Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #97377. 	[Title] Induction of One-Level Decision Trees [Abstract] In recent years, researchers have made considerable progress on the worst-case analysis of inductive learning tasks, but for theoretical results to have impact on practice, they must deal with the average case. In this paper we present an average-case analysis of a simple algorithm that induces one-level decision trees for concepts defined by a single relevant attribute. Given knowledge about the number of training instances, the number of irrelevant attributes, the amount of class and attribute noise, and the class and attribute distributions, we derive the expected classification accuracy over the entire instance space. We then examine the predictions of this analysis for different settings of these domain parameters, comparing them to exper imental results to check our reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110531. 	[Title] Computational Learning in Humans and Machines [Abstract] In this paper we review research on machine learning and its relation to computational models of human learning. We focus initially on concept induction, examining five main approaches to this problem, then consider the more complex issue of learning sequential behaviors. After this, we compare the rhetoric that sometimes appears in the machine learning and psychological literature with the growing evidence that different theoretical paradigms typically produce similar results. In response, we suggest that concrete computational models, which currently dominate the field, may be less useful than simulations that operate at a more abstract level. We illustrate this point with an abstract simulation that explains a challenging phenomenon in the area of category learning, and we conclude with some general observations about such abstract models. 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 #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 #1132815. 	[Title] Fast Bounded Smooth Regression with Lazy Neural Trees [Abstract] We propose the lazy neural tree (LNT) as the appropriate architecture for the realization of smooth regression systems. The LNT is a hybrid of a decision tree and a neural network. From the neural network it inherits smoothness of the generated function, incremental adaptability, and conceptual simplicity. From the decision tree it inherits the topology and initial parameter setting as well as a very efficient sequential implementation that out-performs traditional neural network simulations by the order of magnitudes. The enormous speed is achieved by lazy evaluation. A further speed-up can be obtained by the application of a window-ing scheme if the region of interesting results is restricted. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #34708. 	[Title] Learning to Represent Codons: A Challenge Problem for Constructive Induction [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. Systems that perform constructive induction are able to change their representation by constructing new features. We describe an important, real-world problem finding genes in DNA that we believe offers an interesting challenge to constructive-induction researchers. We report 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 constructive induction because the relationship between the two representations is well known, and because the representational shift involved in construct ing the better representation is not imposing. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #964248. 	[Title] Issues in the Integration of Data Mining and Data Visualization Visualizing the Simple Bayesian Classifier [Abstract] The simple Bayesian classifier (SBC), sometimes called Naive-Bayes, is built based on a conditional independence model of each attribute given the class. The model was previously shown to be surprisingly robust to obvious violations of this independence assumption, yielding accurate classification models even when there are clear conditional dependencies. The SBC can serve as an excellent tool for initial exploratory data analysis when coupled with a visualizer that makes its structure comprehensible. We describe such a visual representation of the SBC model that has been successfully implemented. We describe the requirements we had for such a visualization and the design decisions we made to satisfy them. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110426. 	[Title] Incremental Reduced Error Pruning [Abstract] This paper outlines some problems that may occur with Reduced Error Pruning in relational learning algorithms, most notably efficiency. Thereafter a new method, Incremental Reduced Error Pruning, is proposed that attempts to address all of these problems. Experiments show that in many noisy domains this method is much more efficient than alternative algorithms, along with a slight gain in accuracy. However, the experiments show as well that the use of the algorithm cannot be recommended for domains which require a very specific concept description. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #22431. 	[Title] An investigation of noise-tolerant relational concept learning algorithms [Abstract] We discuss the types of noise that may occur in relational learning systems and describe two approaches to addressing noise in a relational concept learning algorithm. We then evaluate each approach experimentally. 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 #3233. 	