Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #46887. 	[Title] Learning Polynomial Functions by Feature Construction [Abstract] We present a method for learning higher-order polynomial functions from examples using linear regression and feature construction. Regression is used on a set of training instances to produce a weight vector for a linear function over the feature set. If this hypothesis is imperfect, a new feature is constructed by forming the product of the two features that most effectively predict the squared error of the current hypothesis. The algorithm is then repeated. In an extension to this method, the specific pair of features to combine is selected by measuring their joint ability to predict the hypothesis' error. 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 #235776. 	[Title] Recursive Automatic Algorithm Selection for Inductive Learning [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 94-61 August 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105764. 	[Title] Least-Squares Temporal Difference Learning [Abstract] Submitted to NIPS-98 TD() is a popular family of algorithms for approximate policy evaluation in large MDPs. TD() works by incrementally updating the value function after each observed transition. It has two major drawbacks: it makes inefficient use of data, and it requires the user to manually tune a stepsize schedule for good performance. For the case of linear value function approximations and = 0, the Least-Squares TD (LSTD) algorithm of Bradtke and Barto [5] eliminates all stepsize parameters and improves data efficiency. This paper extends Bradtke and Barto's work in three significant ways. First, it presents a simpler derivation of the LSTD algorithm. Second, it generalizes from = 0 to arbitrary values of ; at the extreme of = 1, the resulting algorithm is shown to be a practical formulation of supervised linear regression. Third, it presents a novel, intuitive interpretation of LSTD as a model-based reinforcement learning technique. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20584. 	[Title] Multivariate versus Univariate Decision Trees [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 92-8 January 1992 Abstract In this paper we present a new multivariate decision tree algorithm LMDT, which combines linear machines with decision trees. LMDT constructs each test in a decision tree by training a linear machine and then eliminating irrelevant and noisy variables in a controlled manner. To examine LMDT's ability to find good generalizations we present results for a variety of domains. We compare LMDT empirically to a univariate decision tree algorithm and observe that when multivariate tests are the appropriate bias for a given data set, LMDT finds small accurate trees. 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 #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 #120013. 	[Title] From Isolation to Cooperation: An Alternative View of a System of Experts [Abstract] We introduce a constructive, incremental learning system for regression problems that models data by means of locally linear experts. In contrast to other approaches, the experts are trained independently and do not compete for data during learning. Only when a prediction for a query is required do the experts cooperate by blen ding their individual predictions. Each expert is trained by minimizing a penalized local cross validation error using second order methods. In this way, an expert is able to adjust the size and shape of the receptive field in which its predictions are valid, and also to adjust its bias on the importance of individual input dimensions. The size and shape adjustment corresponds to finding a local distance metric, while the bias adjustment accomplishes local dimensio n-ality reduction. We derive asymptotic results for our method. In a variety of simulations we demonstrate the properties of the algorithm with respect to interference, learning speed, prediction accuracy, feature detection, and task or i-ented incremental learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6767. 	[Title] Generalizing from Case Studies: A Case Study [Abstract] Most empirical evaluations of machine learning algorithms are case studies evaluations of multiple algorithms on multiple databases. Authors of case studies implicitly or explicitly hypothesize that the pattern of their results, which often suggests that one algorithm performs significantly better than others, is not limited to the small number of databases investigated, but instead holds for some general class of learning problems. However, these hypotheses are rarely supported with additional evidence, which leaves them suspect. This paper describes an empirical method for generalizing results from case studies and an example application. This method yields rules describing when some algorithms significantly outperform others on some dependent measures. Advantages for generalizing from case studies and limitations of this particular approach are also described. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1114864. 	[Title] Machine Learning: An Annotated Bibliography for the 1995 AI Statistics Tutorial on Machine Learning (Version 1) [Abstract] This is a brief annotated bibliography that I wanted to make available to the attendees of my Machine Learning tutorial at the 1995 AI & Statistics Workshop. These slides are available in my WWW pages under slides. Please contact me if you have any questions. Please also note the date (listed above) on which this was most recently updated. While I plan to make occasional updates to this file, it is bound to be outdated quickly. Also, I apologize for the lack of figures, but my time on this project is limited and the slides should compensate. Finally, this bibliography is, by definition, This book is now out of date. Both Pat Langley and Tom Mitchell are in the process of writing textbooks on this subject, but we're still waiting for them. Until then, I suggest looking at both the Readings and the recent ML conference proceedings (both International and European). There are also a few introductory papers on this subject, though I haven't gotten around to putting them in here yet. However, Pat Langley and Dennis Kibler (1988) have written a good paper on ML as an empirical science, and Pat has written several editorials of use to the ML author (Langley 1986; 1987; 1990). incomplete, and I've left out many other references that may be of some use. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153106. 	[Title] Classification of EEG Signals Using a Sparse Polynomial Builder [Abstract] Edward S. Orosz and Charles W. Anderson Technical Report CS-94-111 April 27, 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #69397. 	