 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Hybrid casebase maintenance approach for modeling large scale casebased reasoning systems
Humancentric Computing and Information Sciences volume 9, Article number: 9 (2019)
Abstract
Casebased reasoning (CBR) is a nature inspired paradigm of machine learning capable to continuously learn from the past experience. Each newly solved problem and its corresponding solution is retained in its central knowledge repository called casebase. Withρ the regular use of the CBR system, the casebase cardinality keeps on growing. It results into performance bottleneck as the number of comparisons of each new problem with the existing problems also increases with the casebase growth. To address this performance bottleneck, different casebase maintenance (CBM) strategies are used so that the growth of the casebase is controlled without compromising on the utility of knowledge maintained in the casebase. This research work presents a hybrid casebase maintenance approach which equally utilizes the benefits of case addition as well as case deletion strategies to maintain the casebase in online and offline modes respectively. The proposed maintenance method has been evaluated using a simulated model of autonomic forest fire application and its performance has been compared with the existing approaches on a large casebase of the simulated case study.
Introduction
Casebased reasoning (CBR) is one of the widely used lazy machine learning methods inspired by natural learning behavior towards solving a new problem [1, 9, 22, 50]. In lazy machine learning methods, training of the model evolves with time and presentation of more data. As the new data is presented, it continues contributing in improvement of the learning curve of the system. CBR is implemented as a learning layer onto the problem domain. Each new problem instance which needs to be resolved through this learning method is presented as a case. It is matched with the cases present in the knowledge repository called casebase. Set of the nearest neighbors of a new problem is extracted using a selected similarity measure. Solutions of the retrieved nearest neighbors of the case at hand are combined together appropriately to figure out the new solution. It may undergo a fine tuning exercise if the need arises. Finally, the new case comprising of the problem and its relative solution is added into the existing casebase. This leads to continuous increase in the casebase cardinality which helps to improve its problem solving capability. On the other hand, the time complexity for computing solution of a new problem increases and the overall performance of the decision support system gets compromised [28, 44]. To address this performance bottleneck of a CBR system, the existing casebase needs to be maintained without compromising its problem solving capability [28]. This exercise is known as casebase maintenance (CBM).
The fundamental purpose of CBM is to delete, add, update cases and the associated data and metadata in the casebase to ensure the robustness of a CBR system [52]. Robustness of a CBR system can be weighed on the following criteria [43]:

Efficiency: Time to solve a problem.

Competence: Problem count that can be solved.

Quality: Accuracy of the proposed solution.
Different approaches have been introduced for maintaining a CBR system. The maintenance of a casebase is triggered depending on the type of maintenance policy. These triggering times can be categorized in three types [21]:

Continuous timing.

Conditional timing.

Ad hoc timing.
Continuous maintenance policies are referred as online processing maintenance policies. For example, a policy that is triggered after each problem solving cycle is referred as continuous timing maintenance policy. Conditional maintenance policies are triggered whenever the casebase cardinality reaches some predefined threshold. Ad hoc maintenance policies are the maintenance tests on the casebase initiated by system administrators to determine whether there is a need for maintenance [21]. There are two main CBM strategies:

Case addition strategy.

Case deletion strategy.
There exist conditional, ad hoc as well as continuous timing case addition policies. For instance, Smyth and McKenna proposed a case addition policy in which a completely resolved case is blindly added in the case repository [46]. Then, after some time when there is a need for maintenance, a new casebase is created which consists only those cases that meet some predefined criteria. On the other hand, MunozAvila presented a retrieval based case addition policy which is continuous in timing and adds a case if the guidance of retrieved cases was useless [35].
Most of the case deletion strategies have conditional timing. For instance, Smyth and Keane proposed a case deletion strategy in which blind addition of new case is done [45]. Moreover, when the casebase cardinality is equal to the swamping limit, harmful and useless cases are no more part of the case repository.
Both techniques have certain limitations:

In case addition methodologies with continuous or adhoc timing, cases can be added only in the casebase. There is no criteria for deleting cases from the casebase as this could lead to retrieval time bottlenecks with the ongoing increase in the casebase cardinality.

In addition and deletion policies with conditional timing, the whole process of maintenance tends to recur quite often due to the blind addition of completely resolved case. This results in performance bottlenecks.
To address these challenges, a hybrid casebase maintenance model has been proposed in this paper. In this model, we have suggested a continuous timing addition policy as well as conditional timing deletion policy. By using this approach, all the three criteria which can be used to weigh performance of a CBR system are preserved including efficiency, competence and quality. The proposed method has been implemented and evaluated on a sufficiently large synthetic casebase of the simulated model of autonomic forest fire application. The proposed approach has been evaluated and its performance has been compared with the existing benchmarks and its contributions have been discussed. The proposed approach outperforms the existing maintenance strategies. Its key contributions have been highlighted as follows:

The proposed approach is capable to control the casebase cardinality at a user preferred threshold.

