Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T16:28:01.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Cobweb Models of Categorization and Probabilistic Concept Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Emmanuel M. Pothos
Affiliation:
Swansea University
Andy J. Wills
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access

Summary

Description of the model

In this chapter, we describe a family of integrated categorization and category learning models that process and organize past experience to facilitate responses to future experience. The Cobweb system (Fisher, 1987) and its descendants Classit (Gennari, 1990), Oxbow (Iba, 1991), Labyrinth (Thompson & Langley, 1991), Dædalus (Langley & Allen, 1993), and Twilix (Martin & Billman, 1994) comprise a family of models that share a genealogy, a search strategy, and a heuristic to guide that search. We will often refer to this entire family as Cobweb when the intended meaning is clear from the context.

These systems grew out of machine learning and cognitive science research that explored methods for acquiring concepts in an unsupervised context. In that setting, a teacher does not provide explicit category information for instances as the learner encounters them; instead, the learner must decide how to group or categorize a collection of instances. In contrast to most clustering methods, instances are encountered incrementally; the learner must make appropriate adjustments in response to each one as it comes. The Cobweb family of models view categorization as a conceptualization process or as the formation of ontologies. That is, these models provide answers to the question, ‘How does one form conceptual representations of similar experiences and how might those representations be organized?’ However, these models also address the use of the acquired concepts to handle future situations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R., & Matessa, M. (1991). An incremental Bayesian algorithm for categorization. In Fisher, D. H., Pazzani, M. J., & Langley, P. (eds.), Concept Formation: Knowledge and Experience in Unsupervised Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Cheeseman, P., Kelly, J., Self, M., Stutz, J., Taylor, W., & Freeman, D. (1988). autoclass: A Bayesian classification system. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 54–64). Ann Arbor, MI: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Clapper, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (2002). Adaptive categorization in unsupervised learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 (5), 908–923.Google ScholarPubMed
Dretske, F. (1999). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Press.Google Scholar
Feigenbaum, E. (1961). The simulation of verbal learning behavior. In Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference (pp. 121–132). Reprinted in Shavlik, J. W. & Dietterich, T. G. (eds.) (1990). Readings in Machine Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. H. (1987). Knowledge acquisition via incremental conceptual clustering. Machine Learning, 2, 139–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. H., & Langley, P. (1990). The structure and formation of natural categories. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 26). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. H., & Pazzani, M. J. (1991). Computational models of concept learning. In Fisher, D. H., Pazzani, M. J., & Langley, P. (eds.), Concept Formation: Knowledge and Experience in Unsupervised Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Gennari, J. H. (1990). An experimental study of concept formation. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Information & Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
Gennari, J. H., Langley, P., & Fisher, D. H. (1989). Models of incremental concept formation. Artificial Intelligence, 40, 11–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluck, M., & Corter, J. (1985). Information, uncertainty and the utility of categories. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 283–287). Irvine, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 907–928. Available on-line.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iba, W. (1991). Acquisition and improvement of human motor skills: learning through observation and practice. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Information & Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
Iba, W. (1993). Concept formation in temporally structured domains. In NASA Workshop on the Automation of Time Series, Signatures, and Trend Analysis. Moffett Field: NASA Ames Research Center.
Iba, W., & Langley, P. (2001). Unsupervised learning of probabilistic concept hierarchies. In Paliouras, G., Karkaletsis, V., & Spyropoulos, C. D. (eds.), Machine Learning and its Applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (1983). Reconstructive memory: a computer model. Cognitive Science, 7, 281–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, P. (1995). Order effects in incremental learning. In Reimann, P. & Spada, H. (eds.), Learning in Humans and Machines: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Langley, P., & Allen, J. A. (1993). A unified framework for planning and learning. In Minton, S. (ed.), Machine Learning Methods for Planning and Scheduling. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Lebowitz, M. (1982). Correcting erroneous generalizations. Cognition and Brain Theory, 5, 367–381.Google Scholar
Martin, J. D., & Billman, D. O. (1994). Acquiring and combining overlapping concepts. Machine Learning, 16, 121–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKusick, K. B., & Langley, P. (1991). Constraints on tree structure in concept formation. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 810–816). Sydney: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., & Langley, P. (1991). Concept formation in structured domains. In Fisher, D. H., Pazzani, M. J., & Langley, P. (eds.), Concept Formation: Knowledge and Experience in Unsupervised Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×