Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #545647. 	[Title] Learning with Rare Cases and Small Disjuncts [Abstract] Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. Small disjuncts are those disjuncts which cover only a few training examples. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts. This paper investigates the reasons why small disjuncts are more error prone than large disjuncts. It shows that when there are rare cases within a domain, then factors such as attribute noise, missing attributes, class noise and training set size can result in small disjuncts being more error prone than large disjuncts and in rare cases being more error prone than common cases. This paper also assesses the impact that these error prone small disjuncts and rare cases have on inductive learning (i.e., on error rate). One key conclusion is that when low levels of attribute noise are applied only to the training set (the ability to learn the correct concept is being evaluated), rare cases within a domain are primarily responsible for making learning difficult. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1102625. 	[Title] A systematic description of greedy optimisation algorithms for cost sensitive generalisation [Abstract] This paper defines a class of problems involving combinations of induction and (cost) optimisation. A framework is presented that systematically describes problems that involve construction of decision trees or rules, optimising accuracy as well as measurement- and misclassification costs. It does not present any new algorithms but shows how this framework can be used to configure greedy algorithms for constructing such trees or rules. The framework covers a number of existing algorithms. Moreover, the framework can also be used to define algorithm configurations with new functionalities, as expressed in their evaluation functions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #152226. 	[Title] A Polynomial Time Incremental Algorithm for Regular Grammar Inference [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20833. 	[Title] Using Partitioning to Speed Up Specific-to-General Rule Induction [Abstract] RISE (Domingos 1995; in press) is a rule induction algorithm that proceeds by gradually generalizing rules, starting with one rule per example. This has several advantages compared to the more common strategy of gradually specializing initially null rules, and has been shown to lead to significant accuracy gains over algorithms like C4.5RULES and CN2 in a large number of application domains. However, RISE's running time (like that of other rule induction algorithms) is quadratic in the number of examples, making it unsuitable for processing very large databases. This paper studies the use of partitioning to speed up RISE, and compares it with the well-known method of windowing. The use of partitioning in a specific-to-general induction setting creates synergies that would not be possible with a general-to-specific system. Partitioning often reduces running time and improves accuracy at the same time. In noisy conditions, the performance of windowing deteriorates rapidly, while that of partitioning remains stable. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11335. 	[Title] Concept Learning and the Problem of Small [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #5959. 	[Title] Chunking in soar: The anatomy of a general learn ing mechanism. Machine Learning, 1(1). Learning [Abstract] gers University. Also appears as tech. report ML- TR-7. Minton, S. (1988). Quantitative results concerning the utility of explanation-based learning. In Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelli gence, pages 564-569. St. Paul, MN. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1127657. 	[Title] Pessimistic and Optimistic Induction [Abstract] Learning methods vary in the optimism or pessimism with which they regard the informativeness of learned knowledge. Pessimism is implicit in hypothesis testing, where we wish to draw cautious conclusions from experimental evidence. However, this paper demonstrates that optimism in the utility of derived rules may be the preferred bias for learning systems themselves. We examine the continuum between naive pessimism and naive optimism in the context of a decision tree learner that prunes rules based on stringent (i.e., pessimistic) or weak (i.e., optimistic) tests of their significance. Our experimental results indicate that in most cases optimism is preferred, but particularly in cases of sparse training data and high noise. This work generalizes earlier findings by Fisher and Schlimmer (1988) and Schaffer (1992), and we discuss its relevance to unsupervised learning, small disjuncts, and other issues. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #37483. 	[Title] Learning Approximate Control Rules Of High Utility [Abstract] One of the difficult problems in the area of explanation based learning is the utility problem; learning too many rules of low utility can lead to swamping, or degradation of performance. This paper introduces two new techniques for improving the utility of learned rules. The first technique is to combine EBL with inductive learning techniques to learn a better set of control rules; the second technique is to use these inductive techniques to learn approximate control rules. The two techniques are synthesized in an algorithm called approximating abductive explanation based learning (AxA-EBL). AxA-EBL is shown to improve substantially over standard EBL in several domains. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #582511. 	[Title] The Problem with Noise and Small Disjuncts [Abstract] Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. The disjuncts in the concept definition which cover only a few training examples are referred to as small disjuncts. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts, but may be necessary to achieve a high level of predictive accuracy [Holte, Acker, and Porter, 1989]. This paper extends previous work done on the problem of small disjuncts by taking noise into account. It investigates the assertion that it is hard to learn from noisy data because it is difficult to distinguish between noise and true exceptions. In the process of evaluating this assertion, insights are gained into the mechanisms by which noise affects learning. Two domains are investigated. The experimental results in this paper suggest that for both Shapiro's chess endgame domain [Shapiro, 1987] and for the Wisconsin breast cancer domain [Wolberg, 1990], the assertion is true, at least for low levels (5-10%) of class noise. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153264. 	[Title]  [Abstract] Design and Evaluation of the RISE 1.0 Learning System Pedro Domingos pedrod@ics.uci.edu Technical Report 94-34 August 30, 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49843. 	[Title] Fossil: A Robust Relational Learner [Abstract] The research reported in this paper describes Fossil, an ILP system that uses a search heuristic based on statistical correlation. This algorithm implements a new method for learning useful concepts in the presence of noise. In contrast to Foil's stopping criterion, which allows theories to grow in complexity as the size of the training sets increases, we propose a new stopping criterion that is independent of the number of training examples. Instead, Fossil's stopping criterion depends on a search heuristic that estimates the utility of literals on a uniform scale. In addition we outline how this feature can be used for top-down pruning and present some preliminary results. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #217139. 	[Title] Unifying Empirical and Explanation-Based Learning by Modeling the Utility of Learned Knowledge [Abstract] The overfit problem in empirical learning and the utility problem in explanation-based learning describe a similar phenomenon: the degradation of performance due to an increase in the amount of learned knowledge. Plotting the performance of learned knowledge during the course of learning (the performance response) reveals a common trend for several learning methods. Modeling this trend allows a control system to constrain the amount of learned knowledge to achieve peak performance and avoid the general utility problem. Experiments evaluate a particular empirical model of the trend, and analysis of the learners derive several formal models. If, as evidence suggests, the general utility problem can be modeled using the same mechanisms for different learning paradigms, then the model serves to unify the paradigms into one framework capable of comparing and selecting different learning methods based on predicted achievable performance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11325. 	[Title] On Learning Multiple Descriptions of a Concept [Abstract] In sparse data environments, greater classification accuracy can be achieved by learning several concept descriptions of the data and combining their classifications. Stochastic search is a general tool which can be used to generate many good concept descriptions (rule sets) for each class in the data. Bayesian probability theory offers an optimal strategy for combining classifications of the individual concept descriptions, and here we use an approximation of that theory. This strategy is most useful when additional data is difficult to obtain and every increase in classification accuracy is important. The primary result of this paper is that multiple concept descriptions are particularly helpful in "flat" hypothesis spaces in which there are many equally good ways to grow a rule, each having similar gain. Another result is experimental evidence that learning multiple rule sets yields more accurate classifications than learning multiple rules for some domains. To demonstrate these behaviors, we learn multiple concept descriptions by adapting HYDRA, a noise-tolerant relational learning algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #35070. 	[Title] The RISE System: Conquering Without Separating [Abstract] Current rule induction systems (e.g. CN2) typically rely on a "separate and conquer" strategy, learning each rule only from still-uncovered examples. This results in a dwindling number of examples being available for learning successive rules, adversely affecting the system's accuracy. An alternative is to learn all rules simultaneously, using the entire training set for each. This approach is implemented in the Rise 1.0 system. Empirical comparison of Rise with CN2 suggests that "conquering without separating" performs similarly to its counterpart in simple domains, but achieves increasingly substantial gains in accuracy as the domain difficulty grows. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #545647 has the title `Learning with Rare