It acquires knowledge and preserves the casebase competence using online and offline case maintenance mechanisms.

The resultant casebase from the proposed approach is more compact and equally competent as compared to the the existing benchmarks. Its average problem solving time offers up to 65% reduction as compared to that of the standard CBR cycle without compromising on its performance.

Over time, it strengthens the existing stronger cases through updating their utility and periodically removes the weaker cases.
The remaining sections of this work have been structured as follows: an overview on how CBR process works has been presented in “Case based reasoning (CBR)” section. This section also highlights the problems that are faced while using a classical CBR model. The need for casebase maintenance (CBM) and its associated methods have also been discussed in this section. In “Related work” section, CBM policies have been discussed along with their limitations. “Proposed hybrid CBM approach” section is comprised of the proposed methodology and its significance in addressing the CBM challenges. In “Case study, experimental settings and initial results” section, the implementation process and experimental settings have been explained. “Case study, experimental settings and initial results” section also consists of initial results of the proposed approach after performing different experiments. Comparison of the results obtained by the implementation of proposed approach and existing benchmarks has been analyzed in “Benchmarking with stateoftheart approaches” section. The last section derives the conclusion of this research work highlighting some promising future directions.
Case based reasoning (CBR)
CBR cycle
CBR is a nature inspired problem solving methodology. It uses already solved problems to solve a new one. Its working principle is reasoning by remembering. This principle implies that the reasoning used to solve a target problem is remembered. The first working principle of CBR is that similar problems have alike solutions i.e. to solve a new case, the existing cases and their solutions from the case repository are used. The second principle is that the kind of problems which an agent faces tends to repeat. Thus, there is similarity between future and current problems. Therefore, it is worth to remember and reuse [22]. This leads to construction of the casebase which contains completely resolved cases called cases.
For the purpose of solving complex and complicated problems, the applications of CBR are widely distributed directly or indirectly in almost every field of knowledge. It has been effectively used for adoption problem in medical CBR systems [5], ecommerce [39], data mining [25], autonomic systems [19], travel planning [6], software engineering [7, 18] and an enormous range of other applications [34, 48]. Furthermore, CBR can also be used to mine big and sparse data as well [37].
CBR is preferred over other artificial intelligence and rulebased systems because of many reasons. One of these reasons is its minimal learning requirements. Secondly, its preprocessing cost is relatively lower than other techniques. Thirdly, and most importantly it has very flexible adoption and case representation process [30, 40]. A lot of research has also been done on preference based CBR systems in which solution of the new problem is derived based on the preferences which are defined differently in different contexts [2, 3]. CBR cycle presented in Fig. 1 has been explained as follows:
Retrieve phase
In CBR cycle, finding those cases which can perfectly represent a target problem is an essential task along with finding the similarity between two cases [31]. CBRs efficiency is dependent on improved retrieval performance. The feature vector representation of cases provided in the case description is used to compute the surface distance between two cases. Usually, distance functions are used as a measure of dissimilarity. Inverse dissimilarity is connotated as similarity between two cases, as shown in Table 1. These similarity measures capture surface similarity between two cases. Structural similarity between cases can also be captured using graph theoretic representation and similarity measures [11,12,13, 47, 49].
Reuse and revise phases
Retrieved nearest cases are used to calculate the solution. In classification problems, the solution of the nearest retrieved case will most likely be returned because the frequency of recurring solution to similar cases is higher. On the other hand, one might have to come up with adoption criterion for devising the solution of problems other than classification [31].
Retain phase
Finally, decision is made if the new completely resolved case should be retained in the existing knowledge. The outcome of possible repair and evaluation triggers the learning from the outcome of the proposed solution. It is important that the casebase maintains a bare minimum size to capture the problem domain clearly. Due to the retain phase, each new success is added in the casebase and the size grows on continuous basis which may result in the performance bottleneck. Casebase needs to be optimized to make sure that the casebase cardinality does not grow beyond an unacceptable limit and at the same time, it does not shrink too much to affect the span of the problem domain. Casebase maintenance takes care of this important factor.
Casebase maintenance (CBM)
Two important considerations play vital role in effectiveness of a CBR system [41]:

