scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Roger C. Schank

Bio: Roger C. Schank is an academic researcher from Northwestern University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Natural language & Cosmetics. The author has an hindex of 49, co-authored 152 publications receiving 24326 citations. Previous affiliations of Roger C. Schank include Wellesley College & Stanford University.


Papers
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1988

4,707 citations

Book
01 Jan 1977
TL;DR: Schank and Abelson as mentioned in this paper analyzed the conceptual apparatus necessary to perform even a partial feat of understanding, and their analysis of this apparatus is what is what this book is about.
Abstract: For both people and machines, each in their own way, there is a serious problem in common of making sense out of what they hear, see, or are told about the world. The conceptual apparatus necessary to perform even a partial feat of understanding is formidable and fascinating. Our analysis of this apparatus is what this book is about. —Roger C. Schank and Robert P. Abelson from the Introduction (http://www.psypress.com/scripts-plans-goals-and-understanding-9780898591385)

3,163 citations

Book
01 Jul 1989
TL;DR: CBR tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case, and is similar to the rule-induction algorithms of machine learning.
Abstract: Case-based reasoning, broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. An auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents is using case-based reasoning. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving. Case-based reasoning (CBR) has been formalized as a four-step process:N 1. Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases from memory that are relevant to solving it. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. 2. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. 3. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue -- an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. 4. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his newfound procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule-induction algorithmsP of machine learning.N Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. For instance, when Fred mapped his procedure for plain pancakes to blueberry pancakes, he decided to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time -- a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case.

1,458 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1988
TL;DR: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems as mentioned in this paper is a complete and accessible account of the theoretical foundations and computational methods that underlie plausible reasoning under uncertainty, and provides a coherent explication of probability as a language for reasoning with partial belief.
Abstract: From the Publisher: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems is a complete andaccessible account of the theoretical foundations and computational methods that underlie plausible reasoning under uncertainty. The author provides a coherent explication of probability as a language for reasoning with partial belief and offers a unifying perspective on other AI approaches to uncertainty, such as the Dempster-Shafer formalism, truth maintenance systems, and nonmonotonic logic. The author distinguishes syntactic and semantic approaches to uncertainty—and offers techniques, based on belief networks, that provide a mechanism for making semantics-based systems operational. Specifically, network-propagation techniques serve as a mechanism for combining the theoretical coherence of probability theory with modern demands of reasoning-systems technology: modular declarative inputs, conceptually meaningful inferences, and parallel distributed computation. Application areas include diagnosis, forecasting, image interpretation, multi-sensor fusion, decision support systems, plan recognition, planning, speech recognition—in short, almost every task requiring that conclusions be drawn from uncertain clues and incomplete information. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems will be of special interest to scholars and researchers in AI, decision theory, statistics, logic, philosophy, cognitive psychology, and the management sciences. Professionals in the areas of knowledge-based systems, operations research, engineering, and statistics will find theoretical and computational tools of immediate practical use. The book can also be used as an excellent text for graduate-level courses in AI, operations research, or applied probability.

15,671 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The present paper shows how the extended theory can account for results of several production experiments by Loftus, Juola and Atkinson's multiple-category experiment, Conrad's sentence-verification experiments, and several categorization experiments on the effect of semantic relatedness and typicality by Holyoak and Glass, Rips, Shoben, and Smith, and Rosch.
Abstract: This paper presents a spreading-acti vation theory of human semantic processing, which can be applied to a wide range of recent experimental results The theory is based on Quillian's theory of semantic memory search and semantic preparation, or priming In conjunction with this, several of the miscondeptions concerning Qullian's theory are discussed A number of additional assumptions are proposed for his theory in order to apply it to recent experiments The present paper shows how the extended theory can account for results of several production experiments by Loftus, Juola and Atkinson's multiple-category experiment, Conrad's sentence-verification experiments, and several categorization experiments on the effect of semantic relatedness and typicality by Holyoak and Glass, Rips, Shoben, and Smith, and Rosch The paper also provides a critique of the Smith, Shoben, and Rips model for categorization judgments Some years ago, Quillian1 (1962, 1967) proposed a spreading-acti vation theory of human semantic processing that he tried to implement in computer simulations of memory search (Quillian, 1966) and comprehension (Quillian, 1969) The theory viewed memory search as activation spreading from two or more concept nodes in a semantic network until an intersection was found The effects of preparation (or priming) in semantic memory were also explained in terms of spreading activation from the node of the primed concept Rather than a theory to explain data, it was a theory designed to show how to build human semantic structure and processing into a computer

7,586 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A theoretical model of situation awareness based on its role in dynamic human decision making in a variety of domains is presented and design implications for enhancing operator situation awareness and future directions for situation awareness research are explored.
Abstract: This paper presents a theoretical model of situation awareness based on its role in dynamic human decision making in a variety of domains. Situation awareness is presented as a predominant concern in system operation, based on a descriptive view of decision making. The relationship between situation awareness and numerous individual and environmental factors is explored. Among these factors, attention and working memory are presented as critical factors limiting operators from acquiring and interpreting information from the environment to form situation awareness, and mental models and goal-directed behavior are hypothesized as important mechanisms for overcoming these limits. The impact of design features, workload, stress, system complexity, and automation on operator situation awareness is addressed, and a taxonomy of errors in situation awareness is introduced, based on the model presented. The model is used to generate design implications for enhancing operator situation awareness and future directio...

7,470 citations

01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reveal how smart design is the new competitive frontier, and why some products satisfy customers while others only frustrate them, and how to choose the ones that satisfy customers.
Abstract: Revealing how smart design is the new competitive frontier, this innovative book is a powerful primer on how--and why--some products satisfy customers while others only frustrate them.

7,238 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jun 1974
TL;DR: The enormous problem of the volume of background common sense knowledge required to understand even very simple natural language texts is discussed and it is suggested that networks of frames are a reasonable approach to represent such knowledge.
Abstract: : A partial theory is presented of thinking, combining a number of classical and modern concepts from psychology, linguistics, and AI. In a new situation one selects from memory a structure called a frame: a remembered framework to be adapted to fit reality by changing details as necessary, and a data-structure for representing a stereotyped situation. Attached to each frame are several kinds of information -- how to use the frame, what one can expect to happen next, and what to do if these expectations are not confirmed. The report discusses collections of related frames that are linked together into frame-systems.

5,812 citations