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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8832. 	[Title] The Possible Contribution of AI to the Avoidance of Crises and Wars: Using CBR Methods [Abstract] This paper presents the application of Case-Based Reasoning methods to the KOSIMO data base of international conflicts. A Case-Based Reasoning tool - VIE-CBR has been deveolped and used for the classification of various outcome variables, like political, military, and territorial outcome, solution modalities, and conflict intensity. In addition, the case retrieval algorithms are presented as an interactive, user-modifiable tool for intelli gently searching the conflict data base for precedent cases. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #346243. 	[Title] Inductive Bias in Case-Based Reasoning Systems [Abstract] In order to learn more about the behaviour of case-based reasoners as learning systems, we form-alise a simple case-based learner as a PAC learning algorithm, using the case-based representation hCB; i. We first consider a `naive' case-based learning algorithm CB1( H ) which learns by collecting all available cases into the case-base and which calculates similarity by counting the number of features on which two problem descriptions agree. We present results concerning the consistency of this learning algorithm and give some partial results regarding its sample complexity. We are able to characterise CB1( H ) as a `weak but general' learning algorithm. We then consider how the sample complexity of case-based learning can be reduced for specific classes of target concept by the application of inductive bias, or prior knowledge of the class of target concepts. Following recent work demonstrating how case-based learning can be improved by choosing a similarity measure appropriate to the concept being learnt, we define a second case-based learning `algorithm' CB2 which learns using the best possible similarity measure that might be inferred for the chosen target concept. While CB2 is not an executable learning strategy (since the chosen similarity measure is defined in terms of a priori knowledge of the actual target concept) it allows us to assess in the limit the maximum possible contribution of this approach to case-based learning. Also, in addition to illustrating the role of inductive bias, the definition of CB2 simplifies the general problem of establishing which functions might be represented in the form hCB; i. Reasoning about the case-based representation in this special case has therefore been a little more straight-forward than in the general case of CB1( H ), allowing more substantial results regarding representable functions and sample complexity to be presented for CB2. In assessing these results, we are forced to conclude that case-based learning is not the best approach to learning the chosen concept space (the space of monomial functions). We discuss, however, how our study has demonstrated, in the context of case-based learning, the operation of concepts well known in machine learning such as inductive bias and the trade-off between computational complexity and sample complexity. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130634. 	[Title] Protein Secondary Structure Modelling with Probabilistic Networks (Extended Abstract) [Abstract] In this paper we study the performance of probabilistic networks in the context of protein sequence analysis in molecular biology. Specifically, we report the results of our initial experiments applying this framework to the problem of protein secondary structure prediction. One of the main advantages of the probabilistic approach we describe here is our ability to perform detailed experiments where we can experiment with different models. We can easily perform local substitutions (mutations) and measure (probabilistically) their effect on the global structure. Window-based methods do not support such experimentation as readily. Our method is efficient both during training and during prediction, which is important in order to be able to perform many experiments with different networks. We believe that probabilistic methods are comparable to other methods in prediction quality. In addition, the predictions generated by our methods have precise quantitative semantics which is not shared by other classification methods. Specifically, all the causal and statistical independence assumptions are made explicit in our networks thereby allowing biologists to study and experiment with different causal models in a convenient manner. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #36620. 	[Title] Towards a Better Understanding of Memory-Based Reasoning Systems [Abstract] We quantify both experimentally and analytically the performance of memory-based reasoning (MBR) algorithms. To start gaining insight into the capabilities of MBR algorithms, we compare an MBR algorithm using a value difference metric to a popular Bayesian classifier. These two approaches are similar in that they both make certain independence assumptions about the data. However, whereas MBR uses specific cases to perform classification, Bayesian methods summarize the data probabilistically. We demonstrate that a particular MBR system called Pebls works comparatively well on a wide range of domains using both real and artificial data. With respect to the artificial data, we consider distributions where the concept classes are separated by functional discriminants, as well as time-series data generated by Markov models of varying complexity. Finally, we show formally that Pebls can learn (in the limit) natural concept classes that the Bayesian classifier cannot learn, and that it will attain perfect accuracy whenever Please summarise all the given information.