1.
Case data, i.e., it is more complicated than to just learn from completely resolved case.

2.
Retrieval process time, i.e., the complexity of retrieval process increases in terms of time as size of knowledge base increases.
In a CBR system, the casebase cardinality increases due to the retention of new problemsolving pair. As a result, the overall performance of CBR system degrades. There are three main attributes which affect the performance of a CBR system [43].
Quality
The correctness of the derived solution is one of the major aspects which represents the performance of a CBR system. However, with the increase in size of a typical CBR system, this factor is not affected since more knowledge is always better to produce better results. But on the other hand, while maintaining a casebase by adding or removing cases, this factor may get compromised. Therefore, an acceptable criterion of adding or deleting cases should be deployed to avoid the removal of important cases and to generate a satisfactory solution of desired quality [43].
Competence
The number of successful solutions of target problems proposed by a casebase is termed as its competence. There is a strong relation between casebase competence and its cases. Coverage and reachability are two important factors on which the casebase competence is dependent [43].
Coverage The number of new solvable cases by using an individual case is termed as its coverage. Coverage is defined as [43]:
where
Reachability Reachability of the problem at hand is the set of cases capable to formulate its solution. Reachability is defined as [43].
Efficiency
The average time taken to solve a new problem is defined as the efficiency of a CBR system. In case of a classical CBR system, the size of knowledgebase tends to increase with the passage of time due to continuous retention of cases. When the casebase cardinality gets large enough, this leads to serious time complexity bottleneck for the case retrieval process of the CBR system. To comprehend this problematic situation, one approach is to decrease the size of CB by using different maintenance techniques. Performance of a CBR system cannot be compromised and thus it raises the need for a maintenance strategy. One way of doing that is by decreasing the size of the knowledgebase by using an appropriate CBM strategy.
Related work
Condensed nearest neighbor method (CNN) is an approach used in instancebased learning and nearest neighbor methods for the purpose of editing training data. An edited set of training examples are generated by CNN method which is consistent with the unedited original training data [15]. CNN is further extended as reduced edited nearest neighbor method in [8]. The noisy cases are removed, which belong to a class different than the majority of their NN’s [8].
Smyth and McKenna introduced an addition policy for creating a compact competent case base [46]. They combined relative coverage (RC) with condensed nearest neighbor (CNN) method in such a way that all cases were arranged in descending order according to their RC value and then applied condensed nearest neighbor algorithm to create a compact competent casebase. The approximate running time of their approach is \(O(n)^2\) where n is number of existing cases [46].
Leake and Wilson proposed a case addition procedure which adds cases on the basis of the performance benefit (PB) that they provide by their retention in the casebase. Relative performance (RP) measure and CNN were used for performance guided maintenance. The running time of this approach is \(O (n^2)\) [23].
In [35] MunozAvila presented a case retention technique which decides whether the retrieved cases could provide any useful guidance. If not, then the new case does not need to be retrained in the casebase. However, if guidance of the cases retrieved is harmful then the new case needs to be stored in the casebase [35].
In [51], a new caseselection policy has been presented which is based on a streaming criteria for addition. A loss function is used to make a decision on usefulness of the case at hand.
Eager case retention policy is inherited from CBR problem solving cycle [1, 24, 35]. It is a permissive policy in which every new completely resolved case is retained in the casebase. Due to a very permissive case retention criteria, this policy leads to a very large casebase quickly and results in performance bottlenecks.
In [16], a case retention policy is proposed where the retrieved cases are extended to provide the solution during the adaptation process and new case is added to the existing casebase. However, if parts of retrieved cases are revised to provide the solution then the new problem does not need to be retained in the casebase.
A casedeletion procedure has been defined to categorize the cases into four different categories on the basis of their coverage and reachability values in [45]. The computational complexity of this approach is \(O (n^2)\) for n existing cases [45]. Moreover, it uses a learning heuristic algorithm to update the case categories whenever a new case is learned.
In [42], a deletion policy has been presented to keep a compact casebase. This approach uses mixture of different methods to decide the deletion step. These methods include feature weighting, outlier detection and clustering.
In [32], Markovitch proposed random deletion technique which is completely dependent on the domain knowledge. In this technique, cases are randomly selected and deleted from the casebase once it has reached some predefined limit. This policy works surprisingly well, but it can also be very destructive because important cases can also get deleted which will result in an unrecoverable loss in the casebase competence.
Another deletion policy suggests to delete cases based on their retrieval frequency [33]. This policy calculates the retrieval frequency of all the cases and then deletes those cases which are not accessed frequently.
Adhoc timing deletion policy conducts a number of tests on all cases of the casebase for the detection of redundancy and inconsistency [38]. It asks for a user approval for the deletion of detected cases from administrators.
Another policy divides spanning cases into two types i.e. intercategory and intracategory spanning cases [14]. According to this categorization, intercategory spanning cases for a given category are those cases which are partially reachable by an appropriate case of a different category. On the other hand, if a case is being represented in parts by another case which belongs to the same category then that case is an intracategory spanning case. For the suppression of the casebase, these categorized cases are deleted on the basis of their Competence Metric (CM) value. CM is defined as follows:
where \(V_c\) is a covering set and \(V_r\) is a reachability set for a given case a.
Once the casebase cardinality reaches the swamping limit, cases are treated and deleted. Initially, all the auxiliary cases will be deleted. Then the support cases with relatively lower competence metric will be removed, while retaining the most significant case from each group based on the competence metric value. Afterward, all the intracategory spanning cases will be removed. This process will continue until each case covers only itself among the existing cases in its category.
There also exist some other algorithms like evolutionary algorithms and clustering using random forests which can also be used to maintain a CBR system as mentioned in [4, 17, 27,28,29].
The literature review reveals that the existing CBM techniques have following drawbacks:

