Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106103. 	[Title] Bias and the Probability of Generalization [Abstract] In order to be useful, a learning algorithm must be able to generalize well when faced with inputs not previously presented to the system. A bias is necessary for any generalization, and as shown by several researchers in recent years, no bias can lead to strictly better generalization than any other when summed over all possible functions or applications. This paper provides examples to illustrate this fact, but also explains how a bias or learning algorithm can be better than another in practice when the probability of the occurrence of functions is taken into account. It shows how domain knowledge and an understanding of the conditions under which each learning algorithm performs well can be used to increase the probability of accurate generalization, and identifies several of the conditions that should be considered when attempting to select an appropriate bias for a particular problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #235776. 	[Title] Recursive Automatic Algorithm Selection for Inductive Learning [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 94-61 August 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #22563. 	[Title] A Comparative Study of ID3 and Backpropagation for English Text-to-Speech Mapping [Abstract] The performance of the error backpropagation (BP) and ID3 learning algorithms was compared on the task of mapping English text to phonemes and stresses. Under the distributed output code developed by Sejnowski and Rosenberg, it is shown that BP consistently out-performs ID3 on this task by several percentage points. Three hypotheses explaining this difference were explored: (a) ID3 is overfitting the training data, (b) BP is able to share hidden units across several output units and hence can learn the output units better, and (c) BP captures statistical information that ID3 does not. We conclude that only hypothesis (c) is correct. By augmenting ID3 with a simple statistical learning procedure, the performance of BP can be approached but not matched. More complex statistical procedures can improve the performance of both BP and ID3 substantially. A study of the residual errors suggests that there is still substantial room for improvement in learning methods for text-to-speech mapping. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6346. 	[Title] Instance Pruning Techniques [Abstract] The nearest neighbor algorithm and its derivatives are often quite successful at learning a concept from a training set and providing good generalization on subsequent input vectors. However, these techniques often retain the entire training set in memory, resulting in large memory requirements and slow execution speed, as well as a sensitivity to noise. This paper provides a discussion of issues related to reducing the number of instances retained in memory while maintaining (and sometimes improving) generalization accuracy, and mentions algorithms other researchers have used to address this problem. It presents three intuitive noise-tolerant algorithms that can be used to prune instances from the training set. In experiments on 29 applications, the algorithm that achieves the highest reduction in storage also results in the highest generalization accuracy of the three methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1112075. 	[Title] In Proceedings of the 1997 Sian Kaan International Workshop on Neural Networks and Neurocontrol. Real-Valued [Abstract] 2 Neural Network & Machine Learning Laboratory Computer Science Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602, USA Email: martinez@cs.byu.edu WWW: http://axon.cs.byu.edu Abstract. Many neural network models must be trained by finding a set of real-valued weights that yield high accuracy on a training set. Other learning models require weights on input attributes that yield high leave-one-out classification accuracy in order to avoid problems associated with irrelevant attributes and high dimensionality. In addition, there are a variety of general problems for which a set of real values must be found which maximize some evaluation function. This paper presents an algorithm for doing a schemata search over a real-valued weight space to find a set of weights (or other real values) that yield high values for a given evaluation function. The algorithm, called the Real-Valued Schemata Search (RVSS), uses the BRACE statistical technique [Moore & Lee, 1993] to determine when to narrow the search space. This paper details the RVSS approach and gives initial empirical results. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6925. 	[Title] Solving the Multiple-Instance Problem with Axis-Parallel Rectangles [Abstract] The multiple instance problem arises in tasks where the training examples are ambiguous: a single example object may have many alternative feature vectors (instances) that describe it, and yet only one of those feature vectors may be responsible for the observed classification of the object. This paper describes and compares three kinds of algorithms that learn axis-parallel rectangles to solve the multiple-instance problem. Algorithms that ignore the multiple instance problem perform very poorly. An algorithm that directly confronts the multiple instance problem (by attempting to identify which feature vectors are responsible for the observed classifications) performs best, giving 89% correct predictions on a musk-odor prediction task. The paper also illustrates the use of artificial data to debug and compare these algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6767. 	