Conference, ICCBR 2020
Salamanca, Spain, June 8–12, 2020
Proceedings
123
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 12311
Series Editors
Randy Goebel
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Yuzuru Tanaka
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Wolfgang Wahlster
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
Founding Editor
Jörg Siekmann
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/1244
Ian Watson Rosina Weber (Eds.)
•
Case-Based Reasoning
Research
and Development
28th International Conference, ICCBR 2020
Salamanca, Spain, June 8–12, 2020
Proceedings
123
Editors
Ian Watson Rosina Weber
School of Computer Science College of Computing and Informatics
University of Auckland Drexel University
Auckland, New Zealand Philadelphia, PA, USA
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
This volume contains the papers presented at the 28th International Conference on
Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR 2020), which was held June 8–12, 2020. ICCBR is the
premier annual meeting of the Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) research community. The
theme of ICCBR 2020 was “CBR Across Bridges,” aiming to help guide future
developments in CBR by encouraging members from within and outside the CBR
community to discuss new ideas.
Previous ICCBRs, including the merged European Workshops and Conferences on
CBR, were as follows: Otzenhausen, Germany (1993); Chantilly, France (1994);
Sesimbra, Portugal (1995); Lausanne, Switzerland (1996); Providence, USA (1997);
Dublin, Ireland (1998); Seeon Monastery, Germany (1999); Trento, Italy (2000);
Vancouver, Canada (2001); Aberdeen, UK (2002); Trondheim, Norway (2003);
Madrid, Spain (2004); Chicago, USA (2005); Fethiye, Turkey (2006); Belfast, UK
(2007); Trier, Germany (2008); Seattle, USA (2009); Alessandria, Italy (2010);
Greenwich, UK (2011); Lyon, France (2012); Saratoga Springs, USA (2013); Cork,
Ireland (2014); Frankfurt, Germany (2015); Atlanta, USA (2016); Trondheim, Norway
(2017); Stockholm, Sweden (2018); and Otzenhausen, Germany (2019).
Of course 2020 was a very unusual year. ICCBR 2020 was planned to be held in
Salamanca, Spain, but as it became obvious that travel in June would be impossible,
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a decision was made to hold the conference virtually.
ICCBR 2020 received 64 submissions from 23 countries, spanning Europe, North
America, and Asia. Three Program Committee members reviewed each submission.
Papers for which the reviewers did not reach consensus were referred to members
of the ICCBR Advisory Council and program chairs for meta-review. Of the 64 sub-
missions, 22 (34%) were selected for oral presentation. There were no posters in 2020
as delivering them was deemed impractical. Instead they were given as oral
presentations.
ICCBR 2020 began as the community assembled online on the afternoon of June 8,
2020. The only formal activity on that day was for the Doctoral Consortium (DC)
participants, who met their mentors for the first time and prepared for their upcoming
presentations. The DC provides opportunities for PhD students to share and obtain
mutual feedback on their research and career objectives with senior CBR researchers
and peers. After the DC session, all conference attendees gathered together for an
online social event.
The first full day of the conference started with an opening session that provided
information on how the online conference would be run. This session concluded with a
tribute to Professor Miltos Petridis who sadly died in April from COVID-19. Miltos
was a very regular attendee at ICCBR, he had been a local chair when the conference
was held in Greenwich, UK, and was a long-standing member of the Program
Committee. A moment’s silence in Miltos’ honor was followed by the presentation
of the Miltos Petridis Best Paper Award. This was awarded to Mark Keane and Barry
vi Preface
Smyth of University College Dublin, Ireland, for their paper “Good Counterfactuals
and Where to Find Them: A Case-Based Technique for Generating Counterfactuals for
Explainable AI (XAI).” An honorable mention was made to Ikechukwu Nkisi-Orji1,
Nirmalie Wiratunga, Chamath Palihawadana, Juan A. Recio-Garcia, and David Corsar
for their paper “Clood CBR: Towards Microservices Oriented Case-Based Reasoning.”
The Best Paper Award was followed by an invited keynote talk by Professor
Francesco Ricci of the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy. His talk, “Computing
useful recommendations: still requires knowledge,” was well received. The main
technical track then continued throughout most of the day ending with a social event.