The existing approaches either focus on case addition or case deletion.

In case addition policies, only new completely resolved case is added which looks important according to the existing casebase. However, the importance of that new case may degrade with the addition of new cases.

These addition policies are unable to delete cases amplifying the gradual increase in the casebase cardinality which will eventually degrade the performance of a CBR system.

On the other hand, the case deletion techniques encourage blind addition of new cases and after reaching a swamping limit, unimportant cases are deleted from the casebase.

Due to the blind retention of new cases in deletion approaches, the casebase cardinality grows swiftly resulting in frequent need for complex maintenance. It results in degradation of the CBR process.
This work undertakes the above limitations as the research problem and addresses the problem through a hybrid approach which is more robust and efficient in terms of the average problem solving time observed by the CBR cycle and casebase competence to solve new problems.
Proposed hybrid CBM approach
Existing addition and deletion policies may degrade performance of a CBR system as identified and highlighted in the literature review discussed in the previous section. In this paper, a new hybrid CBM technique is proposed to preserve the performance of a CBR system.
The objective is to develop an effective casebase A of n cases. Each case is a collections of different variables representing the problem domain. The case is formulated through the observed system state which provides values for different variables. A set of m variables represented as a case has been shown below:
The complete casebase X is represented as follows:
With life time of the system, number of problems observed by the intelligent modeled system increases. It results in the larger casebase cardinality and causes retrieval efficiency bottleneck for CBR system. Each new problem is transformed into a case and its solution is computed using CBR building block. Whenever a new problem is presented and its solution is derived by the CBR system, decision is made whether that completely resolved case should be retained in the casebase. This work proposes an improved hybrid approach to find out a set of good representatives of cases from the given larger set of cases. Whenever a better case is found, this approach suggests to add it into the list of selected cases and at the same time, it may delete the weaker cases having lesser contribution in the decision making capability of the CBR system. A case retention algorithm has been proposed to perform addition and conditional deletion operations in parallel. It exploits benefits of both the strategies and minimizes the bias of selection of either of the two options. The proposed method has been implemented as a maintenance component of the CBR based decision support system. This approach exploits inclusion and exclusion strategies to maintain the casebase. For inclusion purposes, conventional CBR algorithm is applied to find the solution of a test case using the training casebase. Error is computed and compared with the preset threshold. If it does not exceed the threshold then the new case may be retained. After the decision of the inclusion of a new case, conditional exclusion strategy is applied. This work uses a clustering based deletion policy which works as another building block of the proposed algorithm. We use a utility metric to keep track of the usage pattern of each case. It provides an insight about the frequency of utilization of the case under consideration. All cases are classified into pivotal, auxiliary, span and support cases based on the clusters and utility pattern. This process is completed by computing the relative coverage (RC) value of the new problem as shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 4. RC is a measure which is used to calculate the individual case competence [46].
The RC value is compared with a predefined threshold. A new case will be added in the casebase, if its RC value is greater or equal to the generated threshold or if that case is only reachable by itself. These criteria have been set so that only the most competent cases according to the live casebase are retained in the casebase. After the addition of new case, threshold will be updated. This online algorithm has to compute RC of each new problem for which coverage and reachability of that case needs to be computed. Since, for computing coverage set of new problem, its presence in the nearest neighbors of each case is checked. It results in the computational complexity of O(n(n)), where n is the casebase cardinality. The computational complexity of computing RC value in the worst case is O(n). So, the overall complexity becomes \(O (n+n^2)\) leading to \(O (n^2)\). Whenever size of the casebase exceeds the preset threshold, all the cases will be divided into four different categories on the basis of their coverage and reachability values. These four categories are described below as defined in [45]:

Auxiliary cases By the removal of auxiliary cases, the competence does not get effected. If the coverage provided by a case is absorbed by one of its reachable cases then that case is an auxiliary case. For instance in Fig. 5, cases a, b and c are auxiliary cases, since the coverage they provide is subsumed by their reachable cases such as case y.

