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 #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 #102406. 	[Title] Learning Sparse Perceptrons [Abstract] We introduce a new algorithm designed to learn sparse perceptrons over input representations which include high-order features. Our algorithm, which is based on a hypothesis-boosting method, is able to PAC-learn a relatively natural class of target concepts. Moreover, the algorithm appears to work well in practice: on a set of three problem domains, the algorithm produces classifiers that utilize small numbers of features yet exhibit good generalization performance. Perhaps most importantly, our algorithm generates concept descriptions that are easy for humans to understand. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1119751. 	[Title] An Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining Preferences [Abstract] The problem of combining preferences arises in several applications, such as combining the results of different search engines. This work describes an efficient algorithm for combining multiple preferences. We first give a formal framework for the problem. We then describe and analyze a new boosting algorithm for combining preferences called RankBoost. We also describe an efficient implementation of the algorithm for a restricted case. We discuss two experiments we carried out to assess the performance of RankBoost. In the first experiment, we used the algorithm to combine different WWW search strategies, each of which is a query expansion for a given domain. For this task, we compare the performance of RankBoost to the individual search strategies. The second experiment is a collaborative-filtering task for making movie recommendations. Here, we present results comparing RankBoost to nearest-neighbor and regression algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #307336. 	[Title] A Support Vector Machine Approach to Decision Trees [Abstract] Key ideas from statistical learning theory and support vector machines are generalized to decision trees. A support vector machine is used for each decision in the tree. The "optimal" decision tree is characterized, and both a primal and dual space formulation for constructing the tree are proposed. The result is a method for generating logically simple decision trees with multivariate linear or nonlinear decisions. The preliminary results indicate that the method produces simple trees that generalize well with respect to other decision tree algorithms and single support vector machines. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1113739. 	[Title] Decision Tree Function Approximation in Reinforcement Learning [Abstract] We present a decision tree based approach to function approximation in reinforcement learning. We compare our approach with table lookup and a neural network function approximator on three problems: the well known mountain car and pole balance problems as well as a simulated automobile race car. We find that the decision tree can provide better learning performance than the neural network function approximation and can solve large problems that are infeasible using table lookup. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #197783. 	[Title] Adaptive Boosting of Neural Networks for Character Recognition [Abstract] Technical Report #1072, D epartement d'Informatique et Recherche Op erationnelle, Universit e de Montr eal Abstract Boosting is a general method for improving the performance of any learning algorithm that consistently generates classifiers which need to perform only slightly better than random guessing. A recently proposed and very promising boosting algorithm is AdaBoost [5]. It has been applied with great success to several benchmark machine learning problems using rather simple learning algorithms [4], in particular decision trees [1, 2, 6]. In this paper we use AdaBoost to improve the performances of neural networks applied to character recognition tasks. We compare training methods based on sampling the training set and weighting the cost function. Our system achieves about 1.4% error on a data base of online handwritten digits from more than 200 writers. Adaptive boosting of a multi-layer network achieved 2% error on the UCI Letters offline characters data set. 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 #854434. 	[Title] Predicting Lifetimes in Dynamically Allocated Memory [Abstract] Predictions of lifetimes of dynamically allocated objects can be used to improve time and space efficiency of dynamic memory management in computer programs. Barrett and Zorn [1993] used a simple lifetime predictor and demonstrated this improvement on a variety of computer programs. In this paper, we use decision trees to do lifetime prediction on the same programs and show significantly better prediction. Our method also has the advantage that during training we can use a large number of features and let the decision tree automatically choose the relevant subset. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110947. 	[Title] Lazy Induction Triggered by CBR [Abstract] In recent years, case-based reasoning has been demonstrated to be highly useful for problem solving in complex domains. Also, mixed paradigm approaches emerged for combining CBR and induction techniques aiming at verifying the knowledge and/or building an efficient case memory. However, in complex domains induction over the whole problem space is often not possible or too time consuming. In this paper, an approach is presented which (owing to a close interaction with the CBR part) attempts to induce rules only for a particular context, i.e. for a problem just being solved by a CBR-oriented system. These rules may then be used for indexing purposes or similarity assessment in order to support the CBR process in the future. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #59045. 	[Title] PREDICTION GAMES AND ARCING ALGORITHMS [Abstract] Technical Report 504 December 19, 1997 Statistics Department University of California Berkeley, CA. (4720 Abstract The theory behind the success of adaptive reweighting and combining algorithms (arcing) such as Adaboost (Freund and Schapire [1995].