The third day started with a technical session on “New Paradigms” followed by
presentations from DC students on their research topics. The day ended with a social
event. The following day started with an invited keynote “Learning to Compare with
Few Data for Personalised Human Activity Recognition” given by Professor Nirmalie
Wiratunga of the Robert Gordon University, UK. This was followed by technical
sessions, and the day ending with an online gala dinner where attendees were
encourage to have a meal to virtually share with others. The final day finished off the
technical sessions followed by a private Program Committee meeting and an open to all
CBR community meeting. It was generally felt that the technical sessions had worked
very well online. The local chair, Juan Manuel Corchado of the University of
Salamanca, Spain, and his support team were praised for handling all of the technical
aspects involved with managing an online conference. The conference ended with a
final social event.
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the following people, without whose
contributions ICCBR 2020 would not have been possible. Local chair Juan Manuel
Corchado and his team managed the technical aspects of the online conference and also
managed the registration process. Workshop chairs, Hayley Borck and David Wilson,
planned a lively workshop program, but regrettably there were not enough submissions
to the workshops for whatever reason. We also extend our thanks to Stewart Massie
and Michael Floyd who chaired the DC, providing invaluable support to the next
generation of CBR researchers.
We extend our gratitude to the members of the ICCBR Advisory Council, Agnar
Aamodt, David Aha, David Leake, Mehmet Goker, and Ramon Lopez de Mantaras,
Barry Smyth, and Cindy Marling, for their advice and support. We would also like to
thank the Program Committee and additional reviewers, who thoughtfully assessed the
submissions and did an excellent job of providing constructive feedback to the authors.
Program Chairs
Ian Watson The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Rosina Weber Drexel University, USA
Local Chair
Juan Manuel Corchado University of Salamanca, Spain
Workshop Chairs
Hayley Borck Honeywell, USA
David Wilson UNC Charlotte, USA
Advisory Council
Agnar Aamodt NTNU, Norway
David Aha Naval Research Laboratory, USA
Mehmet H. Göker ServiceNow, USA
David Leake Indiana University, USA
Ramon López de Mántaras IIIA-CSIC, Spain
Cindy Marling Ohio University, USA
Barry Smyth University College Dublin, Ireland
Program Committee
Klaus-Dieter Althoff University of Hildesheim, DFKI, Germany
Ralph Bergmann University of Trier, Germany
Isabelle Bichindaritz State University of New York at Oswego, USA
Hayley Borck Honeywell, USA
Derek Bridge University College Cork, Ireland
Sutanu Chakraborti Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
Alexandra Coman Capital One, USA
Sarah Jane Delany Technological University Dublin, Ireland
Belén Díaz Agudo Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Michael Floyd Knexus Research, USA
viii Organization
Local Committee
Juan M. Corchado University of Salamanca, Spain
(Local Chair)
Fernando De la Prieta University of Salamanca, Spain
Pintado
Sara Rodríguez González University of Salamanca, Spain
Javier Prieto Tejedor University of Salamanca, Spain
Pablo Chamoso Santos University of Salamanca, Spain
Roberto Casado Vara University of Salamanca, Spain
Alfonso González Briones Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Elena Hernández Nieves University of Salamanca, Spain
Liliana Durón Figueroa University of Salamanca, Spain
Alberto Rivas Camacho University of Salamanca, Spain
Marta Plaza Hernández University of Salamanca, Spain
Yeray Mezquita Martín University of Salamanca, Spain
Niloufar Shoeibi University of Salamanca, Spain
Eugenia Pérez Pons University of Salamanca, Spain
Organization ix
Additional Reviewers
Shideh Amiri
Christopher Bartlett
Viktor Eisenstadt
Ömer Ibrahim Erduran
Prateek Goel
Miriam Herold
Adam Johs
Guanghui Liu
Kyle Martin
Jakob Schoenborn
Anjana Wijekoon
Invited Talks
Computing Useful Recommendations:
Still Requires Knowledge
Francesco Ricci
Nirmalie Wiratunga
Invited Paper
1 Introduction
Integrated human activity recognition (HAR) and assistive technologies promise
to enable people to live their life well regardless of their chronic conditions. A
systematic review of interventions to promote physical activity [10] illustrated
This work was part funded by SelfBACK, a project funded by the European Union’s
H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 689043. More
details available at http://www.selfback.eu.