Pivotal cases If a case is only reachable by itself, then that case is a pivotal case. The competence of a system degrades by the deletion of a pivotal case. In Fig. 5, case x is a pivotal case since it is reachable by only itself.

Spanning cases The cases with an overlapping coverage space with other cases within the problem space are categorised as spanning cases. In Fig. 5, case y is a spanning case as it links together the problem space between case x and cases a, b and c.

Support cases The cases which exist in the form of groups and act as spanning cases within the group are known as support cases. In Fig. 5, cases 1, 2 and 3 are support cases and as a whole they represent a support group. The removal of a member of the support category does not harm competence at all. However, deletion of a whole category is as deletion of a pivotal case.
Cases with the lowest RC value are selected and deleted according to this pattern. This process will proceed until all nonpivotal cases are no more part of the casebase. Since this offline algorithm also involves the concept of computing coverage of cases, therefore the computational complexity of this approach is \(O(n^2)\). However, it does not harm the overall performance of CBR system because of its nonfrequent and offline nature.
The significance of the proposed approach over existing techniques is its ability to manage the growth and development of the casebase while enhancing the robustness of the CBR system. The growth of casebase is controlled by an online algorithm which adds only the most competent new cases and the casebase cardinality is maintained by an offline deletion algorithm which deletes the least competent cases.
Case study, experimental settings and initial results
The proposed architecture along with two other maintenance techniques, i.e., RCCNN and footprint deletion have been implemented and evaluated on different training and testing distributions of simulated autonomic forest fire application (AFFA) [19]. Confusion matrix shown in Fig. 6 is computed to evaluate the performance of each method. Performance of the proposed approach has been computed with the selected benchmarks. Accuracy, precision and recall have been used as evaluation metrics and are computed using the following equations:
where TP is number of positive cases which have been classified correctly, TN is number of negative cases which have been classified correctly, FP is number of positive cases which have been classified incorrectly and FN is number of negative cases which have been classified incorrectly.
Euclidean distance has been computed to compare two cases and inverse distance has been used as a similarity measure:
where dis(i, j) represents the dissimilarity between ith and jth cases, \(a_{ik}\) and \(a_{jk}\) are the kth attributes of cases i and j respectively. The weight of the kth attribute is represented by \(w_k\). Similarity between two cases is computed using the inverse distance:
Weighted average is used for deriving the solution based on the similarity value of each potential neighbour:
Case study: Simulated model of autonomic forest fire application
Autonomic forest fire application [19] models spread of fire in a 2D grid. Its environmental variables include wind direction (WD), minimum distance from the burning cell (MD), wind intensity (WI), speed of fire (FS) and number of cells exposed to fire (N). Configuration script is used as class label. With the help of these parameters, the probability that a certain cell will be caught by fire is predicted. For experimental purposes, this dataset containing 10,000 instances was divided in three different partitions as shown in Table 2. The data was captured through the simulated runs of the application using its environmental variables.
For RCCNN and footprint deletion maintenance techniques, casebase was allowed to learn 1000 cases for each data partitioning before triggering maintenance. However, in case of hybrid algorithm only the most competent cases were allowed to be learnt. Therefore, this learning limit was reduced for this algorithm for each data partitioning in a way that 500 cases were allowed to be learnt when the casebase cardinality was set 3000 and problem space was 7000. When the casebase cardinality and problem space was 5000 then 400 cases were allowed to be learnt. For the data partitioning of 70:30, 300 cases were allowed to be learnt. The results obtained by the application of each technique on different distribution of dataset have been presented in different experimental settings.
Optimal nearest neighbors
To compute the solution, the set of the nearest neighbors (NN) is retrieved. The size of NN is determined by varying the number of the nearest neighbors from 1 to the casebase cardinality and is notated as k. The value of k resulting in maximum accuracy is obtained as optimal number of the nearest neighbors. It is computed through exhaustive search based on the accuracy. Actual value of k does not hinder the performance. This value of k is determined for each CBM technique on each data partition.
Optimal value of NN’s for simple CBR cycle
The optimal value of k nearest neighbors has been derived on each data partition in the same manner as described above. The results obtained have been shown in Figs. 7, 8 and 9. In Figs. 7, 8 and 9, xaxis represents the value of k representing size of NN and the yaxis represents the percentage of accuracy, precision and recall. It has been observed that after a particular value of k, accuracy for each partitioning tends to become consistent or decline. Therefore, that certain value is accounted as optimal value of k. Exact results of optimal k have been shown in Table 3.
