Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #45188. 	[Title] A Bound on the Error of Cross Validation Using the Approximation and Estimation Rates, with [Abstract] We give an analysis of the generalization error of cross validation in terms of two natural measures of the difficulty of the problem under consideration: the approximation rate (the accuracy to which the target function can be ideally approximated as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters), and the estimation rate (the deviation between the training and generalization errors as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters). The approximation rate captures the complexity of the target function with respect to the hypothesis model, and the estimation rate captures the extent to which the hypothesis model suffers from overfitting. Using these two measures, we give a rigorous and general bound on the error of cross validation. The bound clearly shows the tradeoffs involved with making fl the fraction of data saved for testing too large or too small. By optimizing the bound with respect to fl, we then argue (through a combination of formal analysis, plotting, and controlled experimentation) that the following qualitative properties of cross validation behavior should be quite robust to significant changes in the underlying model selection problem: Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #45189. 	[Title] An Experimental and Theoretical Comparison of Model Selection Methods on simple model selection problems, the [Abstract] We investigate the problem of model selection in the setting of supervised learning of boolean functions from independent random examples. More precisely, we compare methods for finding a balance between the complexity of the hypothesis chosen and its observed error on a random training sample of limited size, when the goal is that of minimizing the resulting generalization error. We undertake a detailed comparison of three well-known model selection methods | a variation of Vapnik's Guaranteed Risk Minimization (GRM), an instance of Rissanen's Minimum Description Length Principle (MDL), and cross validation (CV). We introduce a general class of model selection methods (called penalty-based methods) that includes both GRM and MDL, and provide general methods for analyzing such rules. We provide both controlled experimental evidence and formal theorems to support the following conclusions: * The class of penalty-based methods is fundamentally handicapped in the sense that there exist two types of model selection problems for which every penalty-based method must incur large generalization error on at least one, while CV enjoys small generalization error Despite the inescapable incomparability of model selection methods under certain circumstances, we conclude with a discussion of our belief that the balance of the evidence provides specific reasons to prefer CV to other methods, unless one is in possession of detailed problem-specific information. on both. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #350362. 	[Title] Improving Regressors using Boosting Techniques [Abstract] In the regression context, boosting and bagging are techniques to build a committee of regressors that may be superior to a single regressor. We use regression trees as fundamental building blocks in bagging committee machines and boosting committee machines. Performance is analyzed on three non-linear functions and the Boston housing database. In all cases, boosting is at least equivalent, and in most cases better than bagging in terms of prediction error. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #976284. 	[Title] Algorithmic Stability and Sanity-Check Bounds for Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation [Abstract] In this paper we prove sanity-check bounds for the error of the leave-one-out cross-validation estimate of the generalization error: that is, bounds showing that the worst-case error of this estimate is not much worse than that of the training error estimate. The name sanity-check refers to the fact that although we often expect the leave-one-out estimate to perform considerably better than the training error estimate, we are here only seeking assurance that its performance will not be considerably worse. Perhaps surprisingly, such assurance has been given only for rather limited cases in the prior literature on cross-validation. Any nontrivial bound on the error of leave-one-out must rely on some notion of algorithmic stability. Previous bounds relied on the rather strong notion of hypothesis stability, whose application was primarily limited to nearest-neighbor and other local algorithms. Here we introduce the new and weaker notion of error stability, and apply it to obtain sanity-check bounds for leave-one-out for other classes of learning algorithms, including training error minimization procedures and Bayesian algorithms. We also provide lower bounds demonstrating the necessity of error stability for proving bounds on the error of the leave-one-out estimate, and the fact that for training error minimization algorithms, in the worst case such bounds must still depend on the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension of the hypothesis class. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3233. 	[Title] A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection [Abstract] We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods: cross-validation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical results in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), ten-fold cross-validation may be better than the more expensive leave-one-out cross-validation. We report on a large-scale experiment|over half a million runs of C4.5 and a Naive-Bayes algorithm|to estimate the effects of different parameters on these algorithms on real-world datasets. For cross-validation, we vary the number of folds and whether the folds are stratified or not; for bootstrap, we vary the number of bootstrap samples. Our results indicate that for real-word datasets similar to ours, the best method to use for model selection is ten-fold stratified cross validation, even if computation power allows using more folds. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1116328. 	