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
I. Watson and R. Weber (Eds.): ICCBR 2020, LNAI 12311, pp. 3–14, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58342-2_1
4 N. Wiratunga et al.
that interventions involving behaviour change strategies are more effective for
sustaining longer-term physically active lifestyles than time-limited interventions
involving structured exercises alone. Advances in telecommunications and Arti-
ficial Intelligence (AI) technologies paves the way for personalised virtual health
companions to provide adherence monitoring along side behaviour change dig-
ital interventions. Innovative, person-centred strategies to monitor and predict
physical activity and exercise behaviours, to scan and anticipate environmental
barriers to activity, and to provide social and motivation support are required.
In this paper, we focus on one specific aspect of self-management; which is to
reason from sensing data to monitor adherence to personalised self-management
plans. A plan requires a user to follow physical activities such as walking and
specific physiotherapy exercises. Pervasive and ubiquitous AI enabled devices
are arguably best placed to continuously monitor a person’s adherence to self-
management plans, make real-time predictions about the likelihood of adherence
and the impact of that. What is lacking are HAR algorithms that can adapt to
differences in person-specific movements (e.g. gait, disabilities, weight, height);
and to do so with few data.
The idea of meta-learning is to train exactly as we would expect to deploy
the system [7]. What this means is that rather than treating a specific “activ-
ity” as a class to be recognised across all persons; we instead learn to recognise
the “person-activity” pair as the class; and importantly do so with a limited
number of data instances per person. This can be viewed as a few-shot classifi-
cation scenario [13,15] commonly used in image classification where the aim is
to train with one or few data instances. Meta-learning is arguably the state-of-
the-art in few-shot classification [5,11], where a wide range of tasks abstracting
their learning to a meta-model, such that, it is transferable to any unseen task.
Meta-learning algorithms such as MAML [5] and Relation Networks (RN) [14]
are grounded in theories of metric learning and parametric optimisation, and
capable of learning generalised models. The meta-learning concept of learning-
to-compare aligns well with personalisation where modelling a person can be
viewed as a single task; whereby a meta-model must help learn a model that
is rapidly adaptable or is applicable to a new person at deployment. Here we
propose Personalised Meta-Learning to create personalised HAR models, with
a small amount of data (about one minute worth of calibration data) extracted
from a person’s sensing devices. We make the following contributions:
– present personalised meta-learning in the context of matching networks (MN),
relation networks (RN) and MAML;
– perform a comparative evaluation with a self-management dataset from the
selfBACK EU project to compare the utility of personalised meta-learning
algorithms over conventional learning algorithms with focus on using few
data; and
– provide results from an exploratory study on the transferability of meta-
modals from physiotherapy experts to non-experts
Learning to Compare with Few Data 5
Wearables, such as smart watches or phones, are the most common form of phys-
ical activity monitoring devices and sources of delivering digital interventions.
These are embedded with inertial measurement devices (e.g. accelerometers or
gyroscopes) that generate time-series data which can be exploited for human
activity recognition of ambulatory activities, activities of daily living, gait anal-
ysis and pose recognition [3,12,17]. In the selfBACK project the HAR dataset
has 6 ambulatory and 3 stationary activities1 . Each activity has approximately
3 min of data with a 100 Hz sampling rate recorded with 33 participants using
two accelerometers on the wrist (W) and the thigh (T).
1
https://github.com/rgu-selfback/Datasets.
6 N. Wiratunga et al.
|S|
q
y = arg max att(θf (xq ), θf (xsi )) × yis (2)
i
During training, the network iteratively updates weights of θf to maximise the
similarity between the query instance and support set instance pairs from the
Learning to Compare with Few Data 9
same activity class. This is enforced by the loss function, categorical cross-
entropy, which quantifies the difference between the estimated, y q and actual
class, y, distributions. One-hot encoding is used to represent classes enabling the
attention kernel multiplication with the similarity value (in the range [0 . . 100]).
The concept of “learning to match” is achieved with attention where pair-
wise similarity computations are used to influence the network’s back propaga-
tion and consequent weight updates. This means that the embedding function
that is learnt is optimised for matching which is a proxy to class prediction. At
deployment, given a meta-test instance, P̂, MN predicts the label for a query
instance xˆq with respect to its support set D̂s . In other words, the network learns
to retrieve the best match from the support set elements, thereafter using them
with similarity weighted majority voting to predict the class.
similarity 1 and the mismatched pair have similarity 0. Here learning similar-
ity scores are viewed as a regression problem with mean-squared-error forming
the loss function that optimises both θf and θr . At deployment, as with M N p ,
given a test query instance xˆq the RN p predicts the class label, with respect to
its support set D̂s .
