Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11335. 	[Title] Concept Learning and the Problem of Small [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #2440. 	[Title] Quinlan, 1990 J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, First-order theory revision. In [Abstract]  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 #154134. 	[Title] Simple Selection of Utile Control Rules in Speedup Learning [Abstract] Many recent approaches to avoiding the utility problem in speedup learning rely on sophisticated utility measures and significant numbers of training data to accurately estimate the utility of control knowledge. Empirical results presented here and elsewhere indicate that a simple selection strategy of retaining all control rules derived from a training problem explanation quickly defines an efficient set of control knowledge from few training problems. This simple selection strategy provides a low-cost alternative to example-intensive approaches for improving the speed of a problem solver. 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 #6318. 	[Title] Rule Induction and Instance-Based Learning: A Unified Approach [Abstract] This paper presents a new approach to inductive learning that combines aspects of instance-based learning and rule induction in a single simple algorithm. The RISE system searches for rules in a specific-to-general fashion, starting with one rule per training example, and avoids some of the difficulties of separate-and-conquer approaches by evaluating each proposed induction step globally, i.e., through an efficient procedure that is equivalent to checking the accuracy of the rule set as a whole on every training example. Classification is performed using a best-match strategy, and reduces to nearest-neighbor if all generalizations of instances were rejected. An extensive empirical study shows that RISE consistently achieves higher accuracies than state-of-the-art representatives of its "parent" paradigms (PEBLS and CN2), and also outperforms a decision-tree learner (C4.5) in 13 out of 15 test domains (in 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 #217139. 	[Title] Unifying Empirical and Explanation-Based Learning by Modeling the Utility of Learned Knowledge [Abstract] The overfit problem in empirical learning and the utility problem in explanation-based learning describe a similar phenomenon: the degradation of performance due to an increase in the amount of learned knowledge. Plotting the performance of learned knowledge during the course of learning (the performance response) reveals a common trend for several learning methods. Modeling this trend allows a control system to constrain the amount of learned knowledge to achieve peak performance and avoid the general utility problem. Experiments evaluate a particular empirical model of the trend, and analysis of the learners derive several formal models. If, as evidence suggests, the general utility problem can be modeled using the same mechanisms for different learning paradigms, then the model serves to unify the paradigms into one framework capable of comparing and selecting different learning methods based on predicted achievable performance. 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 #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 #11325. 	[Title] On Learning Multiple Descriptions of a Concept [Abstract] In sparse data environments, greater classification accuracy can be achieved by learning several concept descriptions of the data and combining their classifications. Stochastic search is a general tool which can be used to generate many good concept descriptions (rule sets) for each class in the data. Bayesian probability theory offers an optimal strategy for combining classifications of the individual concept descriptions, and here we use an approximation of that theory. This strategy is most useful when additional data is difficult to obtain and every increase in classification accuracy is important. The primary result of this paper is that multiple concept descriptions are particularly helpful in "flat" hypothesis spaces in which there are many equally good ways to grow a rule, each having similar gain. Another result is experimental evidence that learning multiple rule sets yields more accurate classifications than learning multiple rules for some domains. To demonstrate these behaviors, we learn multiple concept descriptions by adapting HYDRA, a noise-tolerant relational learning algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #5959. 	[Title] Chunking in soar: The anatomy of a general learn ing mechanism. Machine Learning, 1(1). Learning [Abstract] gers University. Also appears as tech. report ML- TR-7. Minton, S. (1988). Quantitative results concerning the utility of explanation-based learning. In Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelli gence, pages 564-569. St. Paul, MN. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106388. 	[Title] Predicting Ordinal Classes in ILP [Abstract] This paper is devoted to the problem of learning to predict ordinal (i.e., ordered discrete) classes in an ILP setting. We start with a relational regression algorithm named SRT (Structural Regression Trees) and study various ways of transforming it into a first-order learner for ordinal classification tasks. Combinations of these algorithm variants with several data preprocessing methods are compared on two ILP benchmark data sets to verify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the strategies and to study the trade-off between optimal categorical classification accuracy (hit rate) and minimum distance-based error. Preliminary results indicate that this is a promising avenue towards algorithms that combine aspects of classification and regression in relational learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #143323. 	