Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #51834. 	[Title] Rerepresenting and Restructuring Domain Theories: A Constructive Induction Approach [Abstract] Theory revision integrates inductive learning and background knowledge by combining training examples with a coarse domain theory to produce a more accurate theory. There are two challenges that theory revision and other theory-guided systems face. First, a representation language appropriate for the initial theory may be inappropriate for an improved theory. While the original representation may concisely express the initial theory, a more accurate theory forced to use that same representation may be bulky, cumbersome, and difficult to reach. Second, a theory structure suitable for a coarse domain theory may be insufficient for a fine-tuned theory. Systems that produce only small, local changes to a theory have limited value for accomplishing complex structural alterations that may be required. Consequently, advanced theory-guided learning systems require flexible representation and flexible structure. An analysis of various theory revision systems and theory-guided learning systems reveals specific strengths and weaknesses in terms of these two desired properties. Designed to capture the underlying qualities of each system, a new system uses theory-guided constructive induction. Experiments in three domains show improvement over previous theory-guided systems. This leads to a study of the behavior, limitations, and potential of theory-guided constructive induction. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105505. 	[Title] A Divide-and-Conquer Approach to Learning from Prior Knowledge [Abstract] This paper introduces a new machine learning task|model calibration|and presents a method for solving a particularly difficult model calibration task that arose as part of a global climate change research project. The model calibration task is the problem of training the free parameters of a scientific model in order to optimize the accuracy of the model for making future predictions. It is a form of supervised learning from examples in the presence of prior knowledge. An obvious approach to solving calibration problems is to formulate them as global optimization problems in which the goal is to find values for the free parameters that minimize the error of the model on training data. Unfortunately, this global optimization approach becomes computationally infeasible when the model is highly nonlinear. This paper presents a new divide-and-conquer method that analyzes the model to identify a series of smaller optimization problems whose sequential solution solves the global calibration problem. This paper argues that methods of this kind|rather than global optimization techniques|will be required in order for agents with large amounts of prior knowledge to learn efficiently. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1152290. 	[Title] Unsupervised Constructive Learning [Abstract] In constructive induction (CI), the learner's problem representation is modified as a normal part of the learning process. This is useful when the initial representation is inadequate or inappropriate. In this paper, I argue that the distinction between constructive and non-constructive methods is unclear. I propose a theoretical model which allows (a) a clean distinction to be made and (b) the process of CI to be properly motivated. I also show that although constructive induction has been used almost exclusively in the context of supervised learning, there is no reason why it cannot form a part of an unsupervised regime. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #137380. 	[Title] Discovering Representation Space Transformations for Learning Concept Descriptions Combining DNF and M-of-N Rules [Abstract] This paper addresses a class of learning problems that require a construction of descriptions that combine both M-of-N rules and traditional Disjunctive Normal form (DNF) rules. The presented method learns such descriptions, which we call conditional M-of-N rules, using the hypothesis-driven constructive induction approach. In this approach, the representation space is modified according to patterns discovered in the iteratively generated hypotheses. The need for the M-of-N rules is detected by observing "exclusive-or" or "equivalence" patterns in the hypotheses. These patterns indicate symmetry relations among pairs of attributes. Symmetrical attributes are combined into maximal symmetry classes. For each symmetry class, the method constructs a "counting attribute" that adds a new dimension to the representation space. The search for hypothesis in iteratively modified representation spaces is done by the standard AQ inductive rule learning algorithm. It is shown that the proposed method is capable of solving problems that would be very difficult to tackle by any of the traditional symbolic learning methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #33412. 	[Title] Learning to Predict Reading Frames in E. coli DNA Sequences [Abstract] Two fundamental problems in analyzing DNA sequences are (1) locating the regions of a DNA sequence that encode proteins, and (2) determining the reading frame for each region. We investigate using artificial neural networks (ANNs) to find coding regions, determine reading frames, and detect frameshift errors in E. coli DNA sequences. We describe our adaptation of the approach used by Uberbacher and Mural to identify coding regions in human DNA, and we compare the performance of ANNs to several conventional methods for predicting reading frames. Our experiments demonstrate that ANNs can outperform these conventional approaches. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #37541. 	[Title] Parity: The Problem that Won't Go Away [Abstract] It is well-known that certain learning methods (e.g., the perceptron learning algorithm) cannot acquire complete, parity mappings. But it is often overlooked that state-of-the-art learning methods such as C4.5 and backpropagation cannot generalise from incomplete parity mappings. The failure of such methods to generalise on parity mappings may be sometimes dismissed on the grounds that it is `impossible' to generalise over such mappings, or that parity problems are mathematical constructs having little to do with real-world learning. However, this paper argues that such a dismissal is unwarranted. It shows that parity mappings are hard to learn because they are statistically neutral and that statistical neutrality is a property which we should expect to encounter frequently in real-world contexts. It also shows that the generalization failure on parity mappings occurs even when large, minimally incomplete mappings are used for training purposes, i.e., when claims about the impossibility of generalization are particularly suspect. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1118823. 	