Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6782. 	[Title] Oblivious Decision Trees, Graphs, and Top-Down Pruning [Abstract] We describe a supervised learning algorithm, EODG, that uses mutual information to build an oblivious decision tree. The tree is then converted to an Oblivious read-Once Decision Graph (OODG) by merging nodes at the same level of the tree. For domains that are appropriate for both decision trees and OODGs, performance is approximately the same as that of C4.5, but the number of nodes in the OODG is much smaller. The merging phase that converts the oblivious decision tree to an OODG provides a new way of dealing with the replication problem and a new pruning mechanism that works top down starting from the root. The pruning mechanism is well suited for finding symmetries and aids in recovering from splits on irrelevant features that may happen during the tree construction. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3232. 	[Title] The Power of Decision Tables [Abstract] We evaluate the power of decision tables as a hypothesis space for supervised learning algorithms. Decision tables are one of the simplest hypothesis spaces possible, and usually they are easy to understand. Experimental results show that on artificial and real-world domains containing only discrete features, IDTM, an algorithm inducing decision tables, can sometimes outperform state-of-the-art algorithms such as C4.5. Surprisingly, performance is quite good on some datasets with continuous features, indicating that many datasets used in machine learning either do not require these features, or that these features have few values. We also describe an incremental method for performing cross-validation that is applicable to incremental learning algorithms including IDTM. Using incremental cross-validation, it is possible to cross-validate a given dataset and IDTM in time that is linear in the number of instances, the number of features, and the number of label values. The time for incremental cross-validation is independent of the number of folds chosen, hence leave-one-out cross-validation and ten-fold cross-validation take the same time. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31083. 	[Title] Data Mining using MLC A Machine Learning Library in C http://www.sgi.com/Technology/mlc [Abstract] Data mining algorithms including machine learning, statistical analysis, and pattern recognition techniques can greatly improve our understanding of data warehouses that are now becoming more widespread. In this paper, we focus on classification algorithms and review the need for multiple classification algorithms. We describe a system called MLC ++ , which was designed to help choose the appropriate classification algorithm for a given dataset by making it easy to compare the utility of different algorithms on a specific dataset of interest. MLC ++ not only provides a workbench for such comparisons, but also provides a library of C ++ classes to aid in the development of new algorithms, especially hybrid algorithms and multi-strategy algorithms. Such algorithms are generally hard to code from scratch. We discuss design issues, interfaces to other programs, and visualization of the resulting classifiers. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11342. 	[Title] On Pruning and Averaging Decision Trees [Abstract] Pruning a decision tree is considered by some researchers to be the most important part of tree building in noisy domains. While, there are many approaches to pruning, an alternative approach of averaging over decision trees has not received as much attention. We perform an empirical comparison of pruning with the approach of averaging over decision trees. For this comparison we use a computa-tionally efficient method of averaging, namely averaging over the extended fanned set of a tree. Since there are a wide range of approaches to pruning, we compare tree averaging with a traditional pruning approach, along with an optimal pruning approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1999. 	[Title] WRAPPERS FOR PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AND OBLIVIOUS DECISION GRAPHS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #463825. 	[Title] On the Induction of Intelligible Ensembles [Abstract] Ensembles of classifiers, e.g. decision trees, often exhibit greater predictive accuracy than single classifiers alone. Bagging and boosting are two standard ways of generating and combining multiple classifiers. Unfortunately, the increase in predictive performance is usually linked to a dramatic decrease in intelligibility: ensembles are more or less black boxes comparable to neural networks. So far attempts at pruning of ensembles have not been very successful, approximately reducing ensembles into half. This paper describes a different approach which both tries to keep ensemble-sizes small during induction already and also limits the complexity of single classifiers rigorously. Single classifiers are decision-stumps of a prespecified maximal depth. They are combined by majority voting. Ensembles are induced and pruned by a simple hill-climbing procedure. These ensembles can reasonably be transformed into equivalent decision trees. We conduct some empirical evaluation to investigate both predictive accuracies and classifier complexities. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49811. 	