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

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3220. 	[Title] A Weighted Nearest Neighbor Algorithm for Learning with Symbolic Features [Abstract] In the past, nearest neighbor algorithms for learning from examples have worked best in domains in which all features had numeric values. In such domains, the examples can be treated as points and distance metrics can use standard definitions. In symbolic domains, a more sophisticated treatment of the feature space is required. We introduce a nearest neighbor algorithm for learning in domains with symbolic features. Our algorithm calculates distance tables that allow it to produce real-valued distances between instances, and attaches weights to the instances to further modify the structure of feature space. We show that this technique produces excellent classification accuracy on three problems that have been studied by machine learning researchers: predicting protein secondary structure, identifying DNA promoter sequences, and pronouncing English text. Direct experimental comparisons with the other learning algorithms show that our nearest neighbor algorithm is comparable or superior in all three domains. In addition, our algorithm has advantages in training speed, simplicity, and perspicuity. We conclude that experimental evidence favors the use and continued development of nearest neighbor algorithms for domains such as the ones studied here. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1115677. 	[Title] Comparison of Regression Methods, Symbolic Induction Methods and Neural Networks in Morbidity Diagnosis and Mortality [Abstract] Classifier induction algorithms differ on what inductive hypotheses they can represent, and on how they search their space of hypotheses. No classifier is better than another for all problems: they have selective superiority. This paper empirically compares six classifier induction algorithms on the diagnosis of equine colic and the prediction of its mortality. The classification is based on simultaneously analyzing sixteen features measured from a patient. The relative merits of the algorithms (linear regression, decision trees, nearest neighbor classifiers, the Model Class Selection system, logistic regression (with and without feature selection), and neural nets) are qualitatively discussed, and the generalization accuracies quantitatively analyzed. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8224. 	[Title] Mingers, 1989 J. Mingers. An empirical comparison of pruning methods for decision tree induction. Machine [Abstract] Ourston and Mooney, 1990b ] D. Ourston and R. J. Mooney. Improving shared rules in multiple category domain theories. Technical Report AI90-150, Artificial Intelligence Labora tory, University of Texas, Austin, TX, December 1990. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1132706. 	[Title] Exemplar-based Music Structure Recognition [Abstract] We tend to think of what we really know as what we can talk about, and disparage knowledge that we can't verbalize. [Dowling 1989, p. 252] Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6311. 	[Title] Dynamic Automatic Model Selection [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 92-30 February 1992 Abstract The problem of how to learn from examples has been studied throughout the history of machine learning, and many successful learning algorithms have been developed. A problem that has received less attention is how to select which algorithm to use for a given learning task. The ability of a chosen algorithm to induce a good generalization depends on how appropriate the model class underlying the algorithm is for the given task. We define an algorithm's model class to be the representation language it uses to express a generalization of the examples. Supervised learning algorithms differ in their underlying model class and in how they search for a good generalization. Given this characterization, it is not surprising that some algorithms find better generalizations for some, but not all tasks. Therefore, in order to find the best generalization for each task, an automated learning system must search for the appropriate model class in addition to searching for the best generalization within the chosen class. This thesis proposal investigates the issues involved in automating the selection of the appropriate model class. The presented approach has two facets. Firstly, the approach combines different model classes in the form of a model combination decision tree, which allows the best representation to be found for each subconcept of the learning task. Secondly, which model class is the most appropriate is determined dynamically using a set of heuristic rules. Explicit in each rule are the conditions in which a particular model class is appropriate and if it is not, what should be done next. In addition to describing the approach, this proposal describes how the approach will be evaluated in order to demonstrate that it is both an efficient and effective method for automatic model selection. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #46887. 	[Title] Learning Polynomial Functions by Feature Construction [Abstract] We present a method for learning higher-order polynomial functions from examples using linear regression and feature construction. Regression is used on a set of training instances to produce a weight vector for a linear function over the feature set. If this hypothesis is imperfect, a new feature is constructed by forming the product of the two features that most effectively predict the squared error of the current hypothesis. The algorithm is then repeated. In an extension to this method, the specific pair of features to combine is selected by measuring their joint ability to predict the hypothesis' error. Please summarise all the given information.

