We focus on realistic, complex domains where the concepts, terms and predicates used by domain rules or by rule-based models are not well-defined. Often, in such inherently ill-defined domains the rules do not encompass all the situations they are asked or assumed to cover, admit tacit exceptions, or can be contradicted and annulled by other rules. Interpretation is therefore required of the terms and predicates used. The law is a prototypical example of such an area, where terms used in legal statutes are not completely defined by legal regulations. The use of case-based reasoning (CBR) to complement and supplement other types of reasoning involves many computational questions of system architecture and control. The key focus of this work is how and when to interleave CBR with other modes of reasoning in the context of applying a rule or model to a new set of facts in light of a corpus of cases of past application. The goal is to generate an explanation or argument as to how the new fact situation might be interpreted. In particular, we report on a system called CABARET (CAse-BAsed REasoning Tool), a hybrid architecture we have built to study and experiment with these issues.

The next project was Joel Moses's program SIN. See Moses, Symbolic Integration: The Stormy Decade, 14 Comm.

This paper presents a hybrid case-based reasoning (CBR) and information retrieval (IR) system, called SPIRE, that both retrieves documents from a full-text document corpus and from within individual documents, and locates passages likely to contain information about important problem-solving features of cases. SPIRE uses two case-bases, one containing past precedents, and one containing excerpts from past case texts. Both are used by SPIRE to automatically generate queries, which are then run by the INQUERY full-text retrieval engine on a large text collection in the case of document retrieval and on individual text documents for passage retrieval.

INTRODUCTION There is mounting evidence that human experts rely heavily on memory of past cases when solving problems in domains such as law, mathematics, design, and strategic planning. Thus, it seems natural to exploit this idea in constructing Al systems. This is the focus of systems using case-based reasoning; it constitutes a fifth major paradigm of machine learning research. A related approach is that of reasoning by analogy. In case-based reasoning ("CBR"), one uses memory of relevant "past" cases to interpret or to solve a new problem case. Rather than creating a solution from scratch, a reasoner using case-based reasoning recalls cases similar to its current problem situation and solves or interprets a problem by reasoning with past solutions and interpretations. A reasoner using case-based reasoning can derive shortcuts and anticipate problems in new situations that might arise by having previously spotted and dealt with them. This can lead to improvement in the quality and efficiency of the reasoning. Case-based reasoning as a learning paradigm has several advantages. First, there are several performance enhancements it provides for its associated performance element: shortcuts in reasoning, the capability of avoiding past errors; the capability of anticipating and therefore avoiding other previously made mist akes, the capability of focusing in on the most important parts of a problem first. Second, learning can be fairly uncomplicated.

The research pursued in the early 1980s by Rissland, Ashley, Branting, and Skalak explored the rich vein of case-based reasoning in the context of legal argument. Some of these seminal projects were presented in a special 1991 pair of issues of the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies (e.g., Ashley 1991; Branting, 1991; Rissland & Skalak, 1991). Ideas from these research projects lay the foundation of what is now termed interpretive CBR, that is, how to interpret new cases in light of past interpretations. This work has also influenced the community that develops formal models of argumentation and defeasible reasoning, and these models have in turn contributed more formal models to CBR (e.g., Bench-Capon & Sartor, 2003). The AI and law community continues to provide a rich tributary of ideas and techniques about CBR and for integrating it with other reasoning modalities in CBR hybrids, such as rule-based reasoning, heuristic search, and information retrieval.

Case-based reasoning is used extensively by people in A second driving force in the evolutionary history of CBR both expert and commonsense situations. It provides a was dissatisfaction with rule-based reasoning (expert systems wide range of advantages.

This literature review covers AI techniques used for real-time strategy video games, focusing specifically on StarCraft. It finds that the main areas of current academic research are in tactical and strategic decision-making, plan recognition, and learning, and it outlines the research contributions in each of these areas. The paper then contrasts the use of game AI in academia and industry, finding the academic research heavily focused on creating game-winning agents, while the indus- try aims to maximise player enjoyment. It finds the industry adoption of academic research is low because it is either in- applicable or too time-consuming and risky to implement in a new game, which highlights an area for potential investi- gation: bridging the gap between academia and industry. Fi- nally, the areas of spatial reasoning, multi-scale AI, and co- operation are found to require future work, and standardised evaluation methods are proposed to produce comparable re- sults between studies.

We present the Bayesian Case Model (BCM), a general framework for Bayesian case-based reasoning (CBR) and prototype classification and clustering. BCM brings the intuitive power of CBR to a Bayesian generative framework. The BCM learns prototypes, the ``quintessential observations that best represent clusters in a dataset, by performing joint inference on cluster labels, prototypes and important features. Simultaneously, BCM pursues sparsity by learning subspaces, the sets of features that play important roles in the characterization of the prototypes. The prototype and subspace representation provides quantitative benefits in interpretability while preserving classification accuracy. Human subject experiments verify statistically significant improvements to participants' understanding when using explanations produced by BCM, compared to those given by prior art."

This page includes forthcoming AAAI sponsored conferences, conferences presented by AAAI Affiliates, and conferences held in cooperation with AAAI. AI Magazine also maintains a calendar listing that includes nonaffiliated conferences at www.aaai.org/Magazine/calendar.php. AIIDE-14 will be held FLAIRS-15 will be held May 18-20, 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference October 3-7 in Raleigh, NC, USA 2015 in Hollywood, Florida, USA on Human-Robot Interaction. ICAART 2014 will be held January 10-12 in Lisbon, Portugal International Joint Conference on AAAI Fall Symposium Series. ICCBR 2014 held January 10-12 in Lisbon, Portugal will be held September 29 - October 1 AAAI Spring Symposium.

It was founded in 1991 and, since 1994, has been located on the campus of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. IIIA grew out of an AI research group at the Center for Advanced Studies in Blanes (Spain) that started AI research in 1985. On average IIIA has had about 50 members per year during the last 12 years with a peak of almost 80 members in 2012. In total around 200 different people, including visiting researchers as well as master's and Ph.D. students, have been members of IIIA over the past 20 years. Seventy-seven students have completed their Ph.D. work at our Institute, 48 of them during the last 12 years.