Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31483. 	[Title] A Comparison of Induction Algorithms for Selective and non-Selective Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper we present a novel induction algorithm for Bayesian networks. This selective Bayesian network classifier selects a subset of attributes that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase, thereby learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. We compare the performance of this classifier with selective and non-selective naive Bayesian classifiers. We show that the selective Bayesian network classifier performs significantly better than both versions of the naive Bayesian classifier on almost all databases analyzed, and hence is an enhancement of the naive Bayesian classifier. Relative to the non-selective Bayesian network classifier, our selective Bayesian network classifier generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and that display predictive accuracy comparable to that of Bayesian networks which model all features. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131137. 	[Title] Mining and Model Simplicity: A Case Study in Diagnosis [Abstract] Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 1996. The official version of this paper has been published by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (http://www.aaai.org) c fl 1996, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. Abstract We describe the results of performing data mining on a challenging medical diagnosis domain, acute abdominal pain. This domain is well known to be difficult, yielding little more than 60% predictive accuracy for most human and machine diagnosticians. Moreover, many researchers argue that one of the simplest approaches, the naive Bayesian classifier, is optimal. By comparing the performance of the naive Bayesian classifier to its more general cousin, the Bayesian network classifier, and to selective Bayesian classifiers with just 10% of the total attributes, we show that the simplest models perform at least as well as the more complex models. We argue that simple models like the selective naive Bayesian classifier will perform as well as more complicated models for similarly complex domains with relatively small data sets, thereby calling into question the extra expense necessary to induce more complex models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #88356. 	[Title] Learning Limited Dependence Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] We present a framework for characterizing Bayesian classification methods. This framework can be thought of as a spectrum of allowable dependence in a given probabilistic model with the Naive Bayes algorithm at the most restrictive end and the learning of full Bayesian networks at the most general extreme. While much work has been carried out along the two ends of this spectrum, there has been surprising little done along the middle. We analyze the assumptions made as one moves along this spectrum and show the tradeoffs between model accuracy and learning speed which become critical to consider in a variety of data mining domains. We then present a general induction algorithm that allows for traversal of this spectrum depending on the available computational power for carrying out induction and show its application in a number of domains with different properties. 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 #162664. 	[Title] An Algorithm for the Construction of Bayesian Network Structures from Data [Abstract] Previous algorithms for the construction of Bayesian belief network structures from data have been either highly dependent on conditional independence (CI) tests, or have required an ordering on the nodes to be supplied by the user. We present an algorithm that integrates these two approaches - CI tests are used to generate an ordering on the nodes from the database which is then used to recover the underlying Bayesian network structure using a non CI based method. Results of preliminary evaluation of the algorithm on two networks (ALARM and LED) are presented. We also discuss some algo rithm performance issues and open problems. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1107067. 	[Title] On the Greediness of Feature Selection Algorithms [Abstract] Based on our analysis and experiments using real-world datasets, we find that the greediness of forward feature selection algorithms does not severely corrupt the accuracy of function approximation using the selected input features, but improves the efficiency significantly. Hence, we propose three greedier algorithms in order to further enhance the efficiency of the feature selection processing. We provide empirical results for linear regression, locally weighted regression and k-nearest-neighbor models. We also propose to use these algorithms to develop an offline Chinese and Japanese handwriting recognition system with auto matically configured, local models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #92589. 	[Title] 28 Learning Bayesian Networks Using Feature Selection [Abstract] This paper introduces a novel enhancement for learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. The new approach selects a subset of features that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase. We examine explicitly the effects of two aspects of the algorithm, feature selection and node ordering. Our approach generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and display predictive accuracy comparable Bayesian networks are being increasingly recognized as an important representation for probabilistic reasoning. For many domains, the need to specify the probability distributions for a Bayesian network is considerable, and learning these probabilities from data using an algorithm like K2 [Cooper92] could alleviate such specification difficulties. We describe an extension to the Bayesian network learning approaches introduced in K2. Our goal is to construct networks that are simpler to evaluate but still have high predictive accuracy relative to networks that model all features. Rather than use all database features (or attributes) for constructing the network, we select a subset of features that maximize the predictive accuracy of the network. Then the learning process uses only the selected features as nodes in learning the Bayesian network. We examine explicitly the effects of two aspects of the algorithm: (a) feature selection, and (b) node ordering. Our experimental results verify that this approach generates networks that are compu-tationally simpler to evaluate and display predictive accuracy comparable to the predictive accuracy of Bayesian networks that model all features. Our results, similar to those observed by other studies of feature selection in learning [Caruana94, John94, Langley94a, Langley94b], demonstrate that feature selection provides comparable predictive accuracy using smaller networks. For example, by selecting as few as 18% of the features for the to that of Bayesian networks which model all attributes. 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 #39126. 	[Title] Toward Optimal Feature Selection [Abstract] In this paper, we examine a method for feature subset selection based on Information Theory. Initially, a framework for defining the theoretically optimal, but computation-ally intractable, method for feature subset selection is presented. We show that our goal should be to eliminate a feature if it gives us little or no additional information beyond that subsumed by the remaining features. In particular, this will be the case for both irrelevant and redundant features. We then give an efficient algorithm for feature selection which computes an approximation to the optimal feature selection criterion. The conditions under which the approximate algorithm is successful are examined. Empirical results are given on a number of data sets, showing that the algorithm effectively han dles datasets with large numbers of features. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31479. 	[Title] Induction of Selective Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper, we examine previous work on the naive Bayesian classifier and review its limitations, which include a sensitivity to correlated features. We respond to this problem by embedding the naive Bayesian induction scheme within an algorithm that carries out a greedy search through the space of features. We hypothesize that this approach will improve asymptotic accuracy in domains that involve correlated features without reducing the rate of learning in ones that do not. We report experimental results on six natural domains, including comparisons with decision-tree induction, that support these hypotheses. In closing, we discuss other approaches to extending naive Bayesian classifiers and outline some directions for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3222. 	[Title] Beyond Independence: Conditions for the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier [Abstract] The simple Bayesian classifier (SBC) is commonly thought to assume that attributes are independent given the class, but this is apparently contradicted by the surprisingly good performance it exhibits in many domains that contain clear attribute dependences. No explanation for this has been proposed so far. In this paper we show that the SBC does not in fact assume attribute independence, and can be optimal even when this assumption is violated by a wide margin. The key to this finding lies in the distinction between classification and probability estimation: correct classification can be achieved even when the probability estimates used contain large errors. We show that the previously-assumed region of optimality of the SBC is a second-order infinitesimal fraction of the actual one. This is followed by the derivation of several necessary and several sufficient conditions for the optimality of the SBC. For example, the SBC is optimal for learning arbitrary conjunctions and disjunctions, even though they violate the independence assumption. The paper also reports empirical evidence of the SBC's competitive performance in domains containing substantial degrees of attribute dependence. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10169. 	[Title] Learning Boolean Concepts in the Presence of Many Irrelevant Features [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #118682. 	[Title] Learning Goal Oriented Bayesian Networks for Telecommunications Risk Management [Abstract] This paper discusses issues related to Bayesian network model learning for unbalanced binary classification tasks. In general, the primary focus of current research on Bayesian network learning systems (e.g., K2 and its variants) is on the creation of the Bayesian network structure that fits the database best. It turns out that when applied with a specific purpose in mind, such as classification, the performance of these network models may be very poor. We demonstrate that Bayesian network models should be created to meet the specific goal or purpose intended for the model. We first present a goal-oriented algorithm for constructing Bayesian networks for predicting uncollectibles in telecommunications risk-management datasets. Second, we argue and demonstrate that current Bayesian network learning methods may fail to perform satisfactorily in real life applications since they do not learn models tailored to a specific goal or purpose. Third, we discuss the performance of goal oriented K2 and its variant. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39165. 	[Title] Efficient Learning of Selective Bayesian Network Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper, we present a computation-ally efficient method for inducing selective Bayesian network classifiers. Our approach is to use information-theoretic metrics to efficiently select a subset of attributes from which to learn the classifier. We explore three conditional, information-theoretic met-rics that are extensions of metrics used extensively in decision tree learning, namely Quin-lan's gain and gain ratio metrics and Man-taras's distance metric. We experimentally show that the algorithms based on gain ratio and distance metric learn selective Bayesian networks that have predictive accuracies as good as or better than those learned by existing selective Bayesian network induction approaches (K2-AS), but at a significantly lower computational cost. We prove that the subset-selection phase of these information-based algorithms has polynomial complexity, as compared to the worst-case exponential time complexity of the corresponding phase in K2-AS. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3231. 	[Title] Irrelevant Features and the Subset Selection Problem [Abstract] We address the problem of finding a subset of features that allows a supervised induction algorithm to induce small high-accuracy concepts. We examine notions of relevance and irrelevance, and show that the definitions used in the machine learning literature do not adequately partition the features into useful categories of relevance. We present definitions for irrelevance and for two degrees of relevance. These definitions improve our understanding of the behavior of previous subset selection algorithms, and help define the subset of features that should be sought. The features selected should depend not only on the features and the target concept, but also on the induction algorithm. We describe a method for feature subset selection using cross-validation that is applicable to any induction algorithm, and discuss experiments conducted with ID3 and C4.5 on artificial and real datasets. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #31483 has the title `A Comparison of Induction Algorithms for Selective and non-Selective Bayesian Classifiers  
` and the abstract `In this paper we present a novel induction algorithm for Bayesian networks. This selective Bayesian network classifier selects a subset of attributes that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase, thereby learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. We compare the performance of this classifier with selective and non-selective naive Bayesian classifiers. We show that the selective Bayesian network classifier performs significantly better than both versions of the naive Bayesian classifier on almost all databases analyzed, and hence is an enhancement of the naive Bayesian classifier. Relative to the non-selective Bayesian network classifier, our selective Bayesian network classifier generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and that display predictive accuracy comparable to that of Bayesian networks which model all features.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #31483 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #31483 has the title `A Comparison of Induction Algorithms for Selective and non-Selective Bayesian Classifiers  
` and the abstract `In this paper we present a novel induction algorithm for Bayesian networks. This selective Bayesian network classifier selects a subset of attributes that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase, thereby learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. We compare the performance of this classifier with selective and non-selective naive Bayesian classifiers. We show that the selective Bayesian network classifier performs significantly better than both versions of the naive Bayesian classifier on almost all databases analyzed, and hence is an enhancement of the naive Bayesian classifier. Relative to the non-selective Bayesian network classifier, our selective Bayesian network classifier generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and that display predictive accuracy comparable to that of Bayesian networks which model all features.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #31483 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