4 Evaluations
The aim of the evaluations is to compare performance of the 3 personalised meta-
learners discussed in Sect. 3 with several established benchmark algorithms.
4.2 Discussion
5 Conclusion
Personalised meta-learning, supports model transfer to new situations in appli-
cations where there is few data. With HAR models can be transferred with
a few instances of calibration data obtained from the end-user at deployment.
M AM Lp uses calibration data to adapt through re-training; whilst M N p and
RN p uses calibration data directly for matching (without re-training). Our
results on MEx and selfBACK datasets with personalised meta-learning show
significant performance improvements over conventional and non-personalised
meta-learning algorithms. Importantly we find, while RN p outperform M AM Lp ,
M AM Lp performs significantly faster due to the absence of paired matching.
We hope that the parameterised learning-to-compare methods discussed here
will help inspire new ideas relevant for CBR research.
References
1. Bach, K., Szczepanski, T., Aamodt, A., Gundersen, O.E., Mork, P.J.: Case rep-
resentation and similarity assessment in the selfBACK decision support system.
In: Goel, A., Dı́az-Agudo, M.B., Roth-Berghofer, T. (eds.) ICCBR 2016. LNCS
(LNAI), vol. 9969, pp. 32–46. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-47096-2 3
14 N. Wiratunga et al.
2. Bromley, J., Guyon, I., LeCun, Y.: Signature verification using a ’siamese’ time
delay neural network. Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell. 7(4), 669–688 (1993)
3. Chavarriaga, R., et al.: The opportunity challenge: a benchmark database for on-
body sensor-based har. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 34(15), 2033–2042 (2013)
4. Chen, Y.Y., et al.: Designing a personalised case-based recommender system for
mobile self-management of diabetes during exercise. In: Workshop Proceedings of
the 2nd Knowledge Discovery from Health Workshop at the International Joint
Conference on AI (2017)
5. Finn, C., Abbeel, P., Levine, S.: Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation
of deep networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine
Learning, vol. 70, pp. 1126–1135. JMLR. org (2017)
6. Hoffer, E., Ailon, N.: Deep metric learning using triplet network. In: Feragen,
A., Pelillo, M., Loog, M. (eds.) Similarity-Based Pattern Recognition, pp. 84–92.
Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24261-3 7
7. Hospedales, T., Antoniou, A., Micaelli, P., Storkey, A.: Meta-learning in neural
networks: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05439 (2020)
8. Marling, C., Wiley, M., Bunescu, R., Shubrook, J., Schwartz, F.: Emerging appli-
cations for intelligent diabetes management. AI Mag. 33(2), 67–67 (2012)
9. Montani, S., Bellazzi, R., Portinale, L., d’Annunzio, G., Fiocchi, S., Stefanelli, M.:
Diabetic patients management exploiting case-based reasoning techniques. Com-
put. Methods Programs Biomed. 62(3), 205–218 (2000)
10. Morris, J.H., MacGillivray, S., Mcfarlane, S.: Interventions to promote long-term
participation in physical activity after stroke: a systematic review of the literature.
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 95(5), 956–967 (2014)
11. Nichol, A., Achiam, J., Schulman, J.: On first-order meta-learning algorithms.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02999 (2018)
12. Reiss, A., Stricker, D.: Introducing a new benchmarked dataset for activity mon-
itoring. In: 2012 16th International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC),
pp. 108–109. IEEE (2012)
13. Snell, J., Swersky, K., Zemel, R.: Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In:
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 4077–4087 (2017)
14. Sung, F., Yang, Y., Zhang, L., Xiang, T., Torr, P.H., Hospedales, T.M.: Learning
to compare: relation network for few-shot learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1199–1208 (2018)
15. Vinyals, O., Blundell, C., Lillicrap, T., Wierstra, D., et al.: Matching networks
for one shot learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.