Optimal value of NN’s for RCCNN
The value of k required to obtain maximum accuracy using RCCNN maintenance technique on each data partitions has been presented in Figs. 10, 11 and 12.
Exact performance on optimal k is summarized in Table 4.
Optimal value of NN’s for footprint deletion
The optimal value of k nearest neighbors have been derived for footprint deletion CBM technique and the results have been shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15.
Exact performance of optimal k for each partitioning have been given in Table 5.
Optimal value of NN’s for the proposed hybrid approach
The number of nearest neighbors required by the proposed hybrid CBM approach have been determined in the same way as mentioned earlier and shown in Figs. 16, 17 and 18. The optimal nearest numbers for each data partitioning have been presented in Table 6. The highest accuracy achieved in this experimental setting is up to 96%. It has resulted in the selection of optimal set of cases using the hybrid approach. In the next section, its theoretical complexity, average problem solving time and performance has been compared with the existing benchmarks and benefits have been clearly highlighted.
Selection of the optimal k in all variants of the casebase maintenance activity is done through a bruteforce approach. It searches all possible candidates exhaustively and selects the one with the highest accuracy. The actual value of the optimal points for a different problem domain or data may be different and will need to execute this step independently.
Benchmarking with stateoftheart approaches
In this section, a comparison of proposed approach with existing standard CBM techniques has been presented in terms of theoretical complexity, average problem solving time and performance.
Experiment 1: Comparison of theoretical complexities
A comparison of the theoretical complexities of three different CBM approaches in terms of big O has been analyzed. Table 7 shows that the theoretical complexity of the proposed algorithm is relatively higher than the benchmarks. This is because our proposed algorithm contains online as well as offline maintenance. Since offline maintenance is not triggered unless the casebase cardinality has reached the threshold, therefore the complexity of offline algorithm is in acceptable range. The complexity of online algorithm is high since it is executed after each problem solving cycle.
Experiment 2: Comparison of physical time
In this experiment, average problem solving time of typical CBR cycle has been compared with each maintenance technique. The proposed hybrid algorithm is adding only the most competent cases, therefore, the casebase cardinality is not growing swiftly and as a result the retrieval time will reduce which will eventually minimize the time required to solve a new problem. The results obtained have been shown in Figs. 19, 20 and 21 which reflect that the proposed approach consumes lesser amount of time to provide the solution as compared to other techniques, while keeping the execution environment constant.
Experiment 3: Empirical comparison in terms of performance
Accuracy, recall and precision metrics computed for each CBM technique have been compared with classical CBR cycle. The results obtained from each approach are comparable. Each approach provides almost the same accuracy as a CBR cycle. However, each technique reduces the size of a casebase in a way that it will consist of only the most competent cases. Each technique yields optimal accuracy. These results have been shown in Figs. 22, 23 and 24.
Accuracy captures the correct classification rate of the applied algorithm. Precision captures true positive rate out of the total positive predictions. Recall captures the true positive rate out of the total positive actuals. The hybrid approach has clearly shown high performance on the simulated case study across all these three performance measures. It has shown up to 96% accuracy, 97% precision and 88% recall performance in different data splits. At the same time, it has resulted into the most optimal average problem solving time as compared with the benchmarks. Putting these two performance angles together, it shows that the raise in theoretical complexity of the proposed algorithm is insignificant because it controls the size of the compact casebase and average problem solving time reduces significantly.
From above experiments, it is clear that the hybrid approach provides optimal performance while improving the efficiency of the CBR system. When the casebase cardinality was set to 3000, the proposed maintenance architecture was able to reduce average problem solving time to almost 65% whereas footprint deletion was able to reduce it by 55% and RCCNN reduced it to 57%. Somewhat of a similar trend was noticed when the casebase cardinality was 5000 and 7000.
Conclusion and future directions