[Title] Vapnik-Chervonenkis entropy of the spherical perceptron [Abstract] Perceptron learning of randomly labeled patterns is analyzed using a Gibbs distribution on the set of realizable labelings of the patterns. The entropy of this distribution is an extension of the Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) entropy, reducing to it exactly in the limit of infinite temperature. The close relationship between the VC and Gardner entropies can be seen within the replica formalism. There has been recent progress towards understanding the relationship between the statistical physics and Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) approaches to learning theory[1, 2, 3, 4]. The two approaches can be unified in a statistical mechanics based on the VC entropy. This paper treats the case of learning randomly labeled patterns, or the capacity problem, and extends some of the results of previous work[5, 6] to finite temperature. As will be explained in a companion paper, this extension is important for treating the generalization problem, which occurs in the context of learning patterns labeled by a target rule. Our general framework is illustrated for the simple perceptron sgn(w x), which maps an N -dimensional real-valued input x to a 1-valued output. Given a sample X = (x 1 ; : : : ; x m ) of inputs, the weight vector w determines a labeling L = (l 1 ; : : : ; l m ) of the sample via l i = sgn(w x i ). The weight vector w defines a normal hyperplane that separates the positive from the negative examples. The training error of a labeling L with respect to a reference labeling L 0 is defined by 1 m X 1 l i l 0 and is just the fraction of different labels in the two labelings. We consider the case in which the reference labeling is chosen at random, and address the issue of Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105450. 	[Title] A Fast, Bottom-Up Decision Tree Pruning Algorithm with Near-Optimal Generalization [Abstract] In this work, we present a new bottom-up algorithm for decision tree pruning that is very efficient (requiring only a single pass through the given tree), and prove a strong performance guarantee for the generalization error of the resulting pruned tree. We work in the typical setting in which the given tree T may have been derived from the given training sample S, and thus may badly overfit S. In this setting, we give bounds on the amount of additional generalization error that our pruning suffers compared to the optimal pruning of T . More generally, our results show that if there is a pruning of T with small error, and whose size is small compared to jSj, then our algorithm will find a pruning whose error is not much larger. This style of result has been called an index of resolvability result by Barron and Cover in the context of density estimation. A novel feature of our algorithm is its locality | the decision to prune a subtree is based entirely on properties of that subtree and the sample reaching it. To analyze our algorithm, we develop tools of local uniform convergence, a generalization of the standard notion that may prove useful in other settings. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3243. 	[Title] A System for Induction of Oblique Decision Trees [Abstract] This article describes a new system for induction of oblique decision trees. This system, OC1, combines deterministic hill-climbing with two forms of randomization to find a good oblique split (in the form of a hyperplane) at each node of a decision tree. Oblique decision tree methods are tuned especially for domains in which the attributes are numeric, although they can be adapted to symbolic or mixed symbolic/numeric attributes. We present extensive empirical studies, using both real and artificial data, that analyze OC1's ability to construct oblique trees that are smaller and more accurate than their axis-parallel counterparts. We also examine the benefits of randomization for the construction of oblique decision trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130929. 	[Title] A model f w depending on a set of parameters w is used to estimate [Abstract] We have introduced earlier the use of regularisation in the learning procedure. It should now be understood that regularisation is most often a necessity to increase the quality of the results. Even when the unregularised solution is acceptable, it is likely that some regularisation will produce an improvement in performance. There does not exist any method giving directly the best value for the regularisation parameter ~, even in the linear case. The topic of this chapter is thus to propose some methods to estimate the best value. The best ~ being the one that leads to the smallest generalisation error, the methods presented and compared here propose estimators of the generalisation error. This estimation can then be used to approximate the best regularisation level. In sections 3.2 to 3.4 we present validation-based techniques. They estimate the generalisation error on the basis of some extra data. In sections 3.6 to 3.9, we deal with algebraic estimates of this error, that do not use any extra data, but rely on a number of assumptions. The contribution of this chapter is to present all these techniques and analyse them on the same ground. We also present some short derivations clarifying the links between different estimators of generalisation error, as well as a comparison between them. During the course of this chapter, the error will be the quadratic difference. For the validation-based methods, it is possible to consider any kind of error without modification of the method. On the other hand, the algebraic estimates are specific to the quadratic cost. Adapting them to another cost function would require to derive new expressions for the estimators. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28471. 	[Title] Markov Decision Processes in Large State Spaces [Abstract] In this paper we propose a new framework for studying Markov decision processes (MDPs), based on ideas from statistical mechanics. The goal of learning in MDPs is to find a policy that yields the maximum expected return over time. In choosing policies, agents must therefore weigh the prospects of short-term versus long-term gains. We study a simple MDP in which the agent must constantly decide between exploratory jumps and local reward mining in state space. The number of policies to choose from grows exponentially with the size of the state space, N . We view the expected returns as defining an energy landscape over policy space. Methods from statistical mechanics are used to analyze this landscape in the thermodynamic limit N ! 