[1996]) and others in reducing generalization error has not been well understood. By formulating prediction, both classification and regression, as a game where one player makes a selection from instances in the training set and the other a convex linear combination of predictors from a finite set, existing arcing algorithms are shown to be algorithms for finding good game strategies. An optimal game strategy finds a combined predictor that minimizes the maximum of the error over the training set. A bound on the generalization error for the combined predictors in terms of their maximum error is proven that is sharper than bounds to date. Arcing algorithms are described that converge to the optimal strategy. Schapire et.al. [1997] offered an explanation of why Adaboost works in terms of its ability to reduce the margin. Comparing Adaboost to our optimal arcing algorithm shows that their explanation is not valid and that the answer lies elsewhere. In this situation the VC-type bounds are misleading. Some empirical results are given to explore the situation. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #107177. 	[Title] Learning to Order Things [Abstract] There are many applications in which it is desirable to order rather than classify instances. Here we consider the problem of learning how to order, given feedback in the form of preference judgments, i.e., statements to the effect that one instance should be ranked ahead of another. We outline a two-stage approach in which one first learns by conventional means a preference function, of the form PREF(u; v), which indicates whether it is advisable to rank u before v. New instances are then ordered so as to maximize agreements with the learned preference function. We show that the problem of finding the ordering that agrees best with a preference function is NP-complete, even under very restrictive assumptions. Nevertheless, we describe a simple greedy algorithm that is guaranteed to find a good approximation. We then discuss an on-line learning algorithm, based on the "Hedge" algorithm, for finding a good linear combination of ranking "experts." We use the ordering algorithm combined with the on-line learning algorithm to find a combination of "search experts," each of which is a domain-specific query expansion strategy for a WWW search engine, and present experimental results that demonstrate the merits of our approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1116842. 	[Title] Pruning Adaptive Boosting ICML-97 Final Draft [Abstract] The boosting algorithm AdaBoost, developed by Freund and Schapire, has exhibited outstanding performance on several benchmark problems when using C4.5 as the "weak" algorithm to be "boosted." Like other ensemble learning approaches, AdaBoost constructs a composite hypothesis by voting many individual hypotheses. In practice, the large amount of memory required to store these hypotheses can make ensemble methods hard to deploy in applications. This paper shows that by selecting a subset of the hypotheses, it is possible to obtain nearly the same levels of performance as the entire set. The results also provide some insight into the behavior of AdaBoost. 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 #1118764. 	[Title] An Efficient Extension to Mixture Techniques for Prediction and Decision Trees [Abstract] We present a method for maintaining mixtures of prunings of a prediction or decision tree that extends the "node-based" prunings of [Bun90, WST95, HS97] to the larger class of edge-based prunings. The method includes an efficient online weight allocation algorithm that can be used for prediction, compression and classification. Although the set of edge-based prunings of a given tree is much larger than that of node-based prunings, our algorithm has similar space and time complexity to that of previous mixture algorithms for trees. Using the general on-line framework of Freund and Schapire [FS97], we prove that our algorithm maintains correctly the mixture weights for edge-based prunings with any bounded loss function. We also give a similar algorithm for the logarithmic loss function with a corresponding weight allocation algorithm. Finally, we describe experiments comparing node-based and edge-based mixture models for estimating the probability of the next word in English text, which show the ad vantages of edge-based models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #30895. 	[Title] Induction of Oblique Decision Trees [Abstract] This paper introduces a randomized technique for partitioning examples using oblique hyperplanes. Standard decision tree techniques, such as ID3 and its descendants, partition a set of points with axis-parallel hyper-planes. Our method, by contrast, attempts to find hyperplanes at any orientation. The purpose of this more general technique is to find smaller but equally accurate decision trees than those created by other methods. We have tested our algorithm on both real and simulated data, and found that in some cases it produces surprisingly small trees without losing predictive accuracy. Small trees allow us, in turn, to obtain simple qualitative descriptions of each problem domain. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #368431. 	[Title] Decision Tree Induction: How Effective is the Greedy Heuristic? [Abstract] Most existing decision tree systems use a greedy approach to induce trees | locally optimal splits are induced at every node of the tree. Although the greedy approach is suboptimal, it is believed to produce reasonably good trees. In the current work, we attempt to verify this belief. We quantify the goodness of greedy tree induction empirically, using the popular decision tree algorithms, C4.5 and CART. We induce decision trees on thousands of synthetic data sets and compare them to the corresponding optimal trees, which in turn are found using a novel map coloring idea. We measure the effect on greedy induction of variables such as the underlying concept complexity, training set size, noise and dimensionality. Our experiments show, among other things, that the expected classification cost of a greedily induced tree is consistently very close to that of the optimal tree. 