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 #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 #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 #33412. 	[Title] Learning to Predict Reading Frames in E. coli DNA Sequences [Abstract] Two fundamental problems in analyzing DNA sequences are (1) locating the regions of a DNA sequence that encode proteins, and (2) determining the reading frame for each region. We investigate using artificial neural networks (ANNs) to find coding regions, determine reading frames, and detect frameshift errors in E. coli DNA sequences. We describe our adaptation of the approach used by Uberbacher and Mural to identify coding regions in human DNA, and we compare the performance of ANNs to several conventional methods for predicting reading frames. Our experiments demonstrate that ANNs can outperform these conventional approaches. Please summarise all the given information.

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 #102406. 	[Title] Learning Sparse Perceptrons [Abstract] We introduce a new algorithm designed to learn sparse perceptrons over input representations which include high-order features. Our algorithm, which is based on a hypothesis-boosting method, is able to PAC-learn a relatively natural class of target concepts. Moreover, the algorithm appears to work well in practice: on a set of three problem domains, the algorithm produces classifiers that utilize small numbers of features yet exhibit good generalization performance. Perhaps most importantly, our algorithm generates concept descriptions that are easy for humans to understand. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #120039. 	[Title] EXPLORING A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTANCE BASED LEARNING AND NAIVE BAYESIAN CLASSIFIERS [Abstract] The relative performance of different methods for classifier learning varies across domains. Some recent Instance Based Learning (IBL) methods, such as IB1-MVDM* 10 , use similarity measures based on conditional class probabilities. These probabilities are a key component of Naive Bayes methods. Given this commonality of approach, it is of interest to consider how the differences between the two methods are linked to their relative performance in different domains. Here we interpret Naive Bayes in an IBL like framework, identifying differences between Naive Bayes and IB1-MVDM* in this framework. Experiments on variants of IB1-MVDM* that lie between it and Naive Bayes in the framework are conducted on sixteen domains. The results strongly suggest that the relative performance of Naive Bayes and IB1-MVDM* is linked to the extent to which each class can be satisfactorily represented by a single instance in the IBL framework. However, this is not the only factor that appears significant. 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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #211432 has the title `In Defense of C4.5: Notes on Learning One-Level Decision Trees  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #211432 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #211432 has the title `In Defense of C4.5: Notes on Learning One-Level Decision Trees  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #211432 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