To encounter the retrieval efficiency of existing casebase maintenance techniques, a hybrid CBM approach has been proposed in this work which uses a case addition algorithm on continuous basis in online mode and a deletion algorithm which operates on conditional basis in offline mode. The results obtained suggest that the average problem solving time is much lesser than other standard approaches and the overall competence and the quality of solution is not affected. The computational complexity of the proposed approach for online maintenance is relatively high. However, the bottleneck does not hinder the performance of proposed approach because of its conditional offline and nonfrequent nature.
In future, the computational complexity of the online maintenance will be addressed. This could be achieved by exploring different data representation mechanisms including fuzzy representation. Moreover, if we group different parts of data in casebase by deploying appropriate clustering algorithm as an offline option, then the performance and retrieval efficiency are expected to improve further. Another possible future direction is figure out compact and competent casebases in distributed environments. Synchronisation of distributed components of the casebase and their online maintenance may be addressed in future. Multiobjective criteria may be designed in future to shrink the larger casebases into set of appropriate representatives like centroids of welldefined clusters. Appropriate representatives may be augmented carefully through various data augmentation techniques so that the quality of casebase is improved and its overall problem solving capability in the respective domain is enhanced.
References
 1.
Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Casebased reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. In: AI Communications, vol 7:1. IOS Press, New York, pp 39–59
 2.
AbdelAziz A, Cheng W, Strickert M, Hüllermeier E (2013) Preferencebased CBR: a searchbased problem solving framework. In: International conference on casebased reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–14
 3.
AbdelAziz A, Hüllermeier E (2015) Case base maintenance in preferencebased cbr. In: International conference on casebased reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–14
 4.
Aydadenta H, Adiwijaya (2018) A clustering approach for feature selection in microarray data classification using random forest. J Inform Proces Syst 14(5):1167–1175
 5.
Begum S, Ahmed M U, Funk P, Xiong N, Folke M (2011) Casebased reasoning systems in the health sciences: a survey of recent trends and developments. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C 41(4):421–434
 6.
Büyüközkan G, Ergün B (2011) Intelligent system applications in electronic tourism. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):6586–6598
 7.
Costa DM, Teixeira EN, Werner CML (2018) Odysseyprocesscase: a casebased software process line approach. In: Proceedings of Brazilian symposium on software quality, pp 170–9
 8.
Cummins L, Bridge D (2011) On dataset complexity for case base maintenance. In: Casebased reasoning research and development, pp 47–61
 9.
Cunningham P (1998) CBR: Strengths and weaknesses. In: Proceedings of 11th international conference on industrial and engineering applications of artificial intelligence and expert systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 517–23
 10.
Cunningham P (2009) A taxonomy of similarity mechanisms for casebased reasoning. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 21(11):1532–1543
 11.
Fan ZP, Li YH, Wang X, YangLiu (2014) Hybrid similarity measure for case retrieval in cbr and its application to emergency response towards gas explosion. Expert Syst Appl 41(5):2526–2534
 12.
Feuilltre H, Auffret V, Castro M, Breton HL, Garreau M, Haigron P (2017) Study of similarity measures for casebased reasoning in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In: Proceedings of international conference on computing in cardialogy
 13.
Hao F, Sim DS, Park DS, Seo HS (2017) Similarity evaluation between graphs: a formal concept analysis approach. J Inform Proces Syst 13(5):1158–1167
 14.
Haouchine MK, ChebelMorello B, Zerhouni N (2008) Competencepreserving casedeletion strategy for casebase maintenance. In: ECCBR’08, vol 1, pp 171–184
 15.
Hart P (1968) The condensed nearest neighbor rule (corresp.). IEEE Trans Inform Theory 14(3):515–516
 16.
Ihrig LH, Kambhampati S (1996) Design and implementation of a replay framework based on a partial order planner. In: AAAI/IAAI, vol. 1, Citeseer, pp 849–854
 17.
Juarez JM, Craw S, LopezDelgado JR, Campos M (2018) Maintenance of case bases: current algorithms after fifty years. In: Proceedings of international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 5457–5468
 18.
Khan MJ (2014) Applications of casebased reasoning in software engineering: a systematic mapping study. IET Softw 8(6):258–268
 19.
Khan MJ, Awais MM, Shamail S, Awan I (2011) An empirical study of modeling selfmanagement capabilities in autonomic systems using casebased reasoning. Simul Model Practice Theory 19(10):2256–2275
 20.
Khoshgoftaar TM, Seliya N, Sundaresh N (2006) An empirical study of predicting software faults with casebased reasoning. Softw Qual J 14(2):85–111
 21.
Leake D, Wilson D (1998) Categorizing casebase maintenance: dimensions and directions. In: Advances in casebased reasoning, pp 196–207
 22.
Leake DB (1996) CBR in context: the present and future. In: Casebased reasoning, experiences, lessons & future directions
 23.
Leake DB, Wilson DC (2000) Remembering why to remember: performanceguided casebase maintenance. In: European workshop on advances in casebased reasoning, Springer, Berlin, pp 161–172