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

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

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #145215. 	[Title] Memory-Based Lexical Acquisition and Processing [Abstract] Current approaches to computational lexicology in language technology are knowledge-based (competence-oriented) and try to abstract away from specific formalisms, domains, and applications. This results in severe complexity, acquisition and reusability bottlenecks. As an alternative, we propose a particular performance-oriented approach to Natural Language Processing based on automatic memory-based learning of linguistic (lexical) tasks. The consequences of the approach for computational lexicology are discussed, and the application of the approach on a number of lexical acquisition and disambiguation tasks in phonology, morphology and syntax is described. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131728. 	[Title] Fast NP Chunking Using Memory-Based Learning Techniques [Abstract] In this paper we discuss the application of Memory-Based Learning (MBL) to fast NP chunking. We first discuss the application of a fast decision tree variant of MBL (IGTree) on the dataset described in (Ramshaw and Marcus, 1995), which consists of roughly 50,000 test and 200,000 train items. In a second series of experiments we used an architecture of two cascaded IGTrees. In the second level of this cascaded classifier we added context predictions as extra features so that incorrect predictions from the first level can be corrected, yielding a 97.2% generalisation accuracy with training and testing times in the order of seconds to minutes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39124. 	[Title] The Utility of Feature Weighting in Nearest-Neighbor Algorithms [Abstract] Nearest-neighbor algorithms are known to depend heavily on their distance metric. In this paper, we investigate the use of a weighted Euclidean metric in which the weight for each feature comes from a small set of options. We describe Diet, an algorithm that directs search through a space of discrete weights using cross-validation error as its evaluation function. Although a large set of possible weights can reduce the learner's bias, it can also lead to increased variance and overfitting. Our empirical study shows that, for many data sets, there is an advantage to weighting features, but that increasing the number of possible weights beyond two (zero and one) has very little benefit and sometimes degrades performance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #40922. 	[Title] An Optimal Weighting Criterion of Case Indexing for Both Numeric and Symbolic Attributes [Abstract] Indexing of cases is an important topic for Memory-Based Reasoning(MBR). One key problem is how to assign weights to attributes of cases. Although several weighting methods have been proposed, some methods cannot handle numeric attributes directly, so it is necessary to discretize numeric values by classification. Furthermore, existing methods have no theoretical background, so little can be said about optimality. We propose a new weighting method based on a statistical technique called Quantification Method II. It can handle both numeric and symbolic attributes in the same framework. Generated attribute weights are optimal in the sense that they maximize the ratio of variance between classes to variance of all cases. Experiments on several benchmark tests show that in many cases, our method obtains higher accuracies than some other weighting methods. The results also indicate that it can distinguish relevant attributes from irrelevant ones, and can tolerate noisy data. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #654177. 	[Title] RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF NLP MODULES WITH MEMORY-BASED LEARNING [Abstract] The need for software modules performing natural language processing (NLP) tasks is growing. These modules should perform efficiently and accurately, while at the same time rapid development is often mandatory. Recent work has indicated that machine learning techniques in general, and memory-based learning (MBL) in particular, offer the tools to meet both ends. We present examples of modules trained with MBL on three NLP tasks: (i) text-to-speech conversion, (ii) part-of-speech tagging, and (iii) phrase chunking. We demonstrate that the three modules display high generalization accuracy, and argue why MBL is applicable similarly well to a large class of other NLP tasks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #120039. 	