Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131137. 	[Title] Mining and Model Simplicity: A Case Study in Diagnosis [Abstract] Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 1996. The official version of this paper has been published by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (http://www.aaai.org) c fl 1996, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. Abstract We describe the results of performing data mining on a challenging medical diagnosis domain, acute abdominal pain. This domain is well known to be difficult, yielding little more than 60% predictive accuracy for most human and machine diagnosticians. Moreover, many researchers argue that one of the simplest approaches, the naive Bayesian classifier, is optimal. By comparing the performance of the naive Bayesian classifier to its more general cousin, the Bayesian network classifier, and to selective Bayesian classifiers with just 10% of the total attributes, we show that the simplest models perform at least as well as the more complex models. We argue that simple models like the selective naive Bayesian classifier will perform as well as more complicated models for similarly complex domains with relatively small data sets, thereby calling into question the extra expense necessary to induce more complex models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110531. 	[Title] Computational Learning in Humans and Machines [Abstract] In this paper we review research on machine learning and its relation to computational models of human learning. We focus initially on concept induction, examining five main approaches to this problem, then consider the more complex issue of learning sequential behaviors. After this, we compare the rhetoric that sometimes appears in the machine learning and psychological literature with the growing evidence that different theoretical paradigms typically produce similar results. In response, we suggest that concrete computational models, which currently dominate the field, may be less useful than simulations that operate at a more abstract level. We illustrate this point with an abstract simulation that explains a challenging phenomenon in the area of category learning, and we conclude with some general observations about such abstract models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #36620. 	[Title] Towards a Better Understanding of Memory-Based Reasoning Systems [Abstract] We quantify both experimentally and analytically the performance of memory-based reasoning (MBR) algorithms. To start gaining insight into the capabilities of MBR algorithms, we compare an MBR algorithm using a value difference metric to a popular Bayesian classifier. These two approaches are similar in that they both make certain independence assumptions about the data. However, whereas MBR uses specific cases to perform classification, Bayesian methods summarize the data probabilistically. We demonstrate that a particular MBR system called Pebls works comparatively well on a wide range of domains using both real and artificial data. With respect to the artificial data, we consider distributions where the concept classes are separated by functional discriminants, as well as time-series data generated by Markov models of varying complexity. Finally, we show formally that Pebls can learn (in the limit) natural concept classes that the Bayesian classifier cannot learn, and that it will attain perfect accuracy whenever Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3222. 	[Title] Beyond Independence: Conditions for the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier [Abstract] The simple Bayesian classifier (SBC) is commonly thought to assume that attributes are independent given the class, but this is apparently contradicted by the surprisingly good performance it exhibits in many domains that contain clear attribute dependences. No explanation for this has been proposed so far. In this paper we show that the SBC does not in fact assume attribute independence, and can be optimal even when this assumption is violated by a wide margin. The key to this finding lies in the distinction between classification and probability estimation: correct classification can be achieved even when the probability estimates used contain large errors. We show that the previously-assumed region of optimality of the SBC is a second-order infinitesimal fraction of the actual one. This is followed by the derivation of several necessary and several sufficient conditions for the optimality of the SBC. For example, the SBC is optimal for learning arbitrary conjunctions and disjunctions, even though they violate the independence assumption. The paper also reports empirical evidence of the SBC's competitive performance in domains containing substantial degrees of attribute dependence. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #964248. 	[Title] Issues in the Integration of Data Mining and Data Visualization Visualizing the Simple Bayesian Classifier [Abstract] The simple Bayesian classifier (SBC), sometimes called Naive-Bayes, is built based on a conditional independence model of each attribute given the class. The model was previously shown to be surprisingly robust to obvious violations of this independence assumption, yielding accurate classification models even when there are clear conditional dependencies. The SBC can serve as an excellent tool for initial exploratory data analysis when coupled with a visualizer that makes its structure comprehensible. We describe such a visual representation of the SBC model that has been successfully implemented. We describe the requirements we had for such a visualization and the design decisions we made to satisfy them. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #118682. 	[Title] Learning Goal Oriented Bayesian Networks for Telecommunications Risk Management [Abstract] This paper discusses issues related to Bayesian network model learning for unbalanced binary classification tasks. In general, the primary focus of current research on Bayesian network learning systems (e.g., K2 and its variants) is on the creation of the Bayesian network structure that fits the database best. It turns out that when applied with a specific purpose in mind, such as classification, the performance of these network models may be very poor. We demonstrate that Bayesian network models should be created to meet the specific goal or purpose intended for the model. We first present a goal-oriented algorithm for constructing Bayesian networks for predicting uncollectibles in telecommunications risk-management datasets. Second, we argue and demonstrate that current Bayesian network learning methods may fail to perform satisfactorily in real life applications since they do not learn models tailored to a specific goal or purpose. Third, we discuss the performance of goal oriented K2 and its variant. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3233. 	[Title] A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection [Abstract] We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods: cross-validation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical results in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), ten-fold cross-validation may be better than the more expensive leave-one-out cross-validation. We report on a large-scale experiment|over half a million runs of C4.5 and a Naive-Bayes algorithm|to estimate the effects of different parameters on these algorithms on real-world datasets. For cross-validation, we vary the number of folds and whether the folds are stratified or not; for bootstrap, we vary the number of bootstrap samples. Our results indicate that for real-word datasets similar to ours, the best method to use for model selection is ten-fold stratified cross validation, even if computation power allows using more folds. 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 #92589. 	[Title] 28 Learning Bayesian Networks Using Feature Selection [Abstract] This paper introduces a novel enhancement for learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. The new approach selects a subset of features that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase. We examine explicitly the effects of two aspects of the algorithm, feature selection and node ordering. Our approach generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and display predictive accuracy comparable Bayesian networks are being increasingly recognized as an important representation for probabilistic reasoning. For many domains, the need to specify the probability distributions for a Bayesian network is considerable, and learning these probabilities from data using an algorithm like K2 [Cooper92] could alleviate such specification difficulties. We describe an extension to the Bayesian network learning approaches introduced in K2. Our goal is to construct networks that are simpler to evaluate but still have high predictive accuracy relative to networks that model all features. Rather than use all database features (or attributes) for constructing the network, we select a subset of features that maximize the predictive accuracy of the network. Then the learning process uses only the selected features as nodes in learning the Bayesian network. We examine explicitly the effects of two aspects of the algorithm: (a) feature selection, and (b) node ordering. Our experimental results verify that this approach generates networks that are compu-tationally simpler to evaluate and display predictive accuracy comparable to the predictive accuracy of Bayesian networks that model all features. Our results, similar to those observed by other studies of feature selection in learning [Caruana94, John94, Langley94a, Langley94b], demonstrate that feature selection provides comparable predictive accuracy using smaller networks. For example, by selecting as few as 18% of the features for the to that of Bayesian networks which model all attributes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39165. 	[Title] Efficient Learning of Selective Bayesian Network Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper, we present a computation-ally efficient method for inducing selective Bayesian network classifiers. Our approach is to use information-theoretic metrics to efficiently select a subset of attributes from which to learn the classifier. We explore three conditional, information-theoretic met-rics that are extensions of metrics used extensively in decision tree learning, namely Quin-lan's gain and gain ratio metrics and Man-taras's distance metric. We experimentally show that the algorithms based on gain ratio and distance metric learn selective Bayesian networks that have predictive accuracies as good as or better than those learned by existing selective Bayesian network induction approaches (K2-AS), but at a significantly lower computational cost. We prove that the subset-selection phase of these information-based algorithms has polynomial complexity, as compared to the worst-case exponential time complexity of the corresponding phase in K2-AS. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #173884. 	