 24.
Lenz M, BartschSpörl B, Burkhard HD, Wess S (2003) Casebased reasoning technology: from foundations to applications, vol 1400. Springer, Berlin
 25.
Liao SH, Chu PH, Hsiao PY (2012) Data mining techniques and applicationsa decade review from 2000 to 2011. Expert Syst Appl 39(12):11303–11311
 26.
Liao TW, Zhang Z, Mount CR (1998) Similarity measures for retrieval in casebased reasoning systems. Appl Artif Intell 12(4):267–288
 27.
Lupiani E, Craw S, Massie S, Juarez JM, Palma JT (2013) A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm fitness function for casebase maintenance. In: International conference on casebased reasoning, Springer, Berlin, pp 218–232
 28.
Lupiani E, Juarez JM, Palma J (2014) Evaluating casebase maintenance algorithms. Knowl Based Syst 67:180–194
 29.
Lupiani E, Massie S, Craw S, Juarez JM, Palma J (2016) Casebase maintenance with multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. J Intell Inform Syst 46(2):259–284
 30.
Mair C, Kadoda G, Lefley M, Phalp K, Schofield C, Shepperd M, Webster S (2000) An investigation of machine learning based prediction systems. J Syst Softw 53(1):23–29
 31.
Mantaras D, Lopez R, David M, Derek B, Leake D, Smyth B, Craw S, Faltings B, Maher ML, Cox MT, Forbus K et al (2005) Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in casebased reasoning. Knowl Eng Rev 20(03):215–240
 32.
Markovitch S, Scott PD (1988) The role of forgetting in learning. In: Machine learning: proceedings of the fifth intl. conf, pp 459–465
 33.
Minton S (1990) Quantitative results concerning the utility of explanationbased learning. Artif Intell 42(2–3):363–391
 34.
Montani S, Jain LC et al (2010) Successful casebased reasoning applications, vol 305. Springer, Berlin
 35.
MuñozAvila H (1999) A case retention policy based on detrimental retrieval. In: International conference on casebased reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 276–287
 36.
Myllymäki P, Tirri H (1994) Massively parallel casebased reasoning with probabilistic similarity metrics. In: Topics in casebased reasoning. pp 144–154
 37.
Perner P (2014) Mining sparse and big data by casebased reasoning. Procedia Computer Sci 35:19–33
 38.
Racine K, Yang Q (1996) On the consistency management of large case bases: the case for validation. In: To appear in AAAI technical reportverification and validation workshop
 39.
Segovia J, Szczepaniak PS, Niedzwiedzinski M (2013) Ecommerce and intelligent methods, vol 105. Physica
 40.
Shepperd M (2003) Casebased reasoning and software engineering. In: Managing software engineering knowledge. Springer, Berlin, pp 181–198
 41.
Smiti A, Elouedi Z (2011) Overview of maintenance for case based reasoning systems. Int J Comput Appl 32(2):49–56
 42.
Smiti A, Elouedi Z (2014) Wcoiddg: an approach for case base maintenance based on weighting, clustering, outliers, internal detection and dbscangmeans. J Comput Syst Sci 80(1):27–38
 43.
Smyt B, McKenna E (1999) Footprintbased retrieval. In: International conference on casebased reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 343–357
 44.
Smyth B, Cunningham P (1996) The utility problem analysed. In: European workshop on advances in casebased reasoning, Springer, Berlin, pp 392–399
 45.
Smyth B, Keane MT (1995) Remembering to forget. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Citeseer, pp 377–382
 46.
Smyth B, McKenna E (1999) Building compact competent casebases. In: ICCBR
 47.
Sriwanna K, Boongoen T, IamOn N (2017) Graph clusteringbased discretization of splitting and merging methods (graphs and graphm). Hum Centric Comput Inform Sci 21(7):1–39
 48.
Sun J, Zhu Z, Zhang Y, Zhao Y, Zhai Y (2018) Research on personalized recommendation case base and data source based on casebased reasoning. In: Proceedings of international conference on cloud computing and security. pp 114–123
 49.
Ullah K, Mahmood T, Jan N (2018) Similarity measures for tspherical fuzzy sets with applications in pattern recognition. Symmetry 10(6):1–14
 50.
Watson I, Marir F (1994) Casebased reasoning: a review. Knowl Eng Rev 9(4):327–354
 51.
Zhang Y, Zhang S, Leake D (2016) Casebase maintenance: a streaming approach. In: Proceedings of international conference on casebased reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 222–231
 52.
Zhu J, Yang Q (1999) Remembering to add: competencepreserving caseaddition policies for casebase maintenance. In: IJCAI, vol 99. pp 234–241
Authors’ contributions
MJ identified the research problem, designed the research study and methodology, formulated proposed algorithms and contributed significantly in writing the manuscript. HH contributed in implementation of algorithms, analysis of results and writing the manuscript. IA contributed in formulating the algorithms, choosing the benchmarks and writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowlegements
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Funding
Authors acknowledge the internal funding support received from Namal College Mianwali to complete the research work.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Khan, M.J., Hayat, H. & Awan, I. Hybrid casebase maintenance approach for modeling large scale casebased reasoning systems. Hum. Cent. Comput. Inf. Sci. 9, 9 (2019) doi:10.1186/s136730190171z
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
Keywords
 Casebased reasoning
 Lazy machine learning
 Softcomputing
 Casebase maintenance