Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1997. 	[Title] Cross-Validation and the Bootstrap: Estimating the Error Rate of a Prediction Rule [Abstract] A training set of data has been used to construct a rule for predicting future responses. What is the error rate of this rule? The traditional answer to this question is given by cross-validation. The cross-validation estimate of prediction error is nearly unbiased, but can be highly variable. This article discusses bootstrap estimates of prediction error, which can be thought of as smoothed versions of cross-validation. A particular bootstrap method, the 632+ rule, is shown to substantially outperform cross-validation in a catalog of 24 simulation experiments. Besides providing point estimates, we also consider estimating the variability of an error rate estimate. All of the results here are nonparametric, and apply to any possible prediction rule: however we only study classification problems with 0-1 loss in detail. Our simulations include "smooth" prediction rules like Fisher's Linear Discriminant Function, and unsmooth ones like Nearest Neighbors. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1104769. 	[Title] DART/HYESS Users Guide  recursive covering approach to local learning [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #2440. 	[Title] Quinlan, 1990 J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, First-order theory revision. In [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105932. 	[Title] An adaptation of Relief for attribute estimation in regression [Abstract] Heuristic measures for estimating the quality of attributes mostly assume the independence of attributes so in domains with strong dependencies between attributes their performance is poor. Relief and its extension ReliefF are capable of correctly estimating the quality of attributes in classification problems with strong dependencies between attributes. By exploiting local information provided by different contexts they provide a global view. We present the analysis of Reli-efF which lead us to its adaptation to regression (continuous class) problems. The experiments on artificial and real-world data sets show that Re-gressional ReliefF correctly estimates the quality of attributes in various conditions, and can be used for non-myopic learning of the regression trees. Regressional ReliefF and ReliefF provide a unified view on estimating the attribute quality in regression and classification. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8079. 	[Title] Bias Plus Variance Decomposition for Zero-One Loss Functions [Abstract] We present a bias-variance decomposition of expected misclassification rate, the most commonly used loss function in supervised classification learning. The bias-variance decomposition for quadratic loss functions is well known and serves as an important tool for analyzing learning algorithms, yet no decomposition was offered for the more commonly used zero-one (misclassification) loss functions until the recent work of Kong & Dietterich (1995) and Breiman (1996). Their decomposition suffers from some major shortcomings though (e.g., potentially negative variance), which our decomposition avoids. We show that, in practice, the naive frequency-based estimation of the decomposition terms is by itself biased and show how to correct for this bias. We illustrate the decomposition on various algorithms and datasets from the UCI repository. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #137873. 	[Title] Stacked Density Estimation [Abstract] Technical Report No. 97-36, Information and Computer Science Department, University of California, Irvine 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 #1122580. 	[Title] Virtual Seens and the Frequently Used Dataset [Abstract] The paper considers the situation in which a learner's testing set contains close approximations of cases which appear in the training set. Such cases can be considered `virtual seens' since they are approximately seen by the learner. Generalisation measures which do not take account of the frequency of virtual seens may be misleading. The paper shows that the 1-NN algorithm can be used to derive a normalising baseline for gen-eralisation statistics. The normalisation process is demonstrated though application to Holte's [1] study in which the generalisation performance of the 1R algorithm was tested against C4.5 on 16 commonly used datasets. 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 #66594. 	[Title] Automatic Parameter Selection by Minimizing Estimated Error [Abstract] We address the problem of finding the parameter settings that will result in optimal performance of a given learning algorithm using a particular dataset as training data. We describe a "wrapper" method, considering determination of the best parameters as a discrete function optimization problem. The method uses best-first search and cross-validation to wrap around the basic induction algorithm: the search explores the space of parameter values, running the basic algorithm many times on training and holdout sets produced by cross-validation to get an estimate of the expected error of each parameter setting. Thus, the final selected parameter settings are tuned for the specific induction algorithm and dataset being studied. We report experiments with this method on 33 datasets selected from the UCI and StatLog collections using C4.5 as the basic induction algorithm. At a 90% confidence level, our method improves the performance of C4.5 on nine domains, degrades performance on one, and is statistically indistinguishable from C4.5 on the rest. On the sample of datasets used for comparison, our method yields an average 13% relative decrease in error rate. We expect to see similar performance improvements when using our method with other machine learning al gorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3236. 	