[Title] Estimating the Accuracy of Learned Concepts [Abstract] This paper investigates alternative estimators of the accuracy of concepts learned from examples. In particular, the cross-validation and 632 bootstrap estimators are studied, using synthetic training data and the foil learning algorithm. Our experimental results contradict previous papers in statistics, which advocate the 632 bootstrap method as superior to cross-validation. Nevertheless, our results also suggest that conclusions based on cross-validation in previous machine learning papers are unreliable. Specifically, our observations are that (i) the true error of the concept learned by foil from independently drawn sets of examples of the same concept varies widely, (ii) the estimate of true error provided by cross-validation has high variability but is approximately unbiased, and (iii) the 632 bootstrap estimator has lower variability than cross-validation, but is systematically biased. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #167670. 	[Title] Error-Based and Entropy-Based Discretization of Continuous Features [Abstract] We present a comparison of error-based and entropy-based methods for discretization of continuous features. Our study includes both an extensive empirical comparison as well as an analysis of scenarios where error minimization may be an inappropriate discretization criterion. We present a discretization method based on the C4.5 decision tree algorithm and compare it to an existing entropy-based discretization algorithm, which employs the Minimum Description Length Principle, and a recently proposed error-based technique. We evaluate these discretization methods with respect to C4.5 and Naive-Bayesian classifiers on datasets from the UCI repository and analyze the computational complexity of each method. Our results indicate that the entropy-based MDL heuristic outperforms error minimization on average. We then analyze the shortcomings of error-based approaches in comparison to entropy-based methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1123068. 	[Title] Targeting Business Users with Decision Table Classifiers [Abstract] Business users and analysts commonly use spreadsheets and 2D plots to analyze and understand their data. On-line Analytical Processing (OLAP) provides these users with added flexibility in pivoting data around different attributes and drilling up and down the multi-dimensional cube of aggregations. Machine learning researchers, however, have concentrated on hypothesis spaces that are foreign to most users: hyper-planes (Perceptrons), neural networks, Bayesian networks, decision trees, nearest neighbors, etc. In this paper we advocate the use of decision table classifiers that are easy for line-of-business users to understand. We describe several variants of algorithms for learning decision tables, compare their performance, and describe a visualization mechanism that we have implemented in MineSet. The performance of decision tables is comparable to other known algorithms, such as C4.5/C5.0, yet the resulting classifiers use fewer attributes and are more comprehensible. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #2654. 	[Title] Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm [Abstract] In an earlier paper, we introduced a new boosting algorithm called AdaBoost which, theoretically, can be used to significantly reduce the error of any learning algorithm that consistently generates classifiers whose performance is a little better than random guessing. We also introduced the related notion of a pseudo-loss which is a method for forcing a learning algorithm of multi-label concepts to concentrate on the labels that are hardest to discriminate. In this paper, we describe experiments we carried out to assess how well AdaBoost with and without pseudo-loss, performs on real learning problems. We performed two sets of experiments. The first set compared boosting to Breiman's bagging method when used to aggregate various classifiers (including decision trees and single attribute-value tests). We compared the performance of the two methods on a collection of machine-learning benchmarks. In the second set of experiments, we studied in more detail the performance of boosting using a nearest-neighbor classifier on an OCR problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #6782 has the title `Oblivious Decision Trees, Graphs, and Top-Down Pruning  
` and the abstract `We describe a supervised learning algorithm, EODG, that uses mutual information to build an oblivious decision tree. The tree is then converted to an Oblivious read-Once Decision Graph (OODG) by merging nodes at the same level of the tree. For domains that are appropriate for both decision trees and OODGs, performance is approximately the same as that of C4.5, but the number of nodes in the OODG is much smaller. The merging phase that converts the oblivious decision tree to an OODG provides a new way of dealing with the replication problem and a new pruning mechanism that works top down starting from the root. The pruning mechanism is well suited for finding symmetries and aids in recovering from splits on irrelevant features that may happen during the tree construction.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #6782 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #6782 has the title `Oblivious Decision Trees, Graphs, and Top-Down Pruning  
` and the abstract `We describe a supervised learning algorithm, EODG, that uses mutual information to build an oblivious decision tree. The tree is then converted to an Oblivious read-Once Decision Graph (OODG) by merging nodes at the same level of the tree. For domains that are appropriate for both decision trees and OODGs, performance is approximately the same as that of C4.5, but the number of nodes in the OODG is much smaller. The merging phase that converts the oblivious decision tree to an OODG provides a new way of dealing with the replication problem and a new pruning mechanism that works top down starting from the root. The pruning mechanism is well suited for finding symmetries and aids in recovering from splits on irrelevant features that may happen during the tree construction.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #6782 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Theory