[Title] Generalizing from Case Studies: A Case Study [Abstract] Most empirical evaluations of machine learning algorithms are case studies evaluations of multiple algorithms on multiple databases. Authors of case studies implicitly or explicitly hypothesize that the pattern of their results, which often suggests that one algorithm performs significantly better than others, is not limited to the small number of databases investigated, but instead holds for some general class of learning problems. However, these hypotheses are rarely supported with additional evidence, which leaves them suspect. This paper describes an empirical method for generalizing results from case studies and an example application. This method yields rules describing when some algorithms significantly outperform others on some dependent measures. Advantages for generalizing from case studies and limitations of this particular approach are also described. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1114864. 	[Title] Machine Learning: An Annotated Bibliography for the 1995 AI Statistics Tutorial on Machine Learning (Version 1) [Abstract] This is a brief annotated bibliography that I wanted to make available to the attendees of my Machine Learning tutorial at the 1995 AI & Statistics Workshop. These slides are available in my WWW pages under slides. Please contact me if you have any questions. Please also note the date (listed above) on which this was most recently updated. While I plan to make occasional updates to this file, it is bound to be outdated quickly. Also, I apologize for the lack of figures, but my time on this project is limited and the slides should compensate. Finally, this bibliography is, by definition, This book is now out of date. Both Pat Langley and Tom Mitchell are in the process of writing textbooks on this subject, but we're still waiting for them. Until then, I suggest looking at both the Readings and the recent ML conference proceedings (both International and European). There are also a few introductory papers on this subject, though I haven't gotten around to putting them in here yet. However, Pat Langley and Dennis Kibler (1988) have written a good paper on ML as an empirical science, and Pat has written several editorials of use to the ML author (Langley 1986; 1987; 1990). incomplete, and I've left out many other references that may be of some use. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3218. 	[Title] Rule Induction with CN2: Some Recent Improvements [Abstract] The CN2 algorithm induces an ordered list of classification rules from examples using entropy as its search heuristic. In this short paper, we describe two improvements to this algorithm. Firstly, we present the use of the Laplacian error estimate as an alternative evaluation function and secondly, we show how unordered as well as ordered rules can be generated. We experimentally demonstrate significantly improved performances resulting from these changes, thus enhancing the usefulness of CN2 as an inductive tool. Comparisons with Quinlan's C4.5 are also made. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #69397. 	[Title] Dynamical Selection of Learning Algorithms [Abstract] Determining the conditions for which a given learning algorithm is appropriate is an open problem in machine learning. Methods for selecting a learning algorithm for a given domain have met with limited success. This paper proposes a new approach to predicting a given example's class by locating it in the "example space" and then choosing the best learner(s) in that region of the example space to make predictions. The regions of the example space are defined by the prediction patterns of the learners being used. The learner(s) chosen for prediction are selected according to their past performance in that region. This dynamic approach to learning algorithm selection is compared to other methods for selecting from multiple learning algorithms. The approach is then extended to weight rather than select the algorithms according to their past performance in a given region. Both approaches are further evaluated on a set of Determining the conditions for which a given learning algorithm is appropriate is an open problem in machine learning. Methods for selecting a learning algorithm for a given domain (e.g. [Aha92, Breiman84]) or for a portion of the domain ([Brodley93, Brodley94]) have met with limited success. This paper proposes a new approach that dynamically selects a learning algorithm for each example by locating it in the "example space" and then choosing the best learner(s) for prediction in that part of the example space. The regions of the example space are formed by the observed prediction patterns of the learners being used. The learner(s) chosen for prediction are selected according to their past performance in that region which is defined by the "cross-validation history." This paper introduces DS, a method for the dynamic selection of a learning algorithm(s). We call it "dynamic" because the learning algorithm(s) used to classify a novel example depends on that example. Preliminary experimentation motivated DW, an extension to DS that dynamically weights the learners predictions according to their regional accuracy. Further experimentation compares DS and DW to a collection of other meta-learning strategies such as cross-validation ([Breiman84]) and various forms of stacking ([Wolpert92]). In this phase of the experiementation, the meta-learners have six constituent learners which are heterogeneous in their search and representation methods (e.g. a rule learner, CN2 [Clark89]; a decision tree learner, C4.5 [Quinlan93]; an oblique decision tree learner, OC1 [Murthy93]; an instance-based learner, PEBLS [Cost93]; a k-nearest neighbor learner, ten domains and compared to several other meta-learning strategies. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1120444. 	[Title] Systematic Evaluation of Design Decisions in CBR Systems [Abstract] Two important goals in the evaluation of an AI theory or model are to assess the merit of the design decisions in the performance of an implemented computer system and to analyze the impact in the performance when the system faces problem domains with different characteristics. This is particularly difficult in case-based reasoning systems because such systems are typically very complex, as are the tasks and domains in which they operate. We present a methodology for the evaluation of case-based reasoning systems through systematic empirical experimentation over a range of system configurations and environmental conditions, coupled with rigorous statistical analysis of the results of the experiments. This methodology enables us to understand the behavior of the system in terms of the theory and design of the computational model, to select the best system configuration for a given domain, and to predict how the system will behave in response to changing domain and problem characteristics. A case study of a mul-tistrategy case-based and reinforcement learning system which performs autonomous robotic navigation is presented as an example. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6334. 	[Title] Prototype and Feature Selection by Sampling and Random Mutation Hill Climbing Algorithms [Abstract] With the goal of reducing computational costs without sacrificing accuracy, we describe two algorithms to find sets of prototypes for nearest neighbor classification. Here, the term prototypes refers to the reference instances used in a nearest neighbor computation the instances with respect to which similarity is assessed in order to assign a class to a new data item. Both algorithms rely on stochastic techniques to search the space of sets of prototypes and are simple to implement. The first is a Monte Carlo sampling algorithm; the second applies random mutation hill climbing. On four datasets we show that only three or four prototypes sufficed to give predictive accuracy equal or superior to a basic nearest neighbor algorithm whose run-time storage costs were approximately 10 to 200 times greater. We briefly investigate how random mutation hill climbing may be applied to select features and prototypes simultaneously. Finally, we explain the performance of the sampling algorithm on these datasets in terms of a statistical measure of the extent of clustering displayed by the target classes. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1106103 has the title `Bias and the Probability of Generalization  
` and the abstract `In order to be useful, a learning algorithm must be able to generalize well when faced with inputs not previously presented to the system. A bias is necessary for any generalization, and as shown by several researchers in recent years, no bias can lead to strictly better generalization than any other when summed over all possible functions or applications. This paper provides examples to illustrate this fact, but also explains how a bias or learning algorithm can be better than another in practice when the probability of the occurrence of functions is taken into account. It shows how domain knowledge and an understanding of the conditions under which each learning algorithm performs well can be used to increase the probability of accurate generalization, and identifies several of the conditions that should be considered when attempting to select an appropriate bias for a particular problem. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1106103 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1106103 has the title `Bias and the Probability of Generalization  
` and the abstract `In order to be useful, a learning algorithm must be able to generalize well when faced with inputs not previously presented to the system. A bias is necessary for any generalization, and as shown by several researchers in recent years, no bias can lead to strictly better generalization than any other when summed over all possible functions or applications. This paper provides examples to illustrate this fact, but also explains how a bias or learning algorithm can be better than another in practice when the probability of the occurrence of functions is taken into account. It shows how domain knowledge and an understanding of the conditions under which each learning algorithm performs well can be used to increase the probability of accurate generalization, and identifies several of the conditions that should be considered when attempting to select an appropriate bias for a particular problem. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1106103 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: Case_Based