[Title] MLC A Machine Learning Library in C [Abstract] We present MLC ++ , a library of C ++ classes and tools for supervised Machine Learning. While MLC ++ provides general learning algorithms that can be used by end users, the main objective is to provide researchers and experts with a wide variety of tools that can accelerate algorithm development, increase software reliability, provide comparison tools, and display information visually. More than just a collection of existing algorithms, MLC ++ is an attempt to extract commonalities of algorithms and decompose them for a unified view that is simple, coherent, and extensible. In this paper we discuss the problems MLC ++ aims to solve, the design of MLC ++ , and the current functionality. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #641956. 	[Title] Adaptive Noise Injection for Input Variables Relevance Determination [Abstract] In this paper we consider the application of training with noise in multi-layer perceptron to input variables relevance determination. Noise injection is modified in order to penalize irrelevant features. The proposed algorithm is attractive as it requires the tuning of a single parameter. This parameter controls the penalization of the inputs together with the complexity of the model. After the presentation of the method, experimental evidences are given on simulated data sets. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110438. 	[Title] A Method of Combining Multiple Probabilistic Classifiers through Soft Competition on Different Feature Sets [Abstract] A novel method is proposed for combining multiple probabilistic classifiers on different feature sets. In order to achieve the improved classification performance, a generalized finite mixture model is proposed as a linear combination scheme and implemented based on radial basis function networks. In the linear combination scheme, soft competition on different feature sets is adopted as an automatic feature rank mechanism so that different feature sets can be always simultaneously used in an optimal way to determine linear combination weights. For training the linear combination scheme, a learning algorithm is developed based on Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. The proposed method has been applied to a typical real world problem, viz. speaker identification, in which different feature sets often need consideration simultaneously for robustness. Simulation results show that the proposed method yields good performance in speaker identification. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1109542. 	[Title] The covariance inflation criterion for adaptive model selection [Abstract] We propose a new criterion for model selection in prediction problems. The covariance inflation criterion adjusts the training error by the average covariance of the predictions and responses, when the prediction rule is applied to permuted versions of the dataset. This criterion can be applied to general prediction problems (for example regression or classification), and to general prediction rules (for example stepwise regression, tree-based models and neural nets). As a byproduct we obtain a measure of the effective number of parameters used by an adaptive procedure. We relate the covariance inflation criterion to other model selection procedures and illustrate its use in some regression and classification problems. We also revisit the conditional bootstrap approach to model selection. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3240. 	[Title] An Analysis of Bayesian Classifiers (1988), involves the formulation of average-case models for specific algorithms [Abstract] In this paper we present an average-case analysis of the Bayesian classifier, a simple induction algorithm that fares remarkably well on many learning tasks. Our analysis assumes a monotone conjunctive target concept, and independent, noise-free Boolean attributes. We calculate the probability that the algorithm will induce an arbitrary pair of concept descriptions and then use this to compute the probability of correct classification over the instance space. The analysis takes into account the number of training instances, the number of attributes, the distribution of these attributes, and the level of class noise. We also explore the behavioral implications of the analysis by presenting predicted learning curves for artificial domains, and give experimental results on these domains as a check on our reasoning. One goal of research in machine learning is to discover principles that relate algorithms and domain characteristics to behavior. To this end, many researchers have carried out systematic experimentation with natural and artificial domains in search of empirical regularities (e.g., Kibler & Langley, 1988). Others have focused on theoretical analyses, often within the paradigm of probably approximately correct learning (e.g., Haus-sler, 1990). However, most experimental studies are based only on informal analyses of the learning task, whereas most formal analyses address the worst case, and thus bear little relation to empirical results. ber of attributes, and the class and attribute frequencies, they obtain predictions about the behavior of induction algorithms and used experiments to check their analyses. 1 However, their research does not focus on algorithms typically used by the experimental and practical sides of machine learning, and it is important that average-case analyses be extended to such methods. Recently, there has been growing interest in probabilistic approaches to inductive learning. For example, Fisher (1987) has described Cobweb, an incremental algorithm for conceptual clustering that draws heavily on Bayesian ideas, and the literature reports a number of systems that build on this work (e.g., Allen & Lang-ley, 1990; Iba & Gennari, 1991; Thompson & Langley, 1991). Cheeseman et al. (1988) have outlined Auto-Class, a nonincremental system that uses Bayesian methods to cluster instances into groups, and other researchers have focused on the induction of Bayesian inference networks (e.g., Cooper & Kerskovits, 1991). These recent Bayesian learning algorithms are complex and not easily amenable