[Title] Dynamical Selection of Learning Algorithms [Abstract] Determining the conditions for which a given learning algorithm is appropriate is an open problem in machine learning. Methods for selecting a learning algorithm for a given domain have met with limited success. This paper proposes a new approach to predicting a given example's class by locating it in the "example space" and then choosing the best learner(s) in that region of the example space to make predictions. The regions of the example space are defined by the prediction patterns of the learners being used. The learner(s) chosen for prediction are selected according to their past performance in that region. This dynamic approach to learning algorithm selection is compared to other methods for selecting from multiple learning algorithms. The approach is then extended to weight rather than select the algorithms according to their past performance in a given region. Both approaches are further evaluated on a set of Determining the conditions for which a given learning algorithm is appropriate is an open problem in machine learning. Methods for selecting a learning algorithm for a given domain (e.g. [Aha92, Breiman84]) or for a portion of the domain ([Brodley93, Brodley94]) have met with limited success. This paper proposes a new approach that dynamically selects a learning algorithm for each example by locating it in the "example space" and then choosing the best learner(s) for prediction in that part of the example space. The regions of the example space are formed by the observed prediction patterns of the learners being used. The learner(s) chosen for prediction are selected according to their past performance in that region which is defined by the "cross-validation history." This paper introduces DS, a method for the dynamic selection of a learning algorithm(s). We call it "dynamic" because the learning algorithm(s) used to classify a novel example depends on that example. Preliminary experimentation motivated DW, an extension to DS that dynamically weights the learners predictions according to their regional accuracy. Further experimentation compares DS and DW to a collection of other meta-learning strategies such as cross-validation ([Breiman84]) and various forms of stacking ([Wolpert92]). In this phase of the experiementation, the meta-learners have six constituent learners which are heterogeneous in their search and representation methods (e.g. a rule learner, CN2 [Clark89]; a decision tree learner, C4.5 [Quinlan93]; an oblique decision tree learner, OC1 [Murthy93]; an instance-based learner, PEBLS [Cost93]; a k-nearest neighbor learner, ten domains and compared to several other meta-learning strategies. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #45212. 	[Title] Gain Adaptation Beats Least Squares? [Abstract] I present computational results suggesting that gain-adaptation algorithms based in part on connectionist learning methods may improve over least squares and other classical parameter-estimation methods for stochastic time-varying linear systems. The new algorithms are evaluated with respect to classical methods along three dimensions: asymptotic error, computational complexity, and required prior knowledge about the system. The new algorithms are all of the same order of complexity as LMS methods, O(n), where n is the dimensionality of the system, whereas least-squares methods and the Kalman filter are O(n 2 ). The new methods also improve over the Kalman filter in that they do not require a complete statistical model of how the system varies over time. In a simple computational experiment, the new methods are shown to produce asymptotic error levels near that of the optimal Kalman filter and significantly below those of least-squares and LMS methods. The new methods may perform better even than the Kalman filter if there is any error in the filter's model of how the system varies over time. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1115677. 	[Title] Comparison of Regression Methods, Symbolic Induction Methods and Neural Networks in Morbidity Diagnosis and Mortality [Abstract] Classifier induction algorithms differ on what inductive hypotheses they can represent, and on how they search their space of hypotheses. No classifier is better than another for all problems: they have selective superiority. This paper empirically compares six classifier induction algorithms on the diagnosis of equine colic and the prediction of its mortality. The classification is based on simultaneously analyzing sixteen features measured from a patient. The relative merits of the algorithms (linear regression, decision trees, nearest neighbor classifiers, the Model Class Selection system, logistic regression (with and without feature selection), and neural nets) are qualitatively discussed, and the generalization accuracies quantitatively analyzed. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #25791. 	[Title] Adapting Bias by Gradient Descent: An Incremental Version of Delta-Bar-Delta [Abstract] Appropriate bias is widely viewed as the key to efficient learning and generalization. I present a new algorithm, the Incremental Delta-Bar-Delta (IDBD) algorithm, for the learning of appropriate biases based on previous learning experience. The IDBD algorithm is developed for the case of a simple, linear learning system|the LMS or delta rule with a separate learning-rate parameter for each input. The IDBD algorithm adjusts the learning-rate parameters, which are an important form of bias for this system. Because bias in this approach is adapted based on previous learning experience, the appropriate testbeds are drifting or non-stationary learning tasks. For particular tasks of this type, I show that the IDBD algorithm performs better than ordinary LMS and in fact finds the optimal learning rates. The IDBD algorithm extends and improves over prior work by Jacobs and by me in that it is fully incremental and has only a single free parameter. This paper also extends previous work by presenting a derivation of the IDBD algorithm as gradient descent in the space of learning-rate parameters. Finally, I offer a novel interpretation of the IDBD algorithm as an incremental form of hold-one-out cross validation. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #46887 has the title `Learning Polynomial Functions by Feature Construction  
` and the abstract `We present a method for learning higher-order polynomial functions from examples using linear regression and feature construction. Regression is used on a set of training instances to produce a weight vector for a linear function over the feature set. If this hypothesis is imperfect, a new feature is constructed by forming the product of the two features that most effectively predict the squared error of the current hypothesis. The algorithm is then repeated. In an extension to this method, the specific pair of features to combine is selected by measuring their joint ability to predict the hypothesis' error.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #46887 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #46887 has the title `Learning Polynomial Functions by Feature Construction  
` and the abstract `We present a method for learning higher-order polynomial functions from examples using linear regression and feature construction. Regression is used on a set of training instances to produce a weight vector for a linear function over the feature set. If this hypothesis is imperfect, a new feature is constructed by forming the product of the two features that most effectively predict the squared error of the current hypothesis. The algorithm is then repeated. In an extension to this method, the specific pair of features to combine is selected by measuring their joint ability to predict the hypothesis' error.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #46887 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: Neural_Networks