[Title] Revising Bayesian Network Parameters Using Backpropagation [Abstract] The problem of learning Bayesian networks with hidden variables is known to be a hard problem. Even the simpler task of learning just the conditional probabilities on a Bayesian network with hidden variables is hard. In this paper, we present an approach that learns the conditional probabilities on a Bayesian network with hidden variables by transforming it into a multi-layer feedforward neural network (ANN). The conditional probabilities are mapped onto weights in the ANN, which are then learned using standard backpropagation techniques. To avoid the problem of exponentially large ANNs, we focus on Bayesian networks with noisy-or and noisy-and nodes. Experiments on real world classification problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our technique. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39126. 	[Title] Toward Optimal Feature Selection [Abstract] In this paper, we examine a method for feature subset selection based on Information Theory. Initially, a framework for defining the theoretically optimal, but computation-ally intractable, method for feature subset selection is presented. We show that our goal should be to eliminate a feature if it gives us little or no additional information beyond that subsumed by the remaining features. In particular, this will be the case for both irrelevant and redundant features. We then give an efficient algorithm for feature selection which computes an approximation to the optimal feature selection criterion. The conditions under which the approximate algorithm is successful are examined. Empirical results are given on a number of data sets, showing that the algorithm effectively han dles datasets with large numbers of features. 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 #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 #162664. 	[Title] An Algorithm for the Construction of Bayesian Network Structures from Data [Abstract] Previous algorithms for the construction of Bayesian belief network structures from data have been either highly dependent on conditional independence (CI) tests, or have required an ordering on the nodes to be supplied by the user. We present an algorithm that integrates these two approaches - CI tests are used to generate an ordering on the nodes from the database which is then used to recover the underlying Bayesian network structure using a non CI based method. Results of preliminary evaluation of the algorithm on two networks (ALARM and LED) are presented. We also discuss some algo rithm performance issues and open problems. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #167656. 	[Title] BOOSTING AND NAIVE BAYESIAN LEARNING [Abstract] Although so-called naive Bayesian classification makes the unrealistic assumption that the values of the attributes of an example are independent given the class of the example, this learning method is remarkably successful in practice, and no uniformly better learning method is known. Boosting is a general method of combining multiple classifiers due to Yoav Freund and Rob Schapire. This paper shows that boosting applied to naive Bayesian classifiers yields combination classifiers that are representationally equivalent to standard feedforward multilayer perceptrons. (An ancillary result is that naive Bayesian classification is a nonparametric, nonlinear generalization of logistic regression.) As a training algorithm, boosted naive Bayesian learning is quite different from backpropagation, and has definite advantages. Boosting requires only linear time and constant space, and hidden nodes are learned incrementally, starting with the most important. On the real-world datasets on which the method has been tried so far, generalization performance is as good as or better than the best published result using any other learning method. Unlike all other standard learning algorithms, naive Bayesian learning, with and without boosting, can be done in logarithmic time with a linear number of parallel computing units. Accordingly, these learning methods are highly plausible computationally as models of animal learning. Other arguments suggest that they are plausible behaviorally also. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1114222. 	[Title] Lazy Bayesian Trees [Abstract] The naive Bayesian classifier is simple and effective, but its attribute independence assumption is often violated in the real world. A number of approaches have been developed that seek to alleviate this problem. A Bayesian tree learning algorithm builds a decision tree, and generates a local Bayesian classifier at each leaf instead of predicting a single class. However, Bayesian tree learning still suffers from the replication and fragmentation problems of tree learning. While inferred Bayesian trees demonstrate low average prediction error rates, there is reason to believe that error rates will be higher for those leaves with few training examples. This paper proposes a novel lazy Bayesian tree learning algorithm. For each test example, it conceptually builds a most appropriate Bayesian tree. In practice, only one path with a local Bayesian classifier at its leaf is created. Experiments with a wide variety of real-world and artificial domains show that this new algorithm has significantly lower overall prediction error rates than a naive Bayesian classifier, C4.5, and a Bayesian tree learning algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31479. 	[Title] Induction of Selective Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper, we examine previous work on the naive Bayesian classifier and review its limitations, which include a sensitivity to correlated features. We respond to this problem by embedding the naive Bayesian induction scheme within an algorithm that carries out a greedy search through the space of features. We hypothesize that this approach will improve asymptotic accuracy in domains that involve correlated features without reducing the rate of learning in ones that do not. We report experimental results on six natural domains, including comparisons with decision-tree induction, that support these hypotheses. In closing, we discuss other approaches to extending naive Bayesian classifiers and outline some directions for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1103737. 	