Combining case based reasoning with neural networks

This paper presents a neural network based technique for mapping problem situations to problem solutions for Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) applications. Both neural networks and CBR are instance-based learning techniques, although neural nets work with numerical data and CBR systems work with symbolic data. This paper discusses how the application scope of both paradigms could be enhanced by the use of hybrid concepts. To make the use of neural networks possible, the problem's situation and solution features are transformed into continuous features, using techniques similar to CBR's definition of similarity metrics. Radial Basis Function (RBF) neural nets are used to create a multivariable, continuous input-output mapping. As the mapping is continuous, this technique also provides generalisation between cases, replacing the domain specific solution adaptation techniques required by conventional CBR. This continuous representation also allows, as in fuzzy logic, an associated membership measure to be output with each symbolic feature, aiding the prioritisation of various possible solutions. A further advantage is that, as the RBF neurons are only active in a limited area of the input space, the solution can be accompanied by local estimates of accuracy, based on the sufficiency of the cases present in that area as well as the results measured during testing. We describe how the application of this technique could be of benefit to the real world problem of sales advisory systems, among others

Multi-learner based recursive supervised training

In this paper, we propose the Multi-Learner Based Recursive Supervised Training (MLRT) algorithm which uses the existing framework of recursive task decomposition, by training the entire dataset, picking out the best learnt patterns, and then repeating the process with the remaining patterns. Instead of having a single learner to classify all datasets during each recursion, an appropriate learner is chosen from a set of three learners, based on the subset of data being trained, thereby avoiding the time overhead associated with the genetic algorithm learner utilized in previous approaches. In this way MLRT seeks to identify the inherent characteristics of the dataset, and utilize it to train the data accurately and efficiently. We observed that empirically, MLRT performs considerably well as compared to RPHP and other systems on benchmark data with 11% improvement in accuracy on the SPAM dataset and comparable performances on the VOWEL and the TWO-SPIRAL problems. In addition, for most datasets, the time taken by MLRT is considerably lower than the other systems with comparable accuracy. Two heuristic versions, MLRT-2 and MLRT-3 are also introduced to improve the efficiency in the system, and to make it more scalable for future updates. The performance in these versions is similar to the original MLRT system

State-of-the-art in aerodynamic shape optimisation methods

Aerodynamic optimisation has become an indispensable component for any aerodynamic design over the past 60 years, with applications to aircraft, cars, trains, bridges, wind turbines, internal pipe flows, and cavities, among others, and is thus relevant in many facets of technology. With advancements in computational power, automated design optimisation procedures have become more competent, however, there is an ambiguity and bias throughout the literature with regards to relative performance of optimisation architectures and employed algorithms. This paper provides a well-balanced critical review of the dominant optimisation approaches that have been integrated with aerodynamic theory for the purpose of shape optimisation. A total of 229 papers, published in more than 120 journals and conference proceedings, have been classified into 6 different optimisation algorithm approaches. The material cited includes some of the most well-established authors and publications in the field of aerodynamic optimisation. This paper aims to eliminate bias toward certain algorithms by analysing the limitations, drawbacks, and the benefits of the most utilised optimisation approaches. This review provides comprehensive but straightforward insight for non-specialists and reference detailing the current state for specialist practitioners