[Title] Constructing Conjunctions using Systematic Search on Decision Trees [Abstract] This paper investigates a dynamic path-based method for constructing conjunctions as new attributes for decision tree learning. It searches for conditions (attribute-value pairs) from paths to form new attributes. Compared with other hypothesis-driven new attribute construction methods, the new idea of this method is that it carries out systematic search with pruning over each path of a tree to select conditions for generating a conjunction. Therefore, conditions for constructing new attributes are dynamically decided during search. Empirically evaluation in a set of artificial and real-world domains shows that the dynamic path-based method can improve the performance of selective decision tree learning in terms of both higher prediction accuracy and lower theory complexity. In addition, it shows some performance advantages over a fixed path-based method and a fixed rule-based method for learning decision trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #124296. 	[Title] Investigating the Value of a Good Input Representation [Abstract] This paper is reprinted from Computational Learning Theory and Natural Learning Systems, vol. 3, T. Petsche, S. Judd, and S. Hanson, (eds.), forthcoming 1995. Copyrighted 1995 by MIT Press Abstract The ability of an inductive learning system to find a good solution to a given problem is dependent upon the representation used for the features of the problem. A number of factors, including training-set size and the ability of the learning algorithm to perform constructive induction, can mediate the effect of an input representation on the accuracy of a learned concept description. We present experiments that evaluate the effect of input representation on generalization performance for the real-world problem of finding genes in DNA. Our experiments that demonstrate that: (1) two different input representations for this task result in significantly different generalization performance for both neural networks and decision trees; and (2) both neural and symbolic methods for constructive induction fail to bridge the gap between these two representations. We believe that this real-world domain provides an interesting challenge problem for the machine learning subfield of constructive induction because the relationship between the two representations is well known, and because conceptually, the representational shift involved in constructing the better representation should not be too imposing. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1120169. 	[Title] What do Constructive Learners Really Learn? [Abstract] In constructive induction (CI), the learner's problem representation is modified as a normal part of the learning process. This may be necessary if the initial representation is inadequate or inappropriate. However, the distinction between constructive and non-constructive methods appears to be highly ambiguous. Several conventional definitions of the process of constructive induction appear to include all conceivable learning processes. In this paper I argue that the process of constructive learning should be identified with that of relational learning (i.e., I suggest that Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105672. 	[Title] Using Neural Networks to Automatically Refine Expert System Knowledge Bases: Experiments in the NYNEX MAX Domain [Abstract] In this paper we describe our study of applying knowledge-based neural networks to the problem of diagnosing faults in local telephone loops. Currently, NYNEX uses an expert system called MAX to aid human experts in diagnosing these faults; however, having an effective learning algorithm in place of MAX would allow easy portability between different maintenance centers, and easy updating when the phone equipment changes. We find that (i) machine learning algorithms have better accuracy than MAX, (ii) neural networks perform better than decision trees, (iii) neural network ensembles perform better than standard neural networks, (iv) knowledge-based neural networks perform better than standard neural networks, and (v) an ensemble of knowledge-based neural networks performs the best. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #308232. 	[Title] Extending Theory Refinement to M-of-N Rules [Abstract] In recent years, machine learning research has started addressing a problem known as theory refinement. The goal of a theory refinement learner is to modify an incomplete or incorrect rule base, representing a domain theory, to make it consistent with a set of input training examples. This paper presents a major revision of the Either propositional theory refinement system. Two issues are discussed. First, we show how run time efficiency can be greatly improved by changing from a exhaustive scheme for computing repairs to an iterative greedy method. Second, we show how to extend Either to refine M-of-N rules. The resulting algorithm, Neither (New Either), is more than an order of magnitude faster and produces significantly more accurate results with theories that fit the M-of-N format. To demonstrate the advantages of Neither, we present experimental results from two real-world domains. 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 #46547. 	[Title] CONSTRUCTING CONJUNCTIVE TESTS FOR DECISION TREES [Abstract] This paper discusses an approach of constructing new attributes based on decision trees and production rules. It can improve the concepts learned in the form of decision trees by simplifying them and improving their predictive accuracy. In addition, this approach can distinguish relevant primitive attributes from irrelevant primitive attributes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #107252. 	[Title] Effects of Different Types of New Attribute on Constructive Induction [Abstract] This paper studies the effects on decision tree learning of constructing four types of attribute (conjunctive, disjunctive, Mof-N, and Xof-N representations). To reduce effects of other factors such as tree learning methods, new attribute search strategies, evaluation functions, and stopping criteria, a single tree learning algorithm is developed. With different option settings, it can construct four different types of new attribute, but all other factors are fixed. The study reveals that conjunctive and disjunctive representations have very similar performance in terms of prediction accuracy and theory complexity on a variety of concepts. Moreover, the study demonstrates that the stronger representation power of Mof-N than conjunction and disjunction and the stronger representation power of Xof-N than these three types of new attribute can be reflected in the performance of decision tree learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #389715. 	