Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8696. 	[Title] The Complexity of Theory Revision [Abstract] A knowledge-based system uses its database (a.k.a. its "theory") to produce answers to the queries it receives. Unfortunately, these answers may be incorrect if the underlying theory is faulty. Standard "theory revision" systems use a given set of "labeled queries" (each a query paired with its correct answer) to transform the given theory, by adding and/or deleting either rules and/or antecedents, into a related theory that is as accurate as possible. After formally defining the theory revision task and bounding its sample complexity, this paper addresses the task's computational complexity. It first proves that, unless P = N P , no polynomial time algorithm can identify the optimal theory, even given the exact distribution of queries, except in the most trivial of situations. It also shows that, except in such trivial situations, no polynomial-time algorithm can produce a theory whose inaccuracy is even close (i.e., within a particular polynomial factor) to optimal. These results justify the standard practice of hill-climbing to a locally-optimal theory, based on a given set of labeled sam ples. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #104840. 	[Title] An Optimized Theory Revision Module [Abstract] Theory revision systems typically use a set of theory-to-theory transformations f k g to hill-climb from a given initial theory to a new theory whose empirical accuracy, over a given set of labeled training instances fc j g, is a local maximum. At the heart of each such process is an "evaluator", which compares the accuracy of the current theory KB with that of each of its "neighbors" f k (KB)g, with the goal of determining which neighbor has the highest accuracy. The obvious "wrapper" evaluator simply evaluates each individual neighbor theory KB k = k (KB) on each instance c j . As it can be very expensive to evaluate a single theory on a single instance, and there can be a great many training instances and a huge number of neighbors, this approach can be prohibitively slow. We present an alternative system which employs a smarter evaluator that quickly computes the accuracy of a transformed theory k (KB) by "looking inside" KB and reasoning about the effects of the k transformation. We compare the performance of with the naive wrapper system on real-world theories obtained from a fielded expert system, and find that runs over 35 times faster than , while attaining the same accuracy. This paper also discusses 's source of power. Keywords: theory revision, efficient algorithm, hill-climbing system Multiple Submissions: We have submited a related version of this paper to AAAI96. fl We gratefully acknowledge the many helpful comments on this report from George Drastal, Chandra Mouleeswaran and Geoff Towell. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8703. 	[Title] Theory Refinement Combining Analytical and Empirical Methods [Abstract] This article describes a comprehensive approach to automatic theory revision. Given an imperfect theory, the approach combines explanation attempts for incorrectly classified examples in order to identify the failing portions of the theory. For each theory fault, correlated subsets of the examples are used to inductively generate a correction. Because the corrections are focused, they tend to preserve the structure of the original theory. Because the system starts with an approximate domain theory, in general fewer training examples are required to attain a given level of performance (classification accuracy) compared to a purely empirical system. The approach applies to classification systems employing a propositional Horn-clause theory. The system has been tested in a variety of application domains, and results are presented for problems in the domains of molecular biology and plant disease diagnosis. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1102751. 	[Title] The Challenge of Revising an Impure Theory [Abstract] A pure rule-based program will return a set of answers to each query; and will return the same answer set even if its rules are re-ordered. However, an impure program, which includes the Prolog cut "!" and not() operators, can return different answers if the rules are re-ordered. There are also many reasoning systems that return only the first answer found for each query; these first answers, too, depend on the rule order, even in pure rule-based systems. A theory revision algorithm, seeking a revised rule-base whose expected accuracy, over the distribution of queries, is optimal, should therefore consider modifying the order of the rules. This paper first shows that a polynomial number of training "labeled queries" (each a query coupled with its correct answer) provides the distribution information necessary to identify the optimal ordering. It then proves, however, that the task of determining which ordering is optimal, once given this information, is intractable even in trivial situations; e.g., even if each query is an atomic literal, we are seeking only a "perfect" theory, and the rule base is propositional. We also prove that this task is not even approximable: Unless P = N P , no polynomial time algorithm can produce an ordering of an n-rule theory whose accuracy is within n fl of optimal, for some fl &gt; 0. We also prove similar hardness, and non-approximatability, results for the related tasks of determining, in these impure contexts, (1) the optimal ordering of the antecedents; (2) the optimal set of rules to add or (3) to delete; and (4) the optimal priority values for a set of defaults. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8687. 	