[Title] A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection [Abstract] We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods: cross-validation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical results in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), ten-fold cross-validation may be better than the more expensive leave-one-out cross-validation. We report on a large-scale experiment|over half a million runs of C4.5 and a Naive-Bayes algorithm|to estimate the effects of different parameters on these algorithms on real-world datasets. For cross-validation, we vary the number of folds and whether the folds are stratified or not; for bootstrap, we vary the number of bootstrap samples. Our results indicate that for real-word datasets similar to ours, the best method to use for model selection is ten-fold stratified cross validation, even if computation power allows using more folds. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #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 #521252. 	[Title] Similarity Metrics: A Formal Unification of Cardinal and Non-Cardinal Similarity Measures [Abstract] In [9] we introduced a formal framework for constructing ordinal similarity measures, and suggested how this might also be applied to cardinal measures. In this paper we will place this approach in a more general framework, called similarity metrics. In this framework, ordinal similarity metrics (where comparison returns a boolean value) can be combined with cardinal metrics (returning a numeric value) and, indeed, with metrics returning values of other types, to produce new metrics. 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 #3240. 	[Title] An Analysis of Bayesian Classifiers (1988), involves the formulation of average-case models for specific algorithms [Abstract] In this paper we present an average-case analysis of the Bayesian classifier, a simple induction algorithm that fares remarkably well on many learning tasks. Our analysis assumes a monotone conjunctive target concept, and independent, noise-free Boolean attributes. We calculate the probability that the algorithm will induce an arbitrary pair of concept descriptions and then use this to compute the probability of correct classification over the instance space. The analysis takes into account the number of training instances, the number of attributes, the distribution of these attributes, and the level of class noise. We also explore the behavioral implications of the analysis by presenting predicted learning curves for artificial domains, and give experimental results on these domains as a check on our reasoning. One goal of research in machine learning is to discover principles that relate algorithms and domain characteristics to behavior. To this end, many researchers have carried out systematic experimentation with natural and artificial domains in search of empirical regularities (e.g., Kibler & Langley, 1988). Others have focused on theoretical analyses, often within the paradigm of probably approximately correct learning (e.g., Haus-sler, 1990). However, most experimental studies are based only on informal analyses of the learning task, whereas most formal analyses address the worst case, and thus bear little relation to empirical results. ber of attributes, and the class and attribute frequencies, they obtain predictions about the behavior of induction algorithms and used experiments to check their analyses. 1 However, their research does not focus on algorithms typically used by the experimental and practical sides of machine learning, and it is important that average-case analyses be extended to such methods. Recently, there has been growing interest in probabilistic approaches to inductive learning. For example, Fisher (1987) has described Cobweb, an incremental algorithm for conceptual clustering that draws heavily on Bayesian ideas, and the literature reports a number of systems that build on this work (e.g., Allen & Lang-ley, 1990; Iba & Gennari, 1991; Thompson & Langley, 1991). Cheeseman et al. (1988) have outlined Auto-Class, a nonincremental system that uses Bayesian methods to cluster instances into groups, and other researchers have focused on the induction of Bayesian inference networks (e.g., Cooper & Kerskovits, 1991). These recent Bayesian learning algorithms are complex and not easily amenable to analysis, but they share a common ancestor that is simpler and more tractable. This supervised algorithm, which we refer to simply as a Bayesian classifier, comes originally from work in pattern recognition (Duda & Hart, 1973). The method stores a probabilistic summary for each class; this summary contains the conditional probability of each attribute value given the class, as well as the probability (or base rate) of the class. This data structure approximates the representational power of a perceptron; it describes a single decision boundary through the instance space. When the algorithm encounters a new instance, it updates the probabilities stored with the specified class. Neither the order of training instances nor the occurrence of classification errors have any effect on this process. When given a test instance, the classifier uses an evaluation function (which we describe in detail later) to rank the alter Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #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 #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 #49843. 	