to analysis, but they share a common ancestor that is simpler and more tractable. This supervised algorithm, which we refer to simply as a Bayesian classifier, comes originally from work in pattern recognition (Duda & Hart, 1973). The method stores a probabilistic summary for each class; this summary contains the conditional probability of each attribute value given the class, as well as the probability (or base rate) of the class. This data structure approximates the representational power of a perceptron; it describes a single decision boundary through the instance space. When the algorithm encounters a new instance, it updates the probabilities stored with the specified class. Neither the order of training instances nor the occurrence of classification errors have any effect on this process. When given a test instance, the classifier uses an evaluation function (which we describe in detail later) to rank the alter Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #25772. 	[Title] Flexible Metric Nearest Neighbor Classiflcation [Abstract] The K-nearest-neighbor decision rule assigns an object of unknown class to the plurality class among the K labeled "training" objects that are closest to it. Closeness is usually deflned in terms of a metric distance on the Euclidean space with the input measurement variables as axes. The metric chosen to deflne this distance can strongly efiect performance. An optimal choice depends on the problem at hand as characterized by the respective class distributions on the input measurement space, and within a given problem, on the location of the unknown object in that space. In this paper new types of K-nearest-neighbor procedures are described that estimate the local relevance of each input variable, or their linear combinations, for each individual point to be classifled. This information is then used to separately customize the metric used to deflne distance from that object in flnding its nearest neighbors. These procedures are a hybrid between regular K-nearest-neighbor methods and treestructured recursive partitioning techniques popular in statistics and machine learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130927. 	[Title] Parametric regression 1.1 Learning problem model f bw b w in turn is an estimator [Abstract] Let us present briefly the learning problem we will address in this chapter and the following. The ultimate goal is the modelling of a mapping f : x 7! y from multidimensional input x to output y. The output can be multi-dimensional, but we will mostly address situations where it is a one dimensional real value. Furthermore, we should take into account the fact that we scarcely ever observe the actual true mapping y = f (x). This is due to perturbations such as e.g. observational noise. We will rather have a joint probability p (x; y). We expect this probability to be peaked for values of x and y corresponding to the mapping. We focus on automatic learning by example. A set D = of data sampled from the joint distribution p (x; y) = p (yjx) p (x) is collected. With the help of this set, we try to identify a model of the data, parameterised by a set of 1.2 Learning and optimisation The fit of the model to the system in a given point x is measured using a criterion representing the distance from the model prediction b y to the system, e (y; f w (x)). This is the local risk . The performance of the model is measured by the expected This quantity represents the ability to yield good performance for all the possible situations (i.e. (x; y) pairs) and is thus called generalisation error . The optimal set 1 parameters w: f w : x 7! b y. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #116528. 	[Title] Selection of Relevant Features and Examples in Machine Learning [Abstract] In this survey, we review work in machine learning on methods for handling data sets containing large amounts of irrelevant information. We focus on two key issues: the problem of selecting relevant features, and the problem of selecting relevant examples. We describe the advances that have been made on these topics in both empirical and theoretical work in machine learning, and we present a general framework that we use to compare different methods. We close with some challenges for future work in this area. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130931. 	[Title] TH presentee par STATISTICAL LEARNING AND REGULARISATION FOR REGRESSION Application to system identification and time [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130934. 	[Title] 82 Lag-space estimation in time-series modelling keep track of cases where the estimation of P [Abstract] When m = 0 (no delays), we set A 0 (ffi) = f(j; k) ; j 6= kg, such that P m (*jffi) depends only on *. The estimated probabilities above become quite noisy when the number of elements in set A m and B m are small. For this reason, we estimate the standard deviation of P m (*jffi). Notice that this estimate is the empirical average of a binomial variable (either a given couple satisfied the conditions on ffi and *, or it does not). The standard deviation is then estimated easily by: Generally speaking, P m (*jffi) increases with * (laxer output test), and when ffi approaches 0 (stricter input condition). Let us now define by P m (*) the maximum over ffi of P m (*jffi): P m (*) = max ffi&gt;0 P m (*jffi). The dependability index is defined as: P 0 (*) represents how much data passes the continuity test when no input information is available. This dependability index measures how much of the remaining continuity information is associated with involving input i m . This index is then averaged over * with respect to the probability (1 P 0 (*)): m (*) (1 P 0 (*)) d* (4.8) It is clear that m (*), and therefore its average, should be positive quantities. Furthermore, if the system is deterministic, the dependability is zero after a certain number of inputs, so the sum of averages saturates. If the system is also noise-free, they sum up to 1. For any m greater than the embedding dimension: refers to results obtained using this method. 