[Title] EXPLORING A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTANCE BASED LEARNING AND NAIVE BAYESIAN CLASSIFIERS [Abstract] The relative performance of different methods for classifier learning varies across domains. Some recent Instance Based Learning (IBL) methods, such as IB1-MVDM* 10 , use similarity measures based on conditional class probabilities. These probabilities are a key component of Naive Bayes methods. Given this commonality of approach, it is of interest to consider how the differences between the two methods are linked to their relative performance in different domains. Here we interpret Naive Bayes in an IBL like framework, identifying differences between Naive Bayes and IB1-MVDM* in this framework. Experiments on variants of IB1-MVDM* that lie between it and Naive Bayes in the framework are conducted on sixteen domains. The results strongly suggest that the relative performance of Naive Bayes and IB1-MVDM* is linked to the extent to which each class can be satisfactorily represented by a single instance in the IBL framework. However, this is not the only factor that appears significant. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20584. 	[Title] Multivariate versus Univariate Decision Trees [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 92-8 January 1992 Abstract In this paper we present a new multivariate decision tree algorithm LMDT, which combines linear machines with decision trees. LMDT constructs each test in a decision tree by training a linear machine and then eliminating irrelevant and noisy variables in a controlled manner. To examine LMDT's ability to find good generalizations we present results for a variety of domains. We compare LMDT empirically to a univariate decision tree algorithm and observe that when multivariate tests are the appropriate bias for a given data set, LMDT finds small accurate trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1125992. 	[Title] Towards a Theory of Optimal Similarity Measures way of learning a similarity measure from the [Abstract] The effectiveness of a case-based reasoning system is known to depend critically on its similarity measure. However, it is not clear whether there are elusive and esoteric similarity measures which might improve the performance of a case-based reasoner if substituted for the more commonly used measures. This paper therefore deals with the problem of choosing the best similarity measure, in the limited context of instance-based learning of classifications of a discrete example space. We consider both `fixed' similarity measures and `learnt' ones. In the former case, we give a definition of a similarity measure which we believe to be `optimal' w.r.t. the current prior distribution of target concepts and prove its optimality within a restricted class of similarity measures. We then show how this `optimal' similarity measure is instantiated by some specific prior distributions, and conclude that a very simple similarity measure is as good as any other in these cases. In a further section, we then show how our definition leads naturally to a conjecture about the Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #429805. 	[Title] Resolving PP attachment Ambiguities with Memory-Based Learning [Abstract] In this paper we describe the application of Memory-Based Learning to the problem of Prepositional Phrase attachment disambiguation. We compare Memory-Based Learning, which stores examples in memory and generalizes by using intelligent similarity metrics, with a number of recently proposed statistical methods that are well suited to large numbers of features. We evaluate our methods on a common benchmark dataset and show that our method compares favorably to previous methods, and is well-suited to incorporating various unconventional representations of word patterns such as value difference metrics and Lexical Space. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1128430. 	[Title] On Reasoning from Data [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

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

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #167670. 	[Title] Error-Based and Entropy-Based Discretization of Continuous Features [Abstract] We present a comparison of error-based and entropy-based methods for discretization of continuous features. Our study includes both an extensive empirical comparison as well as an analysis of scenarios where error minimization may be an inappropriate discretization criterion. We present a discretization method based on the C4.5 decision tree algorithm and compare it to an existing entropy-based discretization algorithm, which employs the Minimum Description Length Principle, and a recently proposed error-based technique. We evaluate these discretization methods with respect to C4.5 and Naive-Bayesian classifiers on datasets from the UCI repository and analyze the computational complexity of each method. Our results indicate that the entropy-based MDL heuristic outperforms error minimization on average. We then analyze the shortcomings of error-based approaches in comparison to entropy-based methods. Please summarise all the given information.

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


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