iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://unpaywall.org/10.1023/A:1006512431942
Understanding Similarity: A Joint Project for Psychology, Case-Based Reasoning, and Law | Artificial Intelligence Review Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Understanding Similarity: A Joint Project for Psychology, Case-Based Reasoning, and Law

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Case-based Reasoning (CBR) began as a theory of human cognition, but has attracted relatively little direct experimental or theoretical investigation in psychology. However, psychologists have developed a range of instance-based theories of cognition and have extensively studied how similarity to past cases can guide categorization of new cases. This paper considers the relation between CBR and psychological research, focussing on similarity in human and artificial case-based reasoning in law. We argue that CBR, psychology and legal theory have complementary contributions to understanding similarity, and describe what each offers. This allows us to establish criteria for assessing existing CBR systems in law and to establish what we consider to be the crucial goals for further research on similarity, both from a psychological and a CBR perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Aamodt, A. & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7: 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aha, D. W. & Goldstone, R. L. (1992). Concept learning and flexible weighting. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.

  • Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument-Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT press.

  • Ashley, K. & Rissland, E. (1988). Waiting on Weighting: a Symbolic Least Commitment Approach. In Proceedings: AAAI – 88. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

  • Bankowski, Z., White, I. & Hahn, U. (eds.). (1995). Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Kluwer.

  • Barsalou, L. (1989). Intraconcept Similarity and its Implications for Interconcept Similarity. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, chap. 3. Cambridge University Press.

  • Bartsch-Spörl, B. (1992). Warum es für die Bestimmung von Ähnlichkeit von Fällen beim fallbasierten Schliessen noch keine Patentrezepte gibt und auch keine geben wird ___In Althoff, K., Wess, S., Bartsch-Spörl, B. & Janetzko, D. (eds.), Workshop: Ähnlichkeit von Fällen beim fallbasierten Schliessen. SEKI Working Paper SWP–92–11 (SFB).

  • Berry, D. & Broadbent, D. (1984). On the Relationship between Task Performance and Associated Verbalizable Knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36a: 209–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, K. (1989). Representing and Reusing Explanations of Legal Precedents. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Branting, K. (1991a). Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification and Explanation. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Branting, K. (1991b). Reasoning with Portions of Precedents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Branting, K. (1993). A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Cross, R. (1977). Precedent in English Law (3rd edition). Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, S., Harmer, M., Johnson, P. & Mead, D. (1993). Beyond Knowledge Representation: Commercial Uses for Legal Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Dworkin, R. (1977). No Right Answer?. In Hacker, P. & Raz, J. (eds.), Law, Morality and Society: Essays in Honour of H. L. A. Hart. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. (1978). Aspects of a Stimulus: Features, Dimensions, and Configurations. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.

  • Gati, I. & Tversky, A. (1984). Weighting Common and Distinctive Features in Perceptual and Conceptual Judgements. Cognitive Psychology 16: 341–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, chap. 7. Cambridge University Press.

  • Gentner, D. & Forbus, K. D. (1991). MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-based Retrieval. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.

  • Georgin, E., Bordin, F. & McDonald, J. (1995). CBR applied to fault diagnosis on steam turbines. In Watson, I., Marir, F. & Perera, S. (eds.), First United Kingdom Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.

  • Goldstone, R. (1994a). The Role of Similarity in Categorization: Providing a Groundwork. Cognition 52: 125–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. (1994b). Similarity, Interactive Activation, and Mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R., Medin, D. & Gentner, D. (1991). Relational Similarity and the Nonindependance of Features in Similarity Judgements. Cognitive Psychology 23: 222–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1972). Problems and Projects, chap. Seven Strictures on Similarity. Bobbs Merill Comp.

  • Gordon, T. (1993). The Pleadings Game – Formalizing Procedural Justice. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Griggs, R. A. & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task. British Journal of Psychology 73: 407–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, U. & Chater, N. (1994). Similarity in Legal Reasoning – an Experimental Approach. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Hahn, U. & Chater, N. (1997). Concepts and Similarity. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (eds.), Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories (forthcoming). Psychology Press/MIT Press.

  • Hahn, U., Chater, N. & Henley, R. (1996). Weighting in Similarity Judgements: Investigating the MAX Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.

  • Haigh, K. & Shewchuk, J. (1994). Geometric Similarity Metrics for Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings: 1994 AAAI workshop on case-based reasoning. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

  • Herbig, B. & Wess, S. (1992). Ähnlichkeit und Ähnlichkeitsmasse. In Fall-basiertes Schliessen – Eine Übersicht. SEKI Working papers SWP–92–08, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintzman, D. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93: 411–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janetzko, D., Melis, E. & Wess, S. (1993). System and Processing View in Similarity Assessment. In Richter, M., Wess, S., Althoff, K. & Maurer, F. (ed.), Presentations and Posters: First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. SEKI Report SR–93–12 (SFB 314).