4.6 Statistical variable selection Statistical variable selection (or feature selection) encompasses a number of techniques aimed at choosing a relevant subset of input variables in a regression or a classification problem. As in the rest of this document, we will limit ourselves to considerations related to the regression problem, even though most methods discussed below apply to classification as well. Variable selection can be seen as a part of the data analysis problem: the selection (or discard) of a variable tells us about the relevance of the associated measurement to the modelled system. In a general setting, this is a purely combinatorial problem: given V possible variables, there is 2 V possible subsets (including the empty set and the full set) of these variables. Given a performance measure, such as prediction error, the only optimal scheme is to test all these subset and choose the one that gives the best performance. It is easy to see that such an extensive scheme is only viable when the number of variables is rather low. Identifying 2 V models when we have more than a few variables requires too much computation. A number of techniques have been devised to overcome this combinatorial limit. Some of them use an iterative, locally optimal technique to construct an estimate of the relevant subset in a number of steps. We will refer to them as stepwise selection methods, not to be con fused with stepwise regression, a subset of these methods that we will address below. In forward selection, we start with an empty set of variables. At each step, we select a candidate variable using a selection criteria, check whether this variable should be added to the set, and iterate until a given stop condition is reached. On the contrary, backward elimination methods start with the full set of all input variables. At each step, the least significant variable is selected according to a selection criteria. If this variable is irrelevant, it is removed and the process is iterated until a stop condition is reached. It is easy to devise examples where the inclusion of a variable causes a previously included variable to become irrelevant. It thus seems appropriate to consider running a backward elimination each time a new variable is added by forward selection. This combination of both ap proaches is known as stepwise regression in the linear regression con Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #323128. 	[Title] Error-Correcting Output Coding Corrects Bias and Variance [Abstract] Previous research has shown that a technique called error-correcting output coding (ECOC) can dramatically improve the classification accuracy of supervised learning algorithms that learn to classify data points into one of k 2 classes. This paper presents an investigation of why the ECOC technique works, particularly when employed with decision-tree learning algorithms. It shows that the ECOC method| like any form of voting or committee|can reduce the variance of the learning algorithm. Furthermore|unlike methods that simply combine multiple runs of the same learning algorithm|ECOC can correct for errors caused by the bias of the learning algorithm. Experiments show that this bias correction ability relies on the non-local be havior of C4.5. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #77758. 	[Title] Parzen. On estimation of a probability density function and mode. Annual Mathematical Statistics, 33:1065-1076, 1962. [Abstract] To apply the algorithm for classification we assign each class a separate set of codebook Gaussians. Each set is only trained with patterns from a single class. After having trained the codebook Gaussians, each set provides an estimate of the probability function of one class; just as with Parzen window estimation, we take as the estimate of the pattern distribution the average of all Gaussians in the set. Classification of a pattern may now be done by calculating the probability of each class at the respective sample point, and assigning to the pattern the class with the highest probability. Hence the whole codebook plays a role in the classification of patterns. This is not the case with regular classification schemes using codebooks. We have tested the classification scheme on several classification tasks including the two spiral problem. We compared our algorithm to various other classification algorithms and it came out second; the best algorithm for the applications is the Parzen window estimation. However, the computing time and memory for Parzen window estimation are excessive when compared to our algorithm, and hence, in practical situations, our algorithm is to be preferred. We have developed a fast algorithm which combines attractive properties of both Parzen window estimation and vector quantization. The scale parameter is tuned adaptively and, therefore, is not set in an ad hoc manner. It allows a classification strategy in which all the codebook vectors are taken into account. This yields better results than the standard vector quantization techniques. An interesting topic for further research is to use radially non-symmetric Gaussians. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1109439. 	[Title] Classifying Seismic Signals by Integrating Ensembles of Neural Networks [Abstract] This paper proposes a classification scheme based on integration of multiple Ensembles of ANNs. It is demonstrated on a classification problem, in which seismic signals of Natural Earthquakes must be distinguished from seismic signals of Artificial Explosions. A Redundant Classification Environment consists of several Ensembles of Neural Networks is created and trained on Bootstrap Sample Sets, using various data representations and architectures. The ANNs within the Ensembles are aggregated (as in Bagging) while the Ensembles are integrated non-linearly, in a signal adaptive manner, using a posterior confidence measure based on the agreement (variance) within the Ensembles. The proposed Integrated Classification Machine achieved 92.1% correct classifications on the seismic test data. Cross Validation evaluations and comparisons indicate that such integration of a collection of ANN's Ensembles is a robust way for handling high dimensional problems with a complex non-stationary signal space as in the current Seismic Classification problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #5055. 	