Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #45061. 	[Title] Bias and the Quantification of Stability Bias and the Quantification of Stability Bias and the [Abstract] Research on bias in machine learning algorithms has generally been concerned with the impact of bias on predictive accuracy. We believe that there are other factors that should also play a role in the evaluation of bias. One such factor is the stability of the algorithm; in other words, the repeatability of the results. If we obtain two sets of data from the same phenomenon, with the same underlying probability distribution, then we would like our learning algorithm to induce approximately the same concepts from both sets of data. This paper introduces a method for quantifying stability, based on a measure of the agreement between concepts. We also discuss the relationships among stability, predictive accuracy, and bias. 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 #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 #44017. 	[Title] Learning Decision Lists Using Homogeneous Rules [Abstract] A decision list is an ordered list of conjunctive rules (?). Inductive algorithms such as AQ and CN2 learn decision lists incrementally, one rule at a time. Such algorithms face the rule overlap problem | the classification accuracy of the decision list depends on the overlap between the learned rules. Thus, even though the rules are learned in isolation, they can only be evaluated in concert. Existing algorithms solve this problem by adopting a greedy, iterative structure. Once a rule is learned, the training examples that match the rule are removed from the training set. We propose a novel solution to the problem: composing decision lists from homogeneous rules, rules whose classification accuracy does not change with their position in the decision list. We prove that the problem of finding a maximally accurate decision list can be reduced to the problem of finding maximally accurate homogeneous rules. We report on the performance of our algorithm on data sets from the UCI repository and on the MONK's problems. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11326. 	[Title] What should be minimized in a decision tree: A re-examination [Abstract] Computer Science Department University of Massachusetts at Amherst CMPSCI Technical Report 95-20 September 6, 1995 Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #45061 has the title `Bias and the Quantification of Stability Bias and the Quantification of Stability Bias and the
` and the abstract `Research on bias in machine learning algorithms has generally been concerned with the impact of bias on predictive accuracy. We believe that there are other factors that should also play a role in the evaluation of bias. One such factor is the stability of the algorithm; in other words, the repeatability of the results. If we obtain two sets of data from the same phenomenon, with the same underlying probability distribution, then we would like our learning algorithm to induce approximately the same concepts from both sets of data. This paper introduces a method for quantifying stability, based on a measure of the agreement between concepts. We also discuss the relationships among stability, predictive accuracy, and bias. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #45061 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #45061 has the title `Bias and the Quantification of Stability Bias and the Quantification of Stability Bias and the
` and the abstract `Research on bias in machine learning algorithms has generally been concerned with the impact of bias on predictive accuracy. We believe that there are other factors that should also play a role in the evaluation of bias. One such factor is the stability of the algorithm; in other words, the repeatability of the results. If we obtain two sets of data from the same phenomenon, with the same underlying probability distribution, then we would like our learning algorithm to induce approximately the same concepts from both sets of data. This paper introduces a method for quantifying stability, based on a measure of the agreement between concepts. We also discuss the relationships among stability, predictive accuracy, and bias. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #45061 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