[Title] The Difficulties of Learning Logic Programs with Cut [Abstract] As real logic programmers normally use cut (!), an effective learning procedure for logic programs should be able to deal with it. Because the cut predicate has only a procedural meaning, clauses containing cut cannot be learned using an extensional evaluation method, as is done in most learning systems. On the other hand, searching a space of possible programs (instead of a space of independent clauses) is unfeasible. An alternative solution is to generate first a candidate base program which covers the positive examples, and then make it consistent by inserting cut where appropriate. The problem of learning programs with cut has not been investigated before and this seems to be a natural and reasonable approach. We generalize this scheme and investigate the difficulties that arise. Some of the major shortcomings are actually caused, in general, by the need for intensional evaluation. As a conclusion, the analysis of this paper suggests, on precise and technical grounds, that learning cut is difficult, and current induction techniques should probably be restricted to purely declarative logic languages. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8699. 	[Title] Theory Revision in Fault Hierarchies [Abstract] The fault hierarchy representation is widely used in expert systems for the diagnosis of complex mechanical devices. On the assumption that an appropriate bias for a knowledge representation language is also an appropriate bias for learning in this domain, we have developed a theory revision method that operates directly on a fault hierarchy. This task presents several challenges: A typical training instance is missing most feature values, and the pattern of missing features is significant, rather than merely an effect of noise. Moreover, the accuracy of a candidate theory is measured by considering both the sequence of tests required to arrive at a diagnosis and its agreement with the diagnostic endpoints provided by an expert. This paper first describes the algorithm for theory revision of fault hierarchies that was designed to address these challenges, then discusses its application in knowledge base maintenance and reports on experiments that use to revise a fielded diagnostic system. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3231. 	[Title] Irrelevant Features and the Subset Selection Problem [Abstract] We address the problem of finding a subset of features that allows a supervised induction algorithm to induce small high-accuracy concepts. We examine notions of relevance and irrelevance, and show that the definitions used in the machine learning literature do not adequately partition the features into useful categories of relevance. We present definitions for irrelevance and for two degrees of relevance. These definitions improve our understanding of the behavior of previous subset selection algorithms, and help define the subset of features that should be sought. The features selected should depend not only on the features and the target concept, but also on the induction algorithm. We describe a method for feature subset selection using cross-validation that is applicable to any induction algorithm, and discuss experiments conducted with ID3 and C4.5 on artificial and real datasets. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #8696 has the title `The Complexity of Theory Revision  
` and the abstract `A knowledge-based system uses its database (a.k.a. its "theory") to produce answers to the queries it receives. Unfortunately, these answers may be incorrect if the underlying theory is faulty. Standard "theory revision" systems use a given set of "labeled queries" (each a query paired with its correct answer) to transform the given theory, by adding and/or deleting either rules and/or antecedents, into a related theory that is as accurate as possible. After formally defining the theory revision task and bounding its sample complexity, this paper addresses the task's computational complexity. It first proves that, unless P = N P , no polynomial time algorithm can identify the optimal theory, even given the exact distribution of queries, except in the most trivial of situations. It also shows that, except in such trivial situations, no polynomial-time algorithm can produce a theory whose inaccuracy is even close (i.e., within a particular polynomial factor) to optimal. These results justify the standard practice of hill-climbing to a locally-optimal theory, based on a given set of labeled sam ples.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #8696 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #8696 has the title `The Complexity of Theory Revision  
` and the abstract `A knowledge-based system uses its database (a.k.a. its "theory") to produce answers to the queries it receives. Unfortunately, these answers may be incorrect if the underlying theory is faulty. Standard "theory revision" systems use a given set of "labeled queries" (each a query paired with its correct answer) to transform the given theory, by adding and/or deleting either rules and/or antecedents, into a related theory that is as accurate as possible. After formally defining the theory revision task and bounding its sample complexity, this paper addresses the task's computational complexity. It first proves that, unless P = N P , no polynomial time algorithm can identify the optimal theory, even given the exact distribution of queries, except in the most trivial of situations. It also shows that, except in such trivial situations, no polynomial-time algorithm can produce a theory whose inaccuracy is even close (i.e., within a particular polynomial factor) to optimal. These results justify the standard practice of hill-climbing to a locally-optimal theory, based on a given set of labeled sam ples.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #8696 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