[Title] Boosting the Margin: A New Explanation for the Effectiveness of Voting Methods [Abstract] One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this phenomenon is related to the distribution of margins of the training examples with respect to the generated voting classification rule, where the margin of an example is simply the difference between the number of correct votes and the maximum number of votes received by any incorrect label. We show that techniques used in the analysis of Vapnik's support vector classifiers and of neural networks with small weights can be applied to voting methods to relate the margin distribution to the test error. We also show theoretically and experimentally that boosting is especially effective at increasing the margins of the training examples. Finally, we compare our explanation to those based on the bias-variance decomposition. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #509379. 	[Title] Model selection using measure functions [Abstract] The concept of measure functions for generalization performance is suggested. This concept provides an alternative way of selecting and evaluating learned models (classifiers). In addition, it makes it possible to state a learning problem as a computational problem. The the known prior (meta-)knowledge about the problem domain is captured in a measure function that, to each possible combination of a training set and a classifier, assigns a value describing how good the classifier is. The computational problem is then to find a classifier maximizing the measure function. We argue that measure functions are of great value for practical applications. Besides of being a tool for model selection, they: (i) force us to make explicit the relevant prior knowledge about the learning problem at hand, (ii) provide a deeper understanding of existing algorithms, and (iii) help us in the construction of problem-specific algorithms. We illustrate the last point by suggesting a novel algorithm based on incremental search for a classifier that optimizes a given measure function. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1108551. 	[Title] From: Computational Learning Theory and Natural Systems, Chapter 18, "Cross-validation and Modal Theories", Cross-Validation and [Abstract] Cross-validation is a frequently used, intuitively pleasing technique for estimating the accuracy of theories learned by machine learning algorithms. During testing of a machine learning algorithm (foil) on new databases of prokaryotic RNA transcription promoters which we have developed, cross-validation displayed an interesting phenomenon. One theory is found repeatedly and is responsible for very little of the cross-validation error, whereas other theories are found very infrequently which tend to be responsible for the majority of the cross-validation error. It is tempting to believe that the most frequently found theory (the "modal theory") may be more accurate as a classifier of unseen data than the other theories. However, experiments showed that modal theories are not more accurate on unseen data than the other theories found less frequently during cross-validation. Modal theories may be useful in predicting when cross-validation is a poor estimate of true accuracy. We offer explanations 1 For correspondence: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1121867. 	[Title] MAJORITY VOTE CLASSIFIERS: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS [Abstract]  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 #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 #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 #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 #1125467. 	[Title] Bayesian Network Classification with Continuous Attributes: Getting the Best of Both Discretization and Parametric Fitting [Abstract] In a recent paper, Friedman, Geiger, and Goldszmidt [8] introduced a classifier based on Bayesian networks, called Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), that outperforms naive Bayes and performs competitively with C4.5 and other state-of-the-art methods. This classifier has several advantages including robustness and polynomial computational complexity. One limitation of the TAN classifier is that it applies only to discrete attributes, and thus, continuous attributes must be prediscretized. In this paper, we extend TAN to deal with continuous attributes directly via parametric (e.g., Gaussians) and semiparametric (e.g., mixture of Gaussians) conditional probabilities. The result is a classifier that can represent and combine both discrete and continuous attributes. In addition, we propose a new method that takes advantage of the modeling language of Bayesian networks in order to represent attributes both in discrete and continuous form simultaneously, and use both versions in the classification. This automates the process of deciding which form of the attribute is most relevant to the classification task. It also avoids the commitment to either a discretized or a (semi)parametric form, since different attributes may correlate better with one version or the other. Our empirical results show that this latter method usually achieves classification performance that is as good as or better than either the purely discrete or the purely continuous TAN models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1133028. 	