[Title] Fossil: A Robust Relational Learner [Abstract] The research reported in this paper describes Fossil, an ILP system that uses a search heuristic based on statistical correlation. This algorithm implements a new method for learning useful concepts in the presence of noise. In contrast to Foil's stopping criterion, which allows theories to grow in complexity as the size of the training sets increases, we propose a new stopping criterion that is independent of the number of training examples. Instead, Fossil's stopping criterion depends on a search heuristic that estimates the utility of literals on a uniform scale. In addition we outline how this feature can be used for top-down pruning and present some preliminary results. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49844. 	[Title] A Comparison of Pruning Methods for Relational Concept Learning [Abstract] Pre-Pruning and Post-Pruning are two standard methods of dealing with noise in concept learning. Pre-Pruning methods are very efficient, while Post-Pruning methods typically are more accurate, but much slower, because they have to generate an overly specific concept description first. We have experimented with a variety of pruning methods, including two new methods that try to combine and integrate pre- and post-pruning in order to achieve both accuracy and efficiency. This is verified with test series in a chess position classification task. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #62389. 	[Title] New Roles for Machine Learning in Design for Design of Educational Computing New roles for [Abstract] Research on machine learning in design has concentrated on the use and development of techniques that can solve simple well-defined problems. Invariably, this effort, while important at the early stages of the development of the field, cannot scale up to address real design problems since all existing techniques are based on simplifying assumptions that do not hold for real design. In particular they do not address the dependence on context and multiple, often conflicting, interests that are constitutive of design. This paper analyzes the present situation and criticizes a number of prevailing views. Subsequently, the paper offers an alternative approach whose goal is to advance the use of machine learning in design practice. The approach is partially integrated into a modeling system called n-dim. The use of machine learning in n-dim is presented and open research issues are outlined. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49847. 	[Title] Top-Down Pruning in Relational Learning [Abstract] Pruning is an effective method for dealing with noise in Machine Learning. Recently pruning algorithms, in particular Reduced Error Pruning, have also attracted interest in the field of Inductive Logic Programming. However, it has been shown that these methods can be very inefficient, because most of the time is wasted for generating clauses that explain noisy examples and subsequently pruning these clauses. We introduce a new method which searches for good theories in a top-down fashion to get a better starting point for the pruning algorithm. Experiments show that this approach can significantly lower the complexity of the task without losing predictive accuracy. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #85688. 	[Title] Finding new rules for incomplete theories: Explicit biases for induction with contextual information. In Proceedings [Abstract] addressed in KBANN (which translates a theory into a neural-net, refines it using backpropagation, and then retranslates the result back into rules) by adding extra hidden units and connections to the initial network; however, this would require predetermining the num In this paper, we have presented constructive induction techniques recently added to the EITHER theory refinement system. Intermediate concept utilization employs existing rules in the theory to derive higher-level features for use in induction. Intermediate concept creation employs inverse resolution to introduce new intermediate concepts in order to fill gaps in a theory than span multiple levels. These revisions allow EITHER to make use of imperfect domain theories in the ways typical of previous work in both constructive induction and theory refinement. As a result, EITHER is able to handle a wider range of theory imperfections than any other existing theory refinement system. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #23738. 	[Title] A THEORY OF LEARNING CLASSIFICATION RULES [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153866. 	[Title] Learning Decision Trees from Decision Rules: [Abstract] A method and initial results from a comparative study ABSTRACT A standard approach to determining decision trees is to learn them from examples. A disadvantage of this approach is that once a decision tree is learned, it is difficult to modify it to suit different decision making situations. Such problems arise, for example, when an attribute assigned to some node cannot be measured, or there is a significant change in the costs of measuring attributes or in the frequency distribution of events from different decision classes. An attractive approach to resolving this problem is to learn and store knowledge in the form of decision rules, and to generate from them, whenever needed, a decision tree that is most suitable in a given situation. An additional advantage of such an approach is that it facilitates building compact decision trees , which can be much simpler than the logically equivalent conventional decision trees (by compact trees are meant decision trees that may contain branches assigned a set of values , and nodes assigned derived attributes, i.e., attributes that are logical or mathematical functions of the original ones). The paper describes an efficient method, AQDT-1, that takes decision rules generated by an AQ-type learning system (AQ15 or AQ17), and builds from them a decision tree optimizing a given optimality criterion. The method can work in two modes: the standard mode , which produces conventional decision trees, and compact mode, which produces compact decision trees. The preliminary experiments with AQDT-1 have shown that the decision trees generated by it from decision rules (conventional and compact) have outperformed those generated from examples by the well-known C4.5 program both in terms of their simplicity and their predictive accuracy. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11339. 	[Title] Exploring the Decision Forest: An Empirical Investigation of Occam's Razor in Decision Tree Induction [Abstract] We report on a series of experiments in which all decision trees consistent with the training data are constructed. These experiments were run to gain an understanding of the properties of the set of consistent decision trees and the factors that affect the accuracy of individual trees. In particular, we investigated the relationship between the size of a decision tree consistent with some training data and the accuracy of the tree on test data. The experiments were performed on a massively parallel Maspar computer. The results of the experiments on several artificial and two real world problems indicate that, for many of the problems investigated, smaller consistent decision trees are on average less accurate than the average accuracy of slightly larger trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11342. 	[Title] On Pruning and Averaging Decision Trees [Abstract] Pruning a decision tree is considered by some researchers to be the most important part of tree building in noisy domains. While, there are many approaches to pruning, an alternative approach of averaging over decision trees has not received as much attention. We perform an empirical comparison of pruning with the approach of averaging over decision trees. For this comparison we use a computa-tionally efficient method of averaging, namely averaging over the extended fanned set of a tree. Since there are a wide range of approaches to pruning, we compare tree averaging with a traditional pruning approach, along with an optimal pruning approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1128531. 	[Title] LEARNING FOR DECISION MAKING: The FRD Approach and a Comparative Study  Machine Learning and Inference Laboratory [Abstract] This paper concerns the issue of what is the best form for learning, representing and using knowledge for decision making. The proposed answer is that such knowledge should be learned and represented in a declarative form. When needed for decision making, it should be efficiently transferred to a procedural form that is tailored to the specific decision making situation. Such an approach combines advantages of the declarative representation, which facilitates learning and incremental knowledge modification, and the procedural representation, which facilitates the use of knowledge for decision making. This approach also allows one to determine decision structures that may avoid attributes that unavailable or difficult to measure in any given situation. Experimental investigations of the system, FRD-1, have demonstrated that decision structures obtained via the declarative route often have not only higher predictive accuracy but are also are simpler than those learned directly from facts. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39130. 	[Title] Average-Case Analysis of a Nearest Neighbor Algorithm [Abstract] In this paper we present an average-case analysis of the nearest neighbor algorithm, a simple induction method that has been studied by many researchers. Our analysis assumes a conjunctive target concept, noise-free Boolean attributes, and a uniform distribution over the instance space. We calculate the probability that the algorithm will encounter a test instance that is distance d from the prototype of the concept, along with the probability that the nearest stored training case is distance e from this test instance. From this we compute the probability of correct classification as a function of the number of observed training cases, the number of relevant attributes, and the number of irrelevant attributes. We also explore the behavioral implications of the analysis by presenting predicted learning curves for artificial domains, and give experimental results on these domains as a check on our reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39131. 	[Title] Oblivious Decision Trees and Abstract Cases [Abstract] In this paper, we address the problem of case-based learning in the presence of irrelevant features. We review previous work on attribute selection and present a new algorithm, Oblivion, that carries out greedy pruning of oblivious decision trees, which effectively store a set of abstract cases in memory. We hypothesize that this approach will efficiently identify relevant features even when they interact, as in parity concepts. We report experimental results on artificial domains that support this hypothesis, and experiments with natural domains that show improvement in some cases but not others. In closing, we discuss the implications of our experiments, consider additional work on irrelevant features, and outline some directions for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #601567. 	