[Title] On learning hierarchical classifications [Abstract] Many significant real-world classification tasks involve a large number of categories which are arranged in a hierarchical structure; for example, classifying documents into subject categories under the library of congress scheme, or classifying world-wide-web documents into topic hierarchies. We investigate the potential benefits of using a given hierarchy over base classes to learn accurate multi-category classifiers for these domains. First, we consider the possibility of exploiting a class hierarchy as prior knowledge that can help one learn a more accurate classifier. We explore the benefits of learning category-discriminants in a hard top-down fashion and compare this to a soft approach which shares training data among sibling categories. In doing so, we verify that hierarchies have the potential to improve prediction accuracy. But we argue that the reasons for this can be subtle. Sometimes, the improvement is only because using a hierarchy happens to constrain the expressiveness of a hypothesis class in an appropriate manner. However, various controlled experiments show that in other cases the performance advantage associated with using a hierarchy really does seem to be due to the prior knowledge it encodes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31483. 	[Title] A Comparison of Induction Algorithms for Selective and non-Selective Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper we present a novel induction algorithm for Bayesian networks. This selective Bayesian network classifier selects a subset of attributes that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase, thereby learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. We compare the performance of this classifier with selective and non-selective naive Bayesian classifiers. We show that the selective Bayesian network classifier performs significantly better than both versions of the naive Bayesian classifier on almost all databases analyzed, and hence is an enhancement of the naive Bayesian classifier. Relative to the non-selective Bayesian network classifier, our selective Bayesian network classifier generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and that display predictive accuracy comparable to that of Bayesian networks which model all features. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1132157. 	[Title] NAIVE BAYESIAN LEARNING  Adapted from [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1131137 has the title `Mining and Model Simplicity: A Case Study in Diagnosis  
` and the abstract `Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 1996. The official version of this paper has been published by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (http://www.aaai.org) c fl 1996, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. Abstract We describe the results of performing data mining on a challenging medical diagnosis domain, acute abdominal pain. This domain is well known to be difficult, yielding little more than 60% predictive accuracy for most human and machine diagnosticians. Moreover, many researchers argue that one of the simplest approaches, the naive Bayesian classifier, is optimal. By comparing the performance of the naive Bayesian classifier to its more general cousin, the Bayesian network classifier, and to selective Bayesian classifiers with just 10% of the total attributes, we show that the simplest models perform at least as well as the more complex models. We argue that simple models like the selective naive Bayesian classifier will perform as well as more complicated models for similarly complex domains with relatively small data sets, thereby calling into question the extra expense necessary to induce more complex models. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1131137 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1131137 has the title `Mining and Model Simplicity: A Case Study in Diagnosis  
` and the abstract `Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 1996. The official version of this paper has been published by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (http://www.aaai.org) c fl 1996, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. Abstract We describe the results of performing data mining on a challenging medical diagnosis domain, acute abdominal pain. This domain is well known to be difficult, yielding little more than 60% predictive accuracy for most human and machine diagnosticians. Moreover, many researchers argue that one of the simplest approaches, the naive Bayesian classifier, is optimal. By comparing the performance of the naive Bayesian classifier to its more general cousin, the Bayesian network classifier, and to selective Bayesian classifiers with just 10% of the total attributes, we show that the simplest models perform at least as well as the more complex models. We argue that simple models like the selective naive Bayesian classifier will perform as well as more complicated models for similarly complex domains with relatively small data sets, thereby calling into question the extra expense necessary to induce more complex models. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1131137 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: Probabilistic_Methods