[Title] An Efficient Method To Estimate Bagging's Generalization Error [Abstract] In bagging [Bre94a] one uses bootstrap replicates of the training set [Efr79, ET93] to try to improve a learning algorithm's performance. The computational requirements for estimating the resultant generalization error on a test set by means of cross-validation are often prohibitive; for leave-one-out cross-validation one needs to train the underlying algorithm on the order of m- times, where m is the size of the training set and is the number of replicates. This paper presents several techniques for exploiting the bias-variance decomposition [GBD92, Wol96] to estimate the generalization error of a bagged learning algorithm without invoking yet more training of the underlying learning algorithm. The best of our estimators exploits stacking [Wol92]. In a set of experiments reported here, it was found to be more accurate than both the alternative cross-validation-based estimator of the bagged algorithm's error and the cross-validation-based estimator of the underlying algorithm's error. This improvement was particularly pronounced for small test sets. This suggests a novel justification for using bagging| im proved estimation of generalization error. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #154982. 	[Title] Bias, variance and prediction error for classification rules [Abstract] We study the notions of bias and variance for classification rules. Following Efron (1978) we develop a decomposition of prediction error into its natural components. Then we derive bootstrap estimates of these components and illustrate how they can be used to describe the error behaviour of a classifier in practice. In the process we also obtain a bootstrap estimate of the error of a "bagged" classifier. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1126503. 	[Title] LEARNING MORE FROM LESS DATA: EXPERIMENTS WITH LIFELONG ROBOT LEARNING [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #129897. 	[Title] The out-of-bootstrap method for model averaging and selection [Abstract] We propose a bootstrap-based method for model averaging and selection that focuses on training points that are left out of individual bootstrap samples. This information can be used to estimate optimal weighting factors for combining estimates from different bootstrap samples, and also for finding the best subsets the linear model setting. These proposals provide alternatives to Bayesian approaches to model averaging and selection, requiring less computation and fewer subjective choices. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1102442. 	[Title] Unbiased Assessment of Learning Algorithms [Abstract] In order to rank the performance of machine learning algorithms, many researchers conduct experiments on benchmark data sets. Since most learning algorithms have domain-specific parameters, it is a popular custom to adapt these parameters to obtain a minimal error rate on the test set. The same rate is then used to rank the algorithm, which causes an optimistic bias. We quantify this bias, showing, in particular, that an algorithm with more parameters will probably be ranked higher than an equally good algorithm with fewer parameters. We demonstrate this result, showing the number of parameters and trials required in order to pretend to outperform C4.5 or FOIL, respectively, for various benchmark problems. We then describe out how unbiased ranking experiments should be conducted. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4330. 	[Title] Hierarchical Mixtures of Experts and the EM Algorithm [Abstract] We present a tree-structured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hierarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM's). Learning is treated as a maximum likelihood problem; in particular, we present an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm for adjusting the parameters of the architecture. We also develop an on-line learning algorithm in which the parameters are updated incrementally. Comparative simulation results are presented in the robot dynamics domain. This report describes research done at the Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, the Center for Biological and Computational Learning, and the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for CBCL is provided in part by a grant from the NSF (ASC-9217041). Support for the laboratory's artificial intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Dept. of Defense. The authors were supported by a grant from the McDonnell-Pew Foundation, by a grant from ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, by a grant from Siemens Corporation, by by grant IRI-9013991 from the National Science Foundation, by grant N00014-90-J-1942 from the Office of Naval Research, and by NSF grant ECS-9216531 to support an Initiative in Intelligent Control at MIT. Michael I. Jordan is a NSF Presidential Young Investigator. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1114222. 	[Title] Lazy Bayesian Trees [Abstract] The naive Bayesian classifier is simple and effective, but its attribute independence assumption is often violated in the real world. A number of approaches have been developed that seek to alleviate this problem. A Bayesian tree learning algorithm builds a decision tree, and generates a local Bayesian classifier at each leaf instead of predicting a single class. However, Bayesian tree learning still suffers from the replication and fragmentation problems of tree learning. While inferred Bayesian trees demonstrate low average prediction error rates, there is reason to believe that error rates will be higher for those leaves with few training examples. This paper proposes a novel lazy Bayesian tree learning algorithm. For each test example, it conceptually builds a most appropriate Bayesian tree. In practice, only one path with a local Bayesian classifier at its leaf is created. Experiments with a wide variety of real-world and artificial domains show that this new algorithm has significantly lower overall prediction error rates than a naive Bayesian classifier, C4.5, and a Bayesian tree learning algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #52847. 	