Case Based Heuristic Selection for Timetabling Problems

This paper presents a case-based heuristic selection approach for automated university course and exam timetabling. The method described in this paper is motivated by the goal of developing timetabling systems that are fundamentally more general than the current state of the art. Heuristics that worked well in previous similar situations are memorized in a case base and are retrieved for solving the problem in hand. Knowledge discovery techniques are employed in two distinct scenarios. Firstly, we model the problem and the problem solving situations along with specific heuristics for those problems. Secondly, we refine the case base and discard cases which prove to be non-useful in solving new problems. Experimental results are presented and analyzed. It is shown that case based reasoning can act effectively as an intelligent approach to learn which heuristics work well for particular timetabling situations. We conclude by outlining and discussing potential research issues in this critical area of knowledge discovery for different difficult timetabling problems.

Case Based Heuristic Selection for Timetabling Problems

This paper presents a case-based heuristic selection approach for automated university course and exam timetabling. The method described in this paper is motivated by the goal of developing timetabling systems that are fundamentally more general than the current state of the art. Heuristics that worked well in previous similar situations are memorized in a case base and are retrieved for solving the problem in hand. Knowledge discovery techniques are employed in two distinct scenarios. Firstly, we model the problem and the problem solving situations along with specific heuristics for those problems. Secondly, we refine the case base and discard cases which prove to be non-useful in solving new problems. Experimental results are presented and analyzed. It is shown that case based reasoning can act effectively as an intelligent approach to learn which heuristics work well for particular timetabling situations. We conclude by outlining and discussing potential research issues in this critical area of knowledge discovery for different difficult timetabling problems.

ArrayMining: a modular web-application for microarray analysis combining ensemble and consensus methods with cross-study normalization

Background: Statistical analysis of DNA microarray data provides a valuable diagnostic tool for the investigation of genetic components of diseases. To take advantage of the multitude of available data sets and analysis methods, it is desirable to combine both different algorithms and data from different studies. Applying ensemble learning, consensus clustering and cross-study normalization methods for this purpose in an almost fully automated process and linking different analysis modules together under a single interface would simplify many microarray analysis tasks. Results: We present ArrayMining.net, a web-application for microarray analysis that provides easy access to a wide choice of feature selection, clustering, prediction, gene set analysis and cross-study normalization methods. In contrast to other microarray-related web-tools, multiple algorithms and data sets for an analysis task can be combined using ensemble feature selection, ensemble prediction, consensus clustering and cross-platform data integration. By interlinking different analysis tools in a modular fashion, new exploratory routes become available, e.g. ensemble sample classification using features obtained from a gene set analysis and data from multiple studies. The analysis is further simplified by automatic parameter selection mechanisms and linkage to web tools and databases for functional annotation and literature mining. Conclusion: ArrayMining.net is a free web-application for microarray analysis combining a broad choice of algorithms based on ensemble and consensus methods, using automatic parameter selection and integration with annotation databases.

Towards the systematic simplification of mechanistic models

Mechanistic models used for prediction should be parsimonious, as models which are over-parameterised may have poor predictive performance. Determining whether a model is parsimonious requires comparisons with alternative model formulations with differing levels of complexity. However, creating alternative formulations for large mechanistic models is often problematic, and usually time-consuming. Consequently, few are ever investigated. In this paper, we present an approach which rapidly generates reduced model formulations by replacing a model’s variables with constants. These reduced alternatives can be compared to the original model, using data based model selection criteria, to assist in the identification of potentially unnecessary model complexity, and thereby inform reformulation of the model. To illustrate the approach, we present its application to a published radiocaesium plant-uptake model, which predicts uptake on the basis of soil characteristics (e.g. pH, organic matter content, clay content). A total of 1024 reduced model formulations were generated, and ranked according to five model selection criteria: Residual Sum of Squares (RSS), AICc, BIC, MDL and ICOMP. The lowest scores for RSS and AICc occurred for the same reduced model in which pH dependent model components were replaced. The lowest scores for BIC, MDL and ICOMP occurred for a further reduced model in which model components related to the distinction between adsorption on clay and organic surfaces were replaced. Both these reduced models had a lower RSS for the parameterisation dataset than the original model. As a test of their predictive performance, the original model and the two reduced models outlined above were used to predict an independent dataset. The reduced models have lower prediction sums of squares than the original model, suggesting that the latter may be overfitted. The approach presented has the potential to inform model development by rapidly creating a class of alternative model formulations, which can be compared.

Error analyses reveal contrasting deficits in “theory of mind”: neuropsychological evidence from a 3-option false belief task

Perspective taking is a crucial ability that guides our social interactions. In this study, we show how the specific patterns of errors of brain-damaged patients in perspective taking tasks can help us further understand the factors contributing to perspective taking abilities. Previous work (e.g., Samson, Apperly, Chiavarino, & Humphreys, 2004; Samson, Apperly, Kathirgamanathan, & Humphreys, 2005) distinguished two components of perspective taking: the ability to inhibit our own perspective and the ability to infer someone else’s perspective. We assessed these components using a new nonverbal false belief task which provided different response options to detect three types of response strategies that participants might be using: a complete and spared belief reasoning strategy, a reality-based response selection strategy in which participants respond from their own perspective, and a simplified mentalising strategy in which participants avoid responding from their own perspective but rely on inaccurate cues to infer the other person’s belief. One patient, with a self-perspective inhibition deficit, almost always used the reality-based response strategy; in contrast, the other patient, with a deficit in taking other perspectives, tended to use the simplified mentalising strategy without necessarily transposing her own perspective. We discuss the extent to which the pattern of performance of both patients could relate to their executive function deficit and how it can inform us on the cognitive and neural components involved in belief reasoning.