[Title] Geometric Comparison of Classifications and Rule Sets* [Abstract] We present a technique for evaluating classifications by geometric comparison of rule sets. Rules are represented as objects in an n-dimensional hyperspace. The similarity of classes is computed from the overlap of the geometric class descriptions. The system produces a correlation matrix that indicates the degree of similarity between each pair of classes. The technique can be applied to classifications generated by different algorithms, with different numbers of classes and different attribute sets. Experimental results from a case study in a medical domain are included. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #211432. 	[Title] In Defense of C4.5: Notes on Learning One-Level Decision Trees [Abstract] We discuss the implications of Holte's recently-published article, which demonstrated that on the most commonly used data very simple classification rules are almost as accurate as decision trees produced by Quinlan's C4.5. We consider, in particular, what is the significance of Holte's results for the future of top-down induction of decision trees. To an extent, Holte questioned the sense of further research on multilevel decision tree learning. We go in detail through all the parts of Holte's study. We try to put the results into perspective. We argue that the (in absolute terms) small difference in accuracy between 1R and C4.5 that was witnessed by Holte is still significant. We claim that C4.5 possesses additional accuracy-related advantages over 1R. In addition we discuss the representativeness of the databases used by Holte. We compare empirically the optimal accuracies of multilevel and one-level decision trees and observe some significant differences. We point out several deficien cies of limited-complexity classifiers. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #55403. 	[Title] Learning Problem-Oriented Decision Structures from Decision Rules: The AQDT-2 System [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1111788. 	[Title] Multivariate Decision Trees [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 92-82 December 1992 Abstract Multivariate decision trees overcome a representational limitation of univariate decision trees: univariate decision trees are restricted to splits of the instance space that are orthogonal to the feature's axis. This paper discusses the following issues for constructing multivariate decision trees: representing a multivariate test, including symbolic and numeric features, learning the coefficients of a multivariate test, selecting the features to include in a test, and pruning of multivariate decision trees. We present some new and review some well-known methods for forming multivariate decision trees. The methods are compared across a variety of learning tasks to assess each method's ability to find concise, accurate decision trees. The results demonstrate that some multivariate methods are more effective than others. In addition, the experiments confirm that allowing multivariate tests improves the accuracy of the resulting decision tree over univariate trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #133615. 	[Title] The Estimation of Probabilities in Attribute Selection Measures for Decision Tree Induction [Abstract] In this paper we analyze two well-known measures for attribute selection in decision tree induction, informativity and gini index. In particular, we are interested in the influence of different methods for estimating probabilities on these two measures. The results of experiments show that different measures, which are obtained by different probability estimation methods, determine the preferential order of attributes in a given node. Therefore, they determine the structure of a constructed decision tree. This feature can be very beneficial, especially in real-world applications where several different trees are often required. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #263279. 	[Title] Data Analyses Using Simulated Breeding and Inductive Learning Methods [Abstract] Marketing decision making tasks require the acquisition of efficient decision rules from noisy questionnaire data. Unlike popular learning-from-example methods, in such tasks, we must interpret the characteristics of the data without clear features of the data nor pre-determined evaluation criteria. The problem is how domain experts get simple, easy-to-understand, and accurate knowledge from noisy data. This paper describes a novel method to acquire efficient decision rules from questionnaire data using both simulated breeding and inductive learning techniques. The basic ideas of the method are that simulated breeding is used to get the effective features from the questionnaire data and that inductive learning is used to acquire simple decision rules from the data. The simulated breeding is one of the Genetic Algorithm based techniques to subjectively or interactively evaluate the qualities of offspring generated by genetic operations. The proposed method has been qualitatively and quantitatively validated by a case study on consumer product questionnaire data: the acquired rules are simpler than the results from the direct application of inductive learning; a domain expert admits that they are easy to understand; and they are at the same level on the accuracy compared with the other methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6639. 	