1. We calculate the overall distribution of expected returns, as well as the distribution of returns for policies at a fixed Hamming distance from the optimal one. We briefly discuss the problem of learning optimal policies from empirical estimates of the expected return. As a first step, we relate our findings for the entropy to the limit of high-temperature learning. Numerical simulations support the theoretical results. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #237376. 	[Title] Characterizing Rational versus Exponential Learning Curves [Abstract] We consider the standard problem of learning a concept from random examples. Here a learning curve can be defined to be the expected error of a learner's hypotheses as a function of training sample size. Haussler, Littlestone and Warmuth have shown that, in the distribution free setting, the smallest expected error a learner can achieve in the worst case over a concept class C converges rationally to zero error (i.e., fi(1=t) for training sample size t). However, recently Cohn and Tesauro have demonstrated how exponential convergence can often be observed in experimental settings (i.e., average error decreasing as e fi(t) ). By addressing a simple non-uniformity in the original analysis, this paper shows how the dichotomy between rational and exponential worst case learning curves can be recovered in the distribution free theory. These results support the experimental findings of Cohn and Tesauro: for finite concept classes, any consistent learner achieves exponential convergence, even in the worst case; but for continuous concept classes, no learner can exhibit sub-rational convergence for every target concept and domain distribution. A precise boundary between rational and exponential convergence is drawn for simple concept chains. Here we show that somewhere dense chains always force rational convergence in the worst case, but exponential convergence can always be achieved for nowhere dense chains. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4804. 	[Title] Toward Efficient Agnostic Learning [Abstract] In this paper we initiate an investigation of generalizations of the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) learning model that attempt to significantly weaken the target function assumptions. The ultimate goal in this direction is informally termed agnostic learning, in which we make virtually no assumptions on the target function. The name derives from the fact that as designers of learning algorithms, we give up the belief that Nature (as represented by the target function) has a simple or succinct explanation. We give a number of positive and negative results that provide an initial outline of the possibilities for agnostic learning. Our results include hardness results for the most obvious generalization of the PAC model to an agnostic setting, an efficient and general agnostic learning method based on dynamic programming, relationships between loss functions for agnostic learning, and an algorithm for a learning problem that involves hidden variables. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #15429. 	[Title] A General Lower Bound on the Number of Examples Needed for Learning [Abstract] We prove a lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ) on the number of random examples required for distribution-free learning of a concept class C, where VCdim(C) is the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension and * and ffi are the accuracy and confidence parameters. This improves the previous best lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C)), and comes close to the known general upper bound of O( 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ln 1 * ) for consistent algorithms. We show that for many interesting concept classes, including kCNF and kDNF, our bound is actually tight to within a constant factor. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #91975. 	[Title] Learning Curve Bounds for Markov Decision Processes with Undiscounted Rewards [Abstract] Markov decision processes (MDPs) with undis-counted rewards represent an important class of problems in decision and control. The goal of learning in these MDPs is to find a policy that yields the maximum expected return per unit time. In large state spaces, computing these averages directly is not feasible; instead, the agent must estimate them by stochastic exploration of the state space. In this case, longer exploration times enable more accurate estimates and more informed decision-making. The learning curve for an MDP measures how the agent's performance depends on the allowed exploration time, T . In this paper we analyze these learning curves for a simple control problem with undiscounted rewards. In particular, methods from statistical mechanics are used to calculate lower bounds on the agent's performance in the thermodynamic limit T ! 1, N ! 1, ff = T =N (finite), where T is the number of time steps allotted per policy evaluation and N is the size of the state space. In this limit, we provide a lower bound on the return of policies that appear optimal based on imperfect statistics. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #89547. 	[Title] Rigorous Learning Curve Bounds from Statistical Mechanics [Abstract] In this paper we introduce and investigate a mathematically rigorous theory of learning curves that is based on ideas from statistical mechanics. The advantage of our theory over the well-established Vapnik-Chervonenkis theory is that our bounds can be considerably tighter in many cases, and are also more reflective of the true behavior (functional form) of learning curves. This behavior can often exhibit dramatic properties such as phase transitions, as well as power law asymptotics not explained by the VC theory. The disadvantages of our theory are that its application requires knowledge of the input distribution, and it is limited so far to finite cardinality function classes. We illustrate our results with many concrete examples of learning curve bounds derived from our theory. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #272720. 	