  • Kolodner, J. (1991). Improving Human Decision Making through Case-Based Decision Aiding. AI Magazine, 52–68.

  • Kolodner, J. (1992). An Introduction to Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review 6: 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction To Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.

  • Llewellyn, K. N. (1930). The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study (1960 edition). Oceana Publications.

  • MacCormick, N. (1987). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Clarendon.

  • Medin, D., Dewey, G. & Murphy, T. (1983). Relationships Between Item and Category Learning: Evidence that Abstraction Is Not Automatic. Journal of Experimental Psychology 9: 607–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D., Goldstone, R. & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for Similarity. Psychological Review 100: 254–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. & Schaffer, M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85: 207–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, S. (1989). An attempted dimensional analysis of the law governing government appeals. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Murphy, G. & Medin, D. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92: 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. L. (1982). The Role of Analogy in Legal Reasoning. UCLA Law Review 29: 833–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. (1984). Choice, Similarity and the Context Theory of Classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 10: 104–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. (1988). Exemplar-based Accounts of Relations between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14: 700–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. (1990). Relations between Exemplar-Similarity and Likelihood Models of Classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 34.

  • Nosofsky, R. (1992). Exemplars, Prototypes, and Similarity Rules. In Healy, A., Kosslyn, S. & Shiffrin, R. (eds.), From Learning Theory to Connectionist Theory: Essays in Honor of William K. Estes. Erlbaum.

  • Nosofsky, R. (1994). Rule-Plus-Exception Model of Classification Learning. Psychological Review 101: 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1991). Against Logicist Cognitive Science. Mind and Language 6: 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Porter, B., Bareiss, R. & Holte, R. (1990). Concept Learning and Heuristic Classification. Artificial Intelligence 45: 229–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. & Pegler, I. (1995). Deciding Parameter Values with Case-Based Reasoning. In Watson, I., Marir, F. & Perera, S. (eds.), First United Kingdom Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.

  • Raz, J. (1979). The Authority of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118.

  • Redington, M. & Chater, N. (1995). Transfer in Artificial Grammar Learning: A Re-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General forthcoming.

  • Riesbeck, C. & Schank, R. (1989). Inside Case-based Reasoning. Erlbaum.

  • Rips, L. (1975). Inductive Judgements about Natural Categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 14: 665–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E., Skalak, D. & Friedman, M. (1993). BankXX: A program to generate argument through case-based search. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (1978). Process. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.

  • Ross, B. (1987). This Is Like That: The Use of Earlier Problems and the Separation of Similarity Effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 13: 629–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. (1989). Some Psychological Results on Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of the workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, pp. 144–148.

  • Ross, B., Perkins, S. & Tenpenny, P. (1990). Reminding-based Category Learning. Cognitive Psychology 22: 460–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K. (1994). CHIRON: planning in an open-textured domain. Ph. D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Brown University, Providence, R. I.

  • Sartor, G. (1991). The structure of norm conditions and non-monotonic reasoning in law. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Sartor, G. (1993). A simple computational model for non-monotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Sartor, G. (1995). Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning. In Bankowski, Z., White, I. & Hahn, U. (eds.), Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Schank, R. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.

  • Shanks, D. & John, M. S. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 367–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. (1980). Multidimensional Scaling, Tree-fitting, and Clustering. Science 210: 390–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. (1987). Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science. Science 237: 1317–1323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, Prediction, and Search. Springer Verlag.

  • Stone, R. (1994). Contract Law. Cavendish.

  • Susskind, R. (1987). Expert Systems in Law. Oxford University Press.

  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity. Psychological Review 84: 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of Similarity. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.

  • Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review 89: 123–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir, T. (1988). A Casebook on Tort (6 edition). Sweet and Maxwell.

  • Yang, S., Robertson, D. & Lee, J. (1993a). KICS: a knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning system for statutory building regulations and case histories. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.

  • Yang, S., Robertson, D. & Less, J. (1993b). Use of Case Based Reasoning in the Domain of Building Regulations. In Richter, M., Wess, S., Althoff, K. & Maurer, F. (eds.), Presentations and Posters: First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. SEKI Report SR9312 (SFB 314).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV7 4AL, U.K

    Ulrike Hahn & Nick Chater

Authors
  1. Ulrike Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nick Chater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hahn, U., Chater, N. Understanding Similarity: A Joint Project for Psychology, Case-Based Reasoning, and Law. Artificial Intelligence Review 12, 393–427 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006512431942

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006512431942

Search

Navigation