[Title] Constructing Nominal Xof-N Attributes [Abstract] Most constructive induction researchers focus only on new boolean attributes. This paper reports a new constructive induction algorithm, called XofN, that constructs new nominal attributes in the form of Xof-N representations. An Xof-N is a set containing one or more attribute-value pairs. For a given instance, its value corresponds to the number of its attribute-value pairs that are true. The promising preliminary experimental results, on both artificial and real-world domains, show that constructing new nominal attributes in the form of Xof-N representations can significantly improve the performance of selective induction in terms of both higher prediction accuracy and lower theory complexity. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #107251. 	[Title] Continuous-valued Xof-N Attributes Versus Nominal Xof-N Attributes for Constructive Induction: A Case Study [Abstract] An Xof-N is a set containing one or more attribute-value pairs. For a given instance, its value corresponds to the number of its attribute-value pairs that are true. In this paper, we explore the characteristics and performance of continuous-valued Xof-N attributes versus nominal Xof-N attributes for constructive induction. Nominal Xof-Ns are more representationally powerful than continuous-valued Xof-Ns, but the former suffer the "fragmentation" problem, although some mechanisms such as subsetting can help to solve the problem. Two approaches to constructive induction using continuous-valued Xof-Ns are described. Continuous-valued Xof-Ns perform better than nominal ones on domains that need Xof-Ns with only one cut point. On domains that need Xof-N representations with more than one cut point, nominal Xof-Ns perform better than continuous-valued ones. Experimental results on a set of artificial and real-world domains support these statements. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #46491. 	[Title] ID2-of-3: Constructive Induction of M of-N Concepts for Discriminators in Decision Trees [Abstract] We discuss an approach to constructing composite features during the induction of decision trees. The composite features correspond to m-of-n concepts. There are three goals of this research. First, we explore a family of greedy methods for building m-of-n concepts (one of which, GS, is described in this paper). Second, we show how these concepts can be formed as internal nodes of decision trees, serving as a bias to the learner. Finally, we evaluate the method on several artificially generated and naturally occurring data sets to determine the effects of this bias. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #66782. 	[Title] Using Qualitative Models to Guide Inductive Learning [Abstract] This paper presents a method for using qualitative models to guide inductive learning. Our objectives are to induce rules which are not only accurate but also explainable with respect to the qualitative model, and to reduce learning time by exploiting domain knowledge in the learning process. Such ex-plainability is essential both for practical application of inductive technology, and for integrating the results of learning back into an existing knowledge-base. We apply this method to two process control problems, a water tank network and an ore grinding process used in the mining industry. Surprisingly, in addition to achieving explainability the classificational accuracy of the induced rules is also increased. We show how the value of the qualitative models can be quantified in terms of their equivalence to additional training examples, and finally discuss possible extensions. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #51834 has the title `Rerepresenting and Restructuring Domain Theories: A Constructive Induction Approach  
` and the abstract `Theory revision integrates inductive learning and background knowledge by combining training examples with a coarse domain theory to produce a more accurate theory. There are two challenges that theory revision and other theory-guided systems face. First, a representation language appropriate for the initial theory may be inappropriate for an improved theory. While the original representation may concisely express the initial theory, a more accurate theory forced to use that same representation may be bulky, cumbersome, and difficult to reach. Second, a theory structure suitable for a coarse domain theory may be insufficient for a fine-tuned theory. Systems that produce only small, local changes to a theory have limited value for accomplishing complex structural alterations that may be required. Consequently, advanced theory-guided learning systems require flexible representation and flexible structure. An analysis of various theory revision systems and theory-guided learning systems reveals specific strengths and weaknesses in terms of these two desired properties. Designed to capture the underlying qualities of each system, a new system uses theory-guided constructive induction. Experiments in three domains show improvement over previous theory-guided systems. This leads to a study of the behavior, limitations, and potential of theory-guided constructive induction.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #51834 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #51834 has the title `Rerepresenting and Restructuring Domain Theories: A Constructive Induction Approach  
` and the abstract `Theory revision integrates inductive learning and background knowledge by combining training examples with a coarse domain theory to produce a more accurate theory. There are two challenges that theory revision and other theory-guided systems face. First, a representation language appropriate for the initial theory may be inappropriate for an improved theory. While the original representation may concisely express the initial theory, a more accurate theory forced to use that same representation may be bulky, cumbersome, and difficult to reach. Second, a theory structure suitable for a coarse domain theory may be insufficient for a fine-tuned theory. Systems that produce only small, local changes to a theory have limited value for accomplishing complex structural alterations that may be required. Consequently, advanced theory-guided learning systems require flexible representation and flexible structure. An analysis of various theory revision systems and theory-guided learning systems reveals specific strengths and weaknesses in terms of these two desired properties. Designed to capture the underlying qualities of each system, a new system uses theory-guided constructive induction. Experiments in three domains show improvement over previous theory-guided systems. This leads to a study of the behavior, limitations, and potential of theory-guided constructive induction.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #51834 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