[Title] AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH TO SOLVING THE GENERAL UTILITY PROBLEM IN SPEEDUP LEARNING [Abstract] The utility problem in speedup learning describes a common behavior of machine learning methods: the eventual degradation of performance due to increasing amounts of learned knowledge. The shape of the learning curve (cost of using a learning method vs. number of training examples) over several domains suggests a parameterized model relating performance to the amount of learned knowledge and a mechanism to limit the amount of learned knowledge for optimal performance. Many recent approaches to avoiding the utility problem in speedup learning rely on sophisticated utility measures and significant numbers of training data to accurately estimate the utility of control knowledge. Empirical results presented here and elsewhere indicate that a simple selection strategy of retaining all control rules derived from a training problem explanation quickly defines an efficient set of control knowledge from few training problems. This simple selection strategy provides a low-cost alternative to example-intensive approaches for improving the speed of a problem solver. Experimentation illustrates the existence of a minimum (representing least cost) in the learning curve which is reached after a few training examples. Stress is placed on controlling the amount of learned knowledge as opposed to which knowledge. An attempt is also made to relate domain characteristics to the shape of the learning curve. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20833. 	[Title] Using Partitioning to Speed Up Specific-to-General Rule Induction [Abstract] RISE (Domingos 1995; in press) is a rule induction algorithm that proceeds by gradually generalizing rules, starting with one rule per example. This has several advantages compared to the more common strategy of gradually specializing initially null rules, and has been shown to lead to significant accuracy gains over algorithms like C4.5RULES and CN2 in a large number of application domains. However, RISE's running time (like that of other rule induction algorithms) is quadratic in the number of examples, making it unsuitable for processing very large databases. This paper studies the use of partitioning to speed up RISE, and compares it with the well-known method of windowing. The use of partitioning in a specific-to-general induction setting creates synergies that would not be possible with a general-to-specific system. Partitioning often reduces running time and improves accuracy at the same time. In noisy conditions, the performance of windowing deteriorates rapidly, while that of partitioning remains stable. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1127657. 	[Title] Pessimistic and Optimistic Induction [Abstract] Learning methods vary in the optimism or pessimism with which they regard the informativeness of learned knowledge. Pessimism is implicit in hypothesis testing, where we wish to draw cautious conclusions from experimental evidence. However, this paper demonstrates that optimism in the utility of derived rules may be the preferred bias for learning systems themselves. We examine the continuum between naive pessimism and naive optimism in the context of a decision tree learner that prunes rules based on stringent (i.e., pessimistic) or weak (i.e., optimistic) tests of their significance. Our experimental results indicate that in most cases optimism is preferred, but particularly in cases of sparse training data and high noise. This work generalizes earlier findings by Fisher and Schlimmer (1988) and Schaffer (1992), and we discuss its relevance to unsupervised learning, small disjuncts, and other issues. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #582511. 	[Title] The Problem with Noise and Small Disjuncts [Abstract] Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. The disjuncts in the concept definition which cover only a few training examples are referred to as small disjuncts. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts, but may be necessary to achieve a high level of predictive accuracy [Holte, Acker, and Porter, 1989]. This paper extends previous work done on the problem of small disjuncts by taking noise into account. It investigates the assertion that it is hard to learn from noisy data because it is difficult to distinguish between noise and true exceptions. In the process of evaluating this assertion, insights are gained into the mechanisms by which noise affects learning. Two domains are investigated. The experimental results in this paper suggest that for both Shapiro's chess endgame domain [Shapiro, 1987] and for the Wisconsin breast cancer domain [Wolberg, 1990], the assertion is true, at least for low levels (5-10%) of class noise. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153264. 	[Title]  [Abstract] Design and Evaluation of the RISE 1.0 Learning System Pedro Domingos pedrod@ics.uci.edu Technical Report 94-34 August 30, 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #545647. 	[Title] Learning with Rare Cases and Small Disjuncts [Abstract] Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. Small disjuncts are those disjuncts which cover only a few training examples. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts. This paper investigates the reasons why small disjuncts are more error prone than large disjuncts. It shows that when there are rare cases within a domain, then factors such as attribute noise, missing attributes, class noise and training set size can result in small disjuncts being more error prone than large disjuncts and in rare cases being more error prone than common cases. This paper also assesses the impact that these error prone small disjuncts and rare cases have on inductive learning (i.e., on error rate). One key conclusion is that when low levels of attribute noise are applied only to the training set (the ability to learn the correct concept is being evaluated), rare cases within a domain are primarily responsible for making learning difficult. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #35070. 	[Title] The RISE System: Conquering Without Separating [Abstract] Current rule induction systems (e.g. CN2) typically rely on a "separate and conquer" strategy, learning each rule only from still-uncovered examples. This results in a dwindling number of examples being available for learning successive rules, adversely affecting the system's accuracy. An alternative is to learn all rules simultaneously, using the entire training set for each. This approach is implemented in the Rise 1.0 system. Empirical comparison of Rise with CN2 suggests that "conquering without separating" performs similarly to its counterpart in simple domains, but achieves increasingly substantial gains in accuracy as the domain difficulty grows. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #11335 has the title `Concept Learning and the Problem of Small  
` and the abstract ` 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #11335 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #11335 has the title `Concept Learning and the Problem of Small  
` and the abstract ` 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #11335 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: Rule_Learning