3630–3638 (2016)
16. Wijekoon, A., Wiratunga, N., Cooper, K., Bach, K.: Learning to recognise exercises
in the self-management of low back pain. In: Florida Artificial Intelligence Research
Society Conference (2020)
17. Wijekoon, A., Wiratunga, N., Sani, S., Cooper, K.: A knowledge-light approach to
personalised and open-ended human activity recognition. Knowl.-Based Syst. 192,
105651 (2020)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
name of it, but a traveller figured in it, who took his servant with him
to the heart of Africa. The latter, who was passionately fond of
travelling, and took an eager interest in all the doings and
adventures of explorers, made but one request, and that was to be
allowed to change his name of Joseph to that of Mohammed Ben
Abdullah. “It was more euphonious,” he said, and the audience
roared with laughter.
Well, Joseph was quite right, and if Barth had not done as he did,
the negroes and Tuaregs would never have remembered his
European name, it would never have become engraved on their
memories, it would never have been transmitted to their
descendants, and I should not have been able to solve all difficulties,
however great, and emerge safely from every situation, however
embarrassing, by the simple words “I am the son, or rather the
nephew of Abdul Kerim.”
It is impossible to admire too much the lofty, upright character of
Barth, which so impressed all with whom he came in contact on his
journey, that nearly half a century after his death the mere fact of his
having traversed a district—poor as he was, and exposed to all
manner of dangers, the friendship of Beckay his only safeguard—
should be enough to open the way for a pretended relation of his.
How few travellers could boast of having done as much, even in
modern times. Too many explorers have indeed, after forcing their
way through a country against the will of the natives, left behind
them a legacy of increased difficulty and danger to their successors.
I was very anxious to secure the services of a political agent with
a thorough knowledge of the country, and the language of the
Tuaregs. I wished to send him, if I could find him, in advance of our
party to take letters to the chiefs, or to plead our cause with them.
Acting on the advice of Hamadi, I chose a certain Sidi Hamet,
distantly connected with the Kuntas, and then employed in the
Custom House at Timbuktu, under one Said, the interpreter of the
Post-Office.
I must do this justice to Said, he yielded with anything but a good
grace to the employment of his subordinate on our service, and did
more to dissuade him than to further our wishes. We had to invoke
the aid of Commandant Rejou, and later, at Tosaye, Sidi Hamet
piteously entreated me to let him go back, and I expect Said’s
objection to his joining us had something to do with his faltering.
However, I forgive him with all my heart. Sidi Hamet was the
interpreter’s right hand, his chief source of information on every
subject, and he found it hard work to fulfil his own duties, even those
of an interpreter, without him.
On the 16th I went back to spend a day at Kabara, where I had
invited all the notables of Timbuktu to come and listen to the
wonders of the phonograph. It was an exhibition which long dwelt in
the memory of those present. Amongst the most attentive listeners
were the two sons of the chief of the Eastern Kuntas, who lives at
Mabrok. I felt sure that the rumour of the extraordinary things I had
done would precede me.
Commandant Rejou had already warned Sakhaui, or Sarrawi,
chief of the Igwadaren Aussa, the first Tuareg tribe we should meet
on our way down the river, of our approach. In the evening two
envoys from this chief arrived with a missive, which it was almost
impossible to decipher, but from which, in spite of its ludicrous
phraseology, we managed to make out two things, one being that
Sakhaui had no desire to see us, the other that he was very much
afraid of us.
We did our best to reassure and impress the messengers, and
finally succeeded in convincing them that we had no evil intentions
with regard to the Igwadaren, and armed with a fresh document from
us they set off to return to their chief.
Meanwhile Sidi Hamet, who had been well coached in what he
was to say and do, had started on his way to Aluatta, to ask him to
meet us at Kagha, a little village on the right bank about thirty-one
miles from Timbuktu. For the first time I now announced my
pretended relationship with Abdul Kerim, taking myself the Arab
name of Abd el Kader, or the servant of the Most High.
This mission with the Kuntas accomplished, Sidi Hamet was to go
to the Igwadaren of Sakhaui and wait for us.
Having settled everything to the best of our ability, visited the
boats, and repaired any little damage which had been done by the
way, we had now only to give ourselves up to the current of the river
and to the will of God.
It was not without a certain emotion that, on Wednesday, January
22, we started from Kabara, seen off by all our brother officers of the
garrison of Timbuktu, and escorted to our boats by a great crowd of
natives, who, with more or less enthusiasm, invoked the protection of
Allah on our behalf.
WE LEAVE KABARA.
AT TIMBUKTU.
DROVE OF OXEN.
CHAPTER III