[Title] A New Metric-Based Approach to Model Selection [Abstract] We introduce a new approach to model selection that performs better than the standard complexity-penalization and hold-out error estimation techniques in many cases. The basic idea is to exploit the intrinsic metric structure of a hypothesis space, as determined by the natural distribution of unlabeled training patterns, and use this metric as a reference to detect whether the empirical error estimates derived from a small (labeled) training sample can be trusted in the region around an empirically optimal hypothesis. Using simple metric intuitions we develop new geometric strategies for detecting overfitting and performing robust yet responsive model selection in spaces of candidate functions. These new metric-based strategies dramatically outperform previous approaches in experimental studies of classical polynomial curve fitting. Moreover, the technique is simple, efficient, and can be applied to most function learning tasks. The only requirement is access to an auxiliary collection of unlabeled training data. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #192850. 	[Title] Characterizing the generalization performance of model selection strategies [Abstract] We investigate the structure of model selection problems via the bias/variance decomposition. In particular, we characterize the essential aspects of a model selection task by the bias and variance profiles it generates over the sequence of hypothesis classes. With this view, we develop a new understanding of complexity-penalization methods: First, the penalty terms can be interpreted as postulating a particular profile for the variances as a function of model complexityif the postulated and true profiles do not match, then systematic under-fitting or over-fitting results, depending on whether the penalty terms are too large or too small. Second, we observe that it is generally best to penalize according to the true variances of the task, and therefore no fixed penalization strategy is optimal across all problems. We then use this characterization to introduce the notion of easy versus hard model selection problems. Here we show that if the variance profile grows too rapidly in relation to the biases, then standard model selection techniques become prone to significant errors. This can happen, for example, in regression problems where the independent variables are drawn from wide-tailed distributions. To counter this, we discuss a new model selection strategy that dramatically outperforms standard complexity-penalization and hold-out meth ods on these hard tasks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #2653. 	[Title] A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting how the weight-update rule [Abstract] We consider the problem of dynamically apportioning resources among a set of options in a worst-case on-line framework. The model we study can be interpreted as a broad, abstract extension of the well-studied on-line prediction model to a general decision-theoretic setting. We show that the multiplicative weight-update rule of Littlestone and Warmuth [10] can be adapted to this model yielding bounds that are slightly weaker in some cases, but applicable to a considerably more general class of learning problems. We show how the resulting learning algorithm can be applied to a variety of problems, including gambling, multiple-outcome prediction, repeated games and prediction of points in R n Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #192734. 	[Title] Preventing "Overfitting" of Cross-Validation Data [Abstract] Suppose that, for a learning task, we have to select one hypothesis out of a set of hypotheses (that may, for example, have been generated by multiple applications of a randomized learning algorithm). A common approach is to evaluate each hypothesis in the set on some previously unseen cross-validation data, and then to select the hypothesis that had the lowest cross-validation error. But when the cross-validation data is partially corrupted such as by noise, and if the set of hypotheses we are selecting from is large, then "folklore" also warns about "overfitting" the cross-validation data [Klockars and Sax, 1986, Tukey, 1949, Tukey, 1953]. In this paper, we explain how this "overfitting" really occurs, and show the surprising result that it can be overcome by selecting a hypothesis with a higher cross-validation error, over others with lower cross-validation errors. We give reasons for not selecting the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error, and propose a new algorithm, LOOCVCV, that uses a computa-tionally efficient form of leave-one-out cross-validation to select such a hypothesis. Finally, we present experimental results for one domain, that show LOOCVCV consistently beating picking the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error, even when using reasonably large cross-validation sets. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1132385. 	[Title] Towards Robust Model Selection using Estimation and Approximation Error Bounds [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106401. 	[Title] Model Selection based on Minimum Description Length [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6771. 	[Title] Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms [Abstract] This paper reviews five statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task. These tests are compared experimentally to determine their probability of incorrectly detecting a difference when no difference exists (type 1 error). Two widely-used statistical tests are shown to have high probability of Type I error in certain situations and should never be used. These tests are (a) a test for the difference of two proportions and (b) a paired-differences t test based on taking several random train/test splits. A third test, a paired-differences t test based on 10-fold cross-validation, exhibits somewhat elevated probability of Type I error. A fourth test, McNemar's test, is shown to have low Type I error. The fifth test is a new test, 5x2cv, based on 5 iterations of 2-fold cross-validation. Experiments show that this test also has good Type I error. The paper also measures the power (ability to detect algorithm differences when they do exist) of these tests. The 5x2cv test is shown to be slightly more powerful than McNemar's test. The choice of the best test is determined by the computational cost of running the learning algorithm. For algorithms that can be executed only once, McNemar's test is the only test with acceptable Type I error. For algorithms that can be executed ten times, the 5x2cv test is recommended, because it is slightly more powerful and because it directly measures variation due to the choice of training set. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #66805. 	[Title] Where Genetic Algorithms Excel [Abstract] We analyze the performance of a Genetic Algorithm (GA) we call Culling and a variety of other algorithms on a problem we refer to as Additive Search Problem (ASP). ASP is closely related to several previously well studied problems, such as the game of Mastermind and additive fitness functions. We show that the problem of learning the Ising perceptron is reducible to a noisy version of ASP. Culling is efficient on ASP, highly noise tolerant, and the best known approach in some regimes. Noisy ASP is the first problem we are aware of where a Genetic Type Algorithm bests all known competitors. Standard GA's, by contrast, perform much more poorly on ASP than hillclimbing and other approaches even though the Schema theorem holds for ASP. We generalize ASP to k-ASP to study whether GA's will achieve `implicit parallelism' in a problem with many more schemata. GA's fail to achieve this implicit parallelism, but we describe an algorithm we call Explicitly Parallel Search that succeeds. We also compute the optimal culling point for selective breeding, which turns out to be independent of the fitness function or the population distribution. We also analyze a Mean Field Theoretic algorithm performing similarly to Culling on many problems. These results provide insight into when and how GA's can beat competing methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1272. 	[Title] Learning a set of primitive actions with an Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1(1):81-106, [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1152379. 	[Title] ANNEALED THEORIES OF LEARNING [Abstract] We study annealed theories of learning boolean functions using a concept class of finite cardinality. The naive annealed theory can be used to derive a universal learning curve bound for zero temperature learning, similar to the inverse square root bound from the Vapnik-Chervonenkis theory. Tighter, nonuniversal learning curve bounds are also derived. A more refined annealed theory leads to still tighter bounds, which in some cases are very similar to results previously obtained using one-step replica symmetry breaking. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1112319. 	[Title] Self bounding learning algorithms [Abstract] Most of the work which attempts to give bounds on the generalization error of the hypothesis generated by a learning algorithm is based on methods from the theory of uniform convergence. These bounds are a-priori bounds that hold for any distribution of examples and are calculated before any data is observed. In this paper we propose a different approach for bounding the generalization error after the data has been observed. A self-bounding learning algorithm is an algorithm which, in addition to the hypothesis that it outputs, outputs a reliable upper bound on the generalization error of this hypothesis. We first explore the idea in the statistical query learning framework of Kearns [10]. After that we give an explicit self bounding algorithm for learning algorithms that are based on local search. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #45188 has the title `A Bound on the Error of Cross Validation Using the Approximation and Estimation Rates, with
` and the abstract `We give an analysis of the generalization error of cross validation in terms of two natural measures of the difficulty of the problem under consideration: the approximation rate (the accuracy to which the target function can be ideally approximated as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters), and the estimation rate (the deviation between the training and generalization errors as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters). The approximation rate captures the complexity of the target function with respect to the hypothesis model, and the estimation rate captures the extent to which the hypothesis model suffers from overfitting. Using these two measures, we give a rigorous and general bound on the error of cross validation. The bound clearly shows the tradeoffs involved with making fl the fraction of data saved for testing too large or too small. By optimizing the bound with respect to fl, we then argue (through a combination of formal analysis, plotting, and controlled experimentation) that the following qualitative properties of cross validation behavior should be quite robust to significant changes in the underlying model selection problem: 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #45188 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #45188 has the title `A Bound on the Error of Cross Validation Using the Approximation and Estimation Rates, with
` and the abstract `We give an analysis of the generalization error of cross validation in terms of two natural measures of the difficulty of the problem under consideration: the approximation rate (the accuracy to which the target function can be ideally approximated as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters), and the estimation rate (the deviation between the training and generalization errors as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters). The approximation rate captures the complexity of the target function with respect to the hypothesis model, and the estimation rate captures the extent to which the hypothesis model suffers from overfitting. Using these two measures, we give a rigorous and general bound on the error of cross validation. The bound clearly shows the tradeoffs involved with making fl the fraction of data saved for testing too large or too small. By optimizing the bound with respect to fl, we then argue (through a combination of formal analysis, plotting, and controlled experimentation) that the following qualitative properties of cross validation behavior should be quite robust to significant changes in the underlying model selection problem: 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #45188 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