[Title] Rule-based Machine Learning Methods for Functional Prediction [Abstract] We describe a machine learning method for predicting the value of a real-valued function, given the values of multiple input variables. The method induces solutions from samples in the form of ordered disjunctive normal form (DNF) decision rules. A central objective of the method and representation is the induction of compact, easily interpretable solutions. This rule-based decision model can be extended to search efficiently for similar cases prior to approximating function values. Experimental results on real-world data demonstrate that the new techniques are competitive with existing machine learning and statistical methods and can sometimes yield superior regression performance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3187. 	[Title] A Reference Bayesian Test for Nested Hypotheses And its Relationship to the Schwarz Criterion [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3191. 	[Title] Model Selection and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Linear Regression Models [Abstract] 1 Adrian E. Raftery is Professor of Statistics and Sociology, David Madigan is Assistant Professor of Statistics, and Jennifer Hoeting is a Ph.D. Candidate, all at the Department of Statistics, GN-22, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. The research of Raftery and Hoeting was supported by ONR Contract N-00014-91-J-1074. Madigan's research was partially supported by NSF grant no. DMS 92111627. The authors are grateful to Danika Lew for research assistance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #7032. 	[Title] Combining estimates in regression and classification [Abstract] We consider the problem of how to combine a collection of general regression fit vectors in order to obtain a better predictive model. The individual fits may be from subset linear regression, ridge regression, or something more complex like a neural network. We develop a general framework for this problem and examine a recent cross-validation-based proposal called "stacking" in this context. Combination methods based on the bootstrap and analytic methods are also derived and compared in a number of examples, including best subsets regression and regression trees. Finally, we apply these ideas to classification problems where the estimated combination weights can yield insight into the structure of the problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1103737. 	[Title] On learning hierarchical classifications [Abstract] Many significant real-world classification tasks involve a large number of categories which are arranged in a hierarchical structure; for example, classifying documents into subject categories under the library of congress scheme, or classifying world-wide-web documents into topic hierarchies. We investigate the potential benefits of using a given hierarchy over base classes to learn accurate multi-category classifiers for these domains. First, we consider the possibility of exploiting a class hierarchy as prior knowledge that can help one learn a more accurate classifier. We explore the benefits of learning category-discriminants in a hard top-down fashion and compare this to a soft approach which shares training data among sibling categories. In doing so, we verify that hierarchies have the potential to improve prediction accuracy. But we argue that the reasons for this can be subtle. Sometimes, the improvement is only because using a hierarchy happens to constrain the expressiveness of a hypothesis class in an appropriate manner. However, various controlled experiments show that in other cases the performance advantage associated with using a hierarchy really does seem to be due to the prior knowledge it encodes. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1997 has the title `Cross-Validation and the Bootstrap: Estimating the Error Rate of a Prediction Rule  
` and the abstract `A training set of data has been used to construct a rule for predicting future responses. What is the error rate of this rule? The traditional answer to this question is given by cross-validation. The cross-validation estimate of prediction error is nearly unbiased, but can be highly variable. This article discusses bootstrap estimates of prediction error, which can be thought of as smoothed versions of cross-validation. A particular bootstrap method, the 632+ rule, is shown to substantially outperform cross-validation in a catalog of 24 simulation experiments. Besides providing point estimates, we also consider estimating the variability of an error rate estimate. All of the results here are nonparametric, and apply to any possible prediction rule: however we only study classification problems with 0-1 loss in detail. Our simulations include "smooth" prediction rules like Fisher's Linear Discriminant Function, and unsmooth ones like Nearest Neighbors.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1997 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1997 has the title `Cross-Validation and the Bootstrap: Estimating the Error Rate of a Prediction Rule  
` and the abstract `A training set of data has been used to construct a rule for predicting future responses. What is the error rate of this rule? The traditional answer to this question is given by cross-validation. The cross-validation estimate of prediction error is nearly unbiased, but can be highly variable. This article discusses bootstrap estimates of prediction error, which can be thought of as smoothed versions of cross-validation. A particular bootstrap method, the 632+ rule, is shown to substantially outperform cross-validation in a catalog of 24 simulation experiments. Besides providing point estimates, we also consider estimating the variability of an error rate estimate. All of the results here are nonparametric, and apply to any possible prediction rule: however we only study classification problems with 0-1 loss in detail. Our simulations include "smooth" prediction rules like Fisher's Linear Discriminant Function, and unsmooth ones like Nearest Neighbors.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1997 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: Probabilistic_Methods