[Title] Stochastic search in inductive concept learning [Abstract] Concept learning can be viewed as search of the space of concept descriptions. The hypothesis language determines the search space. In standard inductive learning algorithms, the structure of the search space is determined by generalization/specialization operators. Algorithms perform locally optimal search by using a hill-climbing and/or a beam-search strategy. To overcome this limitation, concept learning can be viewed as stochastic search of the space of concept descriptions. The proposed stochastic search method is based on simulated annealing which is known as a successful means for solving combinatorial optimization problems. The stochastic search method, implemented in a rule learning system ATRIS, is based on a compact and efficient representation of the problem and the appropriate operators for structuring the search space. Furthermore, by heuristic pruning of the search space, the method enables also handling of imperfect data. The paper introduces the stochastic search method, describes the ATRIS learning algorithm and gives results of the experiments. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #65653. 	[Title] Pessimistic decision tree pruning based on tree size [Abstract] In this work we develop a new criteria to perform pessimistic decision tree pruning. Our method is theoretically sound and is based on theoretical concepts such as uniform convergence and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. We show that our criteria is very well motivated, from the theory side, and performs very well in practice. The accuracy of the new criteria is comparable to that of the current method used in C4.5. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1108728. 	[Title] Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Intelligent Adaptive Systems (IAS-95) Constructive Induction-based Learning Agents: [Abstract] This paper introduces a new type of intelligent agent called a constructive induction-based learning agent (CILA). This agent differs from other adaptive agents because it has the ability to not only learn how to assist a user in some task, but also to incrementally adapt its knowledge representation space to better fit the given learning task. The agents ability to autonomously make problem-oriented modifications to the originally given representation space is due to its constructive induction (CI) learning method. Selective induction (SI) learning methods, and agents based on these methods, rely on a good representation space. A good representation space has no misclassification noise, inter-correlated attributes or irrelevant attributes. Our proposed CILA has methods for overcoming all of these problems. In agent domains with poor representations, the CI-based learning agent will learn more accurate rules and be more useful than an SI-based learning agent. This paper gives an architecture for a CI-based learning agent and gives an empirical comparison of a CI and SI for a set of six abstract domains involving DNF-type (disjunctive normal form) descriptions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153148. 	[Title] Learning Classification Trees [Abstract] Algorithms for learning classification trees have had successes in artificial intelligence and statistics over many years. This paper outlines how a tree learning algorithm can be derived using Bayesian statistics. This introduces Bayesian techniques for splitting, smoothing, and tree averaging. The splitting rule is similar to Quinlan's information gain, while smoothing and averaging replace pruning. Comparative experiments with reimplementations of a minimum encoding approach, Quinlan's C4 (Quinlan et al., 1987) and Breiman et al.'s CART (Breiman et al., 1984) show the full Bayesian algorithm can produce Publication: This paper is a final draft submitted for publication to the Statistics and Computing journal; a version with some minor changes appeared in Volume 2, 1992, pages 63-73. more accurate predictions than versions of these other approaches, though pay a computational price. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #97377 has the title `Induction of One-Level Decision Trees  
` and the abstract `In recent years, researchers have made considerable progress on the worst-case analysis of inductive learning tasks, but for theoretical results to have impact on practice, they must deal with the average case. In this paper we present an average-case analysis of a simple algorithm that induces one-level decision trees for concepts defined by a single relevant attribute. Given knowledge about the number of training instances, the number of irrelevant attributes, the amount of class and attribute noise, and the class and attribute distributions, we derive the expected classification accuracy over the entire instance space. We then examine the predictions of this analysis for different settings of these domain parameters, comparing them to exper imental results to check our reasoning. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #97377 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #97377 has the title `Induction of One-Level Decision Trees  
` and the abstract `In recent years, researchers have made considerable progress on the worst-case analysis of inductive learning tasks, but for theoretical results to have impact on practice, they must deal with the average case. In this paper we present an average-case analysis of a simple algorithm that induces one-level decision trees for concepts defined by a single relevant attribute. Given knowledge about the number of training instances, the number of irrelevant attributes, the amount of class and attribute noise, and the class and attribute distributions, we derive the expected classification accuracy over the entire instance space. We then examine the predictions of this analysis for different settings of these domain parameters, comparing them to exper imental results to check our reasoning. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #97377 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