Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106401. 	[Title] Model Selection based on Minimum Description Length [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1132385. 	[Title] Towards Robust Model Selection using Estimation and Approximation Error Bounds [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #45188. 	[Title] A Bound on the Error of Cross Validation Using the Approximation and Estimation Rates, with [Abstract] We give an analysis of the generalization error of cross validation in terms of two natural measures of the difficulty of the problem under consideration: the approximation rate (the accuracy to which the target function can be ideally approximated as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters), and the estimation rate (the deviation between the training and generalization errors as a function of the number of hypothesis parameters). The approximation rate captures the complexity of the target function with respect to the hypothesis model, and the estimation rate captures the extent to which the hypothesis model suffers from overfitting. Using these two measures, we give a rigorous and general bound on the error of cross validation. The bound clearly shows the tradeoffs involved with making fl the fraction of data saved for testing too large or too small. By optimizing the bound with respect to fl, we then argue (through a combination of formal analysis, plotting, and controlled experimentation) that the following qualitative properties of cross validation behavior should be quite robust to significant changes in the underlying model selection problem: Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4804. 	[Title] Toward Efficient Agnostic Learning [Abstract] In this paper we initiate an investigation of generalizations of the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) learning model that attempt to significantly weaken the target function assumptions. The ultimate goal in this direction is informally termed agnostic learning, in which we make virtually no assumptions on the target function. The name derives from the fact that as designers of learning algorithms, we give up the belief that Nature (as represented by the target function) has a simple or succinct explanation. We give a number of positive and negative results that provide an initial outline of the possibilities for agnostic learning. Our results include hardness results for the most obvious generalization of the PAC model to an agnostic setting, an efficient and general agnostic learning method based on dynamic programming, relationships between loss functions for agnostic learning, and an algorithm for a learning problem that involves hidden variables. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #45189. 	[Title] An Experimental and Theoretical Comparison of Model Selection Methods on simple model selection problems, the [Abstract] We investigate the problem of model selection in the setting of supervised learning of boolean functions from independent random examples. More precisely, we compare methods for finding a balance between the complexity of the hypothesis chosen and its observed error on a random training sample of limited size, when the goal is that of minimizing the resulting generalization error. We undertake a detailed comparison of three well-known model selection methods | a variation of Vapnik's Guaranteed Risk Minimization (GRM), an instance of Rissanen's Minimum Description Length Principle (MDL), and cross validation (CV). We introduce a general class of model selection methods (called penalty-based methods) that includes both GRM and MDL, and provide general methods for analyzing such rules. We provide both controlled experimental evidence and formal theorems to support the following conclusions: * The class of penalty-based methods is fundamentally handicapped in the sense that there exist two types of model selection problems for which every penalty-based method must incur large generalization error on at least one, while CV enjoys small generalization error Despite the inescapable incomparability of model selection methods under certain circumstances, we conclude with a discussion of our belief that the balance of the evidence provides specific reasons to prefer CV to other methods, unless one is in possession of detailed problem-specific information. on both. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105450. 	[Title] A Fast, Bottom-Up Decision Tree Pruning Algorithm with Near-Optimal Generalization [Abstract] In this work, we present a new bottom-up algorithm for decision tree pruning that is very efficient (requiring only a single pass through the given tree), and prove a strong performance guarantee for the generalization error of the resulting pruned tree. We work in the typical setting in which the given tree T may have been derived from the given training sample S, and thus may badly overfit S. In this setting, we give bounds on the amount of additional generalization error that our pruning suffers compared to the optimal pruning of T . More generally, our results show that if there is a pruning of T with small error, and whose size is small compared to jSj, then our algorithm will find a pruning whose error is not much larger. This style of result has been called an index of resolvability result by Barron and Cover in the context of density estimation. A novel feature of our algorithm is its locality | the decision to prune a subtree is based entirely on properties of that subtree and the sample reaching it. To analyze our algorithm, we develop tools of local uniform convergence, a generalization of the standard notion that may prove useful in other settings. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #89547. 	[Title] Rigorous Learning Curve Bounds from Statistical Mechanics [Abstract] In this paper we introduce and investigate a mathematically rigorous theory of learning curves that is based on ideas from statistical mechanics. The advantage of our theory over the well-established Vapnik-Chervonenkis theory is that our bounds can be considerably tighter in many cases, and are also more reflective of the true behavior (functional form) of learning curves. This behavior can often exhibit dramatic properties such as phase transitions, as well as power law asymptotics not explained by the VC theory. The disadvantages of our theory are that its application requires knowledge of the input distribution, and it is limited so far to finite cardinality function classes. We illustrate our results with many concrete examples of learning curve bounds derived from our theory. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1112686. 	[Title] Bayesian Finite Mixtures for Nonlinear Modeling of Educational data [Abstract] In this paper we discuss a Bayesian approach for finding latent classes in the data. In our approach we use finite mixture models to describe the underlying structure in the data, and demonstrate that the possibility to use full joint probability models raises interesting new prospects for exploratory data analysis. The concepts and methods discussed are illustrated with a case study using a data set from a recent educational study. The Bayesian classification approach described has been implemented, and presents an appealing addition to the standard toolbox for exploratory data analysis of educational data. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #272720. 	[Title] A New Metric-Based Approach to Model Selection [Abstract] We introduce a new approach to model selection that performs better than the standard complexity-penalization and hold-out error estimation techniques in many cases. The basic idea is to exploit the intrinsic metric structure of a hypothesis space, as determined by the natural distribution of unlabeled training patterns, and use this metric as a reference to detect whether the empirical error estimates derived from a small (labeled) training sample can be trusted in the region around an empirically optimal hypothesis. Using simple metric intuitions we develop new geometric strategies for detecting overfitting and performing robust yet responsive model selection in spaces of candidate functions. These new metric-based strategies dramatically outperform previous approaches in experimental studies of classical polynomial curve fitting. Moreover, the technique is simple, efficient, and can be applied to most function learning tasks. The only requirement is access to an auxiliary collection of unlabeled training data. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #192850. 	[Title] Characterizing the generalization performance of model selection strategies [Abstract] We investigate the structure of model selection problems via the bias/variance decomposition. In particular, we characterize the essential aspects of a model selection task by the bias and variance profiles it generates over the sequence of hypothesis classes. With this view, we develop a new understanding of complexity-penalization methods: First, the penalty terms can be interpreted as postulating a particular profile for the variances as a function of model complexityif the postulated and true profiles do not match, then systematic under-fitting or over-fitting results, depending on whether the penalty terms are too large or too small. Second, we observe that it is generally best to penalize according to the true variances of the task, and therefore no fixed penalization strategy is optimal across all problems. We then use this characterization to introduce the notion of easy versus hard model selection problems. Here we show that if the variance profile grows too rapidly in relation to the biases, then standard model selection techniques become prone to significant errors. This can happen, for example, in regression problems where the independent variables are drawn from wide-tailed distributions. To counter this, we discuss a new model selection strategy that dramatically outperforms standard complexity-penalization and hold-out meth ods on these hard tasks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20920. 	[Title] Comparing Predictive Inference Methods for Discrete Domains [Abstract] Predictive inference is seen here as the process of determining the predictive distribution of a discrete variable, given a data set of training examples and the values for the other problem domain variables. We consider three approaches for computing this predictive distribution, and assume that the joint probability distribution for the variables belongs to a set of distributions determined by a set of parametric models. In the simplest case, the predictive distribution is computed by using the model with the maximum a posteriori (MAP) posterior probability. In the evidence approach, the predictive distribution is obtained by averaging over all the individual models in the model family. In the third case, we define the predictive distribution by using Rissanen's new definition of stochastic complexity. Our experiments performed with the family of Naive Bayes models suggest that when using all the data available, the stochastic complexity approach produces the most accurate predictions in the log-score sense. However, when the amount of available training data is decreased, the evidence approach clearly outperforms the two other approaches. The MAP predictive distribution is clearly inferior in the log-score sense to the two more sophisticated approaches, but for the 0/1-score the MAP approach may still in some cases produce the best results. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #18811. 	[Title] Comparing Bayesian Model Class Selection Criteria by Discrete Finite Mixtures [Abstract] We investigate the problem of computing the posterior probability of a model class, given a data sample and a prior distribution for possible parameter settings. By a model class we mean a group of models which all share the same parametric form. In general this posterior may be very hard to compute for high-dimensional parameter spaces, which is usually the case with real-world applications. In the literature several methods for computing the posterior approximately have been proposed, but the quality of the approximations may depend heavily on the size of the available data sample. In this work we are interested in testing how well the approximative methods perform in real-world problem domains. In order to conduct such a study, we have chosen the model family of finite mixture distributions. With certain assumptions, we are able to derive the model class posterior analytically for this model family. We report a series of model class selection experiments on real-world data sets, where the true posterior and the approximations are compared. The empirical results support the hypothesis that the approximative techniques can provide good estimates of the true posterior, especially when the sample size grows large. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #976284. 	[Title] Algorithmic Stability and Sanity-Check Bounds for Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation [Abstract] In this paper we prove sanity-check bounds for the error of the leave-one-out cross-validation estimate of the generalization error: that is, bounds showing that the worst-case error of this estimate is not much worse than that of the training error estimate. The name sanity-check refers to the fact that although we often expect the leave-one-out estimate to perform considerably better than the training error estimate, we are here only seeking assurance that its performance will not be considerably worse. Perhaps surprisingly, such assurance has been given only for rather limited cases in the prior literature on cross-validation. Any nontrivial bound on the error of leave-one-out must rely on some notion of algorithmic stability. Previous bounds relied on the rather strong notion of hypothesis stability, whose application was primarily limited to nearest-neighbor and other local algorithms. Here we introduce the new and weaker notion of error stability, and apply it to obtain sanity-check bounds for leave-one-out for other classes of learning algorithms, including training error minimization procedures and Bayesian algorithms. We also provide lower bounds demonstrating the necessity of error stability for proving bounds on the error of the leave-one-out estimate, and the fact that for training error minimization algorithms, in the worst case such bounds must still depend on the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension of the hypothesis class. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #192734. 	[Title] Preventing "Overfitting" of Cross-Validation Data [Abstract] Suppose that, for a learning task, we have to select one hypothesis out of a set of hypotheses (that may, for example, have been generated by multiple applications of a randomized learning algorithm). A common approach is to evaluate each hypothesis in the set on some previously unseen cross-validation data, and then to select the hypothesis that had the lowest cross-validation error. But when the cross-validation data is partially corrupted such as by noise, and if the set of hypotheses we are selecting from is large, then "folklore" also warns about "overfitting" the cross-validation data [Klockars and Sax, 1986, Tukey, 1949, Tukey, 1953]. In this paper, we explain how this "overfitting" really occurs, and show the surprising result that it can be overcome by selecting a hypothesis with a higher cross-validation error, over others with lower cross-validation errors. We give reasons for not selecting the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error, and propose a new algorithm, LOOCVCV, that uses a computa-tionally efficient form of leave-one-out cross-validation to select such a hypothesis. Finally, we present experimental results for one domain, that show LOOCVCV consistently beating picking the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error, even when using reasonably large cross-validation sets. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1106401 has the title `Model Selection based on Minimum Description Length  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1106401 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1106401 has the title `Model Selection based on Minimum Description Length  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1106401 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