<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Workshop at the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR 2016)</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Atlanta</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Georgia</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>USA October</string-name>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>8</fpage>
      <lpage>11</lpage>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Organizing Committee</title>
      <sec id="sec-1-1">
        <title>Joseph Blass</title>
        <p>Tesca Fitzgerald
Katherine Fu
Santiago Ontan~on
Marc Pickett
Henri Prade</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-2">
        <title>Northwestern University, USA (Co-Chair) Georgia Institute of Technology, USA (Co-Chair) Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Drexel University, USA</title>
        <p>Google, Inc, USA</p>
        <p>IRIT, Universite Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Program Committee</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Preface</title>
      <p>Computational Analogy and Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) are closely related
research areas. Both employ prior cases to reason in complex situations with
incomplete information. Analogy research often focuses on modeling human
cognitive processes, the structural alignment between a base/source and target, and
adaptation/abstraction of the analogical source content. While CBR research
also deals with alignment and adaptation, the eld tends to focus more on
retrieval, case-base maintenance, and pragmatic solutions to real-world problems.
However, despite their obvious overlap in research goals and approaches, cross
communication and collaboration between these areas has been progressively
diminishing. Furthermore, there is disagreement within the Analogy research
community on the role of representational structure. The objective of this
workshop is to bring researchers who use a variety of analogical reasoning approaches
together with researchers in CBR, to foster new collaborative endeavors, to
stimulate new ideas and avoid reinventing old ones.</p>
      <p>The workshop includes eleven papers drawn from across Computational
Analogy research, with research relating to corpus mining for analogies, analogical
proportions, analogy for natural-language processing, design by analogy, analogy
tutors, and instruction for analogical agents. Four papers dealt with formal, or
symbol-string, analogies, such as for machine translation. Langlais extended an
o -line algorithm for identifying analogies in a corpus to scale to large datasets
and used this system to predict the morphology of rare words. Fam &amp; Lepage
use formal analogy to predict unseen words, using information gathered from
paradigm tables and tested on the New Testament, which has been translated
into many languages. Kaveeta &amp; Lepage present a neural-network model which,
trained on a corpus, solves symbol-string analogical equations. And Letard,
Illouz, &amp; Rosset, working in the domain of translating natural language input
to formal (bash scripts) commands, explore how reducing noise sensitivity can
improve recall without reducing precision in solving formal analogies.</p>
      <p>In performing design-by-analogy, it is helpful to have a system identifying
similar designs from a database. Chan et al. use crowdsourcing to construct
a dataset that contains signals which will guide machine learning models to
match based on relations rather than surface features. Cvitanic et al. compare
Latent Semantic Analysis and Latent Dirichlet Analysis to categorize patents
into meaningful groups, for the purpose of scaling up search through a design
database. Turner and Linsey show how abstracting design functions and ows
can help identify similar designs in a database.</p>
      <p>Badra presents a purely data-driven approach to case adapation, an
important component of analogical and case-based reasoning. Blass &amp; Forbus present
a system that can use information presented in natural language to perform
commonsense reasoning by analogy. Fitzgerald, Thomaz, &amp; Goel discuss issues
arising around abstraction for robotic agents learning through analogical
generalization and acting through analogical transfer. Zeller &amp; Schmid present an
analogical tutor that builds a model of a student's misconceptions, then creates
math problems designed to elucidate and overcome those misconceptions.</p>
      <p>We believe these papers demonstrate both the continuing advances being
made in analogy research, and the breadth of research topics for which
computational analogy can and is used. We hope this workshop will both present an
opportunity for analogy researchers to come together to learn about and discuss
their work, as well as to discuss computational analogy with, and learn about
other areas of CBR research from, the other participants at ICCBR. We would
like to thank everyone who helped make this workshop a success, including the
authors, program committee, and ICCBR-16 conference organizers.</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Atlanta, GA, USA</title>
        <p>October 2016</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Joseph Blass</title>
        <p>Tesca Fitzgerald</p>
        <p>Katherine Fu
Santiago Ontan~on
Marc Pickett
Henri Prade</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list />
  </back>
</article>