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 #4660. 	[Title] Context-sensitive learning methods for text categorization [Abstract] Two recently implemented machine learning algorithms, RIPPER and sleeping experts for phrases, are evaluated on a number of large text categorization problems. These algorithms both construct classifiers that allow the "context" of a word w to affect how (or even whether) the presence or absence of w will contribute to a classification. However, RIPPER and sleeping experts differ radically in many other respects: differences include different notions as to what constitutes a context, different ways of combining contexts to construct a classifier, different methods to search for a combination of contexts, and different criteria as to what contexts should be included in such a combination. In spite of these differences, both RIPPER and sleeping experts perform extremely well across a wide variety of categorization problems, generally outperforming previously applied learning methods. We view this result as a confirmation of the usefulness of classifiers that represent contextual information. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #30901. 	[Title] Lookahead and Pathology in Decision Tree Induction [Abstract] The standard approach to decision tree induction is a top-down, greedy algorithm that makes locally optimal, irrevocable decisions at each node of a tree. In this paper, we empirically study an alternative approach, in which the algorithms use one-level lookahead to decide what test to use at a node. We systematically compare, using a very large number of real and artificial data sets, the quality of decision trees induced by the greedy approach to that of trees induced using lookahead. The main observations from our experiments are: (i) the greedy approach consistently produced trees that were just as accurate as trees produced with the much more expensive lookahead step; and (ii) we observed many instances of pathology, i.e., lookahead produced trees that were both larger and less accurate than trees produced without it. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1104055. 	[Title] LEARNING BY USING DYNAMIC FEATURE COMBINATION AND SELECTION [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #175291. 	[Title] Actively Searching for an Effective Neural-Network Ensemble [Abstract] A neural-network ensemble is a very successful technique where the outputs of a set of separately trained neural network are combined to form one unified prediction. An effective ensemble should consist of a set of networks that are not only highly correct, but ones that make their errors on different parts of the input space as well; however, most existing techniques only indirectly address the problem of creating such a set. We present an algorithm called Addemup that uses genetic algorithms to explicitly search for a highly diverse set of accurate trained networks. Addemup works by first creating an initial population, then uses genetic operators to continually create new networks, keeping the set of networks that are highly accurate while disagreeing with each other as much as possible. Experiments on four real-world domains show that Addemup is able to generate a set of trained networks that is more accurate than several existing ensemble approaches. Experiments also show that Addemup is able to effectively incorporate prior knowledge, if available, to improve the quality of its ensemble. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31932. 	[Title] A Decision Tree System for Finding Genes in DNA [Abstract] MORGAN is an integrated system for finding genes in vertebrate DNA sequences. MORGAN uses a variety of techniques to accomplish this task, the most distinctive of which is a decision tree classifier. The decision tree system is combined with new methods for identifying start codons, donor sites, and acceptor sites, and these are brought together in a frame-sensitive dynamic programming algorithm that finds the optimal segmentation of a DNA sequence into coding and noncoding regions (exons and introns). The optimal segmentation is dependent on a separate scoring function that takes a subsequence and assigns to it a score reflecting the probability that the sequence is an exon. The scoring functions in MORGAN are sets of decision trees that are combined to give a probability estimate. Experimental results on a database of 570 vertebrate DNA sequences show that MORGAN has excellent performance by many different measures. On a separate test set, it achieves an overall accuracy of 95%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.78 and a sensitivity and specificity for coding bases of 83% and 79%. In addition, MORGAN identifies 58% of coding exons exactly; i.e., both the beginning and end of the coding regions are predicted correctly. This paper describes the MORGAN system, including its decision tree routines and the algorithms for site recognition, and its performance on a benchmark database of vertebrate DNA. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #321861. 	[Title] Gambling in a rigged casino: The adversarial multi-armed bandit problem [Abstract] In the multi-armed bandit problem, a gambler must decide which arm of K non-identical slot machines to play in a sequence of trials so as to maximize his reward. This classical problem has received much attention because of the simple model it provides of the trade-off between exploration (trying out each arm to find the best one) and exploitation (playing the arm believed to give the best payoff). Past solutions for the bandit problem have almost always relied on assumptions about the statistics of the slot machines. In this work, we make no statistical assumptions whatsoever about the nature of the process generating the payoffs of the slot machines. We give a solution to the bandit problem in which an adversary, rather than a well-behaved stochastic process, has complete control over the payoffs. In a sequence of T plays, we prove that the expected per-round payoff of our algorithm approaches that of the best arm at the rate O(T 1=2 ), and we give an improved rate of convergence when the best arm has fairly low payoff. We also prove a general matching lower bound on the best possible performance of any algorithm in our setting. In addition, we consider a setting in which the player has a team of experts advising him on which arm to play; here, we give a strategy that will guarantee expected payoff close to that of the best expert. Finally, we apply our result to the problem of learning to play an unknown repeated matrix game against an all-powerful adversary. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1152075. 	[Title]  [Abstract] ARCING THE EDGE Leo Breiman Technical Report 486 , Statistics Department University of California, Berkeley CA. 94720 Abstract Recent work has shown that adaptively reweighting the training set, growing a classifier using the new weights, and combining the classifiers constructed to date can significantly decrease generalization error. Procedures of this type were called arcing by Breiman[1996]. The first successful arcing procedure was introduced by Freund and Schapire[1995,1996] and called Adaboost. In an effort to explain why Adaboost works, Schapire et.al. [1997] derived a bound on the generalization error of a convex combination of classifiers in terms of the margin. We introduce a function called the edge, which differs from the margin only if there are more than two classes. A framework for understanding arcing algorithms is defined. In this framework, we see that the arcing algorithms currently in the literature are optimization algorithms which minimize some function of the edge. A relation is derived between the optimal reduction in the maximum value of the edge and the PAC concept of weak learner. Two algorithms are described which achieve the optimal reduction. Tests on both synthetic and real data cast doubt on the Schapire et.al. There is recent empirical evidence that significant reductions in generalization error can be gotten by growing a number of different classifiers on the same training set and letting these vote for the best class. Freund and Schapire ([1995], [1996] ) proposed an algorithm called AdaBoost which adaptively reweights the training set in a way based on the past history of misclassifications, constructs a new classifier using the current weights, and uses the misclassification rate of this classifier to determine the size of its vote. In a number of empirical studies on many data sets using trees (CART or C4.5) as the base classifier (Drucker and Cortes[1995], Quinlan[1996], Freud and Schapire[1996], Breiman[1996]) AdaBoost produced dramatic decreases in generalization error compared to using a single tree. Error rates were reduced to the point where tests on some well-known data sets gave the result that CART plus AdaBoost did significantly better than any other of the commonly used classification methods (Breiman[1996] ). Meanwhile, empirical results showed that other methods of adaptive resampling (or reweighting) and combining (called "arcing" by Breiman [1996]) also led to low test set error rates. An algorithm called arc-x4 (Breiman[1996]) gave error rates almost identical to Adaboost. Ji and Ma[1997] worked with classifiers consisting of randomly selected hyperplanes and using a different method of adaptive resampling and unweighted voting, also got low error rates. Thus, there are a least three arcing algorithms extant, all of which give excellent classification accuracy. explanation. 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 #96335. 	[Title] Geometry in Learning [Abstract] One of the fundamental problems in learning is identifying members of two different classes. For example, to diagnose cancer, one must learn to discriminate between benign and malignant tumors. Through examination of tumors with previously determined diagnosis, one learns some function for distinguishing the benign and malignant tumors. Then the acquired knowledge is used to diagnose new tumors. The perceptron is a simple biologically inspired model for this two-class learning problem. The perceptron is trained or constructed using examples from the two classes. Then the perceptron is used to classify new examples. We describe geometrically what a perceptron is capable of learning. Using duality, we develop a framework for investigating different methods of training a perceptron. Depending on how we define the "best" perceptron, different minimization problems are developed for training the perceptron. The effectiveness of these methods is evaluated empirically on four practical applications: breast cancer diagnosis, detection of heart disease, political voting habits, and sonar recognition. This paper does not assume prior knowledge of machine learning or pattern recognition. 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 #28641. 	[Title] Game Theory, On-line Prediction and Boosting [Abstract] We study the close connections between game theory, on-line prediction and boosting. After a brief review of game theory, we describe an algorithm for learning to play repeated games based on the on-line prediction methods of Littlestone and War-muth. The analysis of this algorithm yields a simple proof of von Neumann's famous minmax theorem, as well as a provable method of approximately solving a game. We then show that the on-line prediction model is obtained by applying this game-playing algorithm to an appropriate choice of game and that boosting is obtained by applying the same algorithm to the dual of this game. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #167656. 	[Title] BOOSTING AND NAIVE BAYESIAN LEARNING [Abstract] Although so-called naive Bayesian classification makes the unrealistic assumption that the values of the attributes of an example are independent given the class of the example, this learning method is remarkably successful in practice, and no uniformly better learning method is known. Boosting is a general method of combining multiple classifiers due to Yoav Freund and Rob Schapire. This paper shows that boosting applied to naive Bayesian classifiers yields combination classifiers that are representationally equivalent to standard feedforward multilayer perceptrons. (An ancillary result is that naive Bayesian classification is a nonparametric, nonlinear generalization of logistic regression.) As a training algorithm, boosted naive Bayesian learning is quite different from backpropagation, and has definite advantages. Boosting requires only linear time and constant space, and hidden nodes are learned incrementally, starting with the most important. On the real-world datasets on which the method has been tried so far, generalization performance is as good as or better than the best published result using any other learning method. Unlike all other standard learning algorithms, naive Bayesian learning, with and without boosting, can be done in logarithmic time with a linear number of parallel computing units. Accordingly, these learning methods are highly plausible computationally as models of animal learning. Other arguments suggest that they are plausible behaviorally also. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1116268. 	[Title] The Sources of Increased Accuracy for Two Proposed Boosting Algorithms [Abstract] We introduce two boosting algorithms that aim to increase the generalization accuracy of a given classifier by incorporating it as a level-0 component in a stacked generalizer. Both algorithms construct a complementary level-0 classifier that can only generate coarse hypotheses for the training data. We show that the two algorithms boost generalization accuracy on a representative collection of data sets. The two algorithms are distinguished in that one of them modifies the class targets of selected training instances in order to train the complementary classifier. We show that the two algorithms achieve approximately equal generalization accuracy, but that they create complementary classifiers that display different degrees of accuracy and diversity. Our study provides evidence that it may be useful to investigate families of boosting algorithms that incorporate varying levels of accuracy and diversity, so as to achieve an appropriate mix for a given task and domain. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6125. 	[Title] Boosting a weak learning algorithm by majority To be published in Information and Computation [Abstract] We present an algorithm for improving the accuracy of algorithms for learning binary concepts. The improvement is achieved by combining a large number of hypotheses, each of which is generated by training the given learning algorithm on a different set of examples. Our algorithm is based on ideas presented by Schapire in his paper "The strength of weak learnability", and represents an improvement over his results. The analysis of our algorithm provides general upper bounds on the resources required for learning in Valiant's polynomial PAC learning framework, which are the best general upper bounds known today. We show that the number of hypotheses that are combined by our algorithm is the smallest number possible. Other outcomes of our analysis are results regarding the representational power of threshold circuits, the relation between learnability and compression, and a method for parallelizing PAC learning algorithms. We provide extensions of our algorithms to cases in which the concepts are not binary and to the case where the accuracy of the learning algorithm depends on the distribution of the instances. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #65650. 	[Title] Machine Learning 27(1):51-68, 1997. Predicting nearly as well as the best pruning of a decision tree [Abstract] Many algorithms for inferring a decision tree from data involve a two-phase process: First, a very large decision tree is grown which typically ends up "over-fitting" the data. To reduce over-fitting, in the second phase, the tree is pruned using one of a number of available methods. The final tree is then output and used for classification on test data. In this paper, we suggest an alternative approach to the pruning phase. Using a given unpruned decision tree, we present a new method of making predictions on test data, and we prove that our algorithm's performance will not be "much worse" (in a precise technical sense) than the predictions made by the best reasonably small pruning of the given decision tree. Thus, our procedure is guaranteed to be competitive (in terms of the quality of its predictions) with any pruning algorithm. We prove that our procedure is very efficient and highly robust. Our method can be viewed as a synthesis of two previously studied techniques. First, we apply Cesa-Bianchi et al.'s [4] results on predicting using "expert advice" (where we view each pruning as an "expert") to obtain an algorithm that has provably low prediction loss, but that is com-putationally infeasible. Next, we generalize and apply a method developed by Buntine [3], [2] and Willems, Shtarkov and Tjalkens [20], [21] to derive a very efficient implementation of this procedure. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1103610. 	[Title] A hierarchical ensemble of decision trees applied to classifying data from a psychological experiment [Abstract] Classifying by hand complex data coming from psychology experiments can be a long and difficult task, because of the quantity of data to classify and the amount of training it may require. One way to alleviate this problem is to use machine learning techniques. We built a classifier based on decision trees that reproduces the classifying process used by two humans on a sample of data and that learns how to classify unseen data. The automatic classifier proved to be more accurate, more constant and much faster than classification by hand. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #350362 has the title `Improving Regressors using Boosting Techniques  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #350362 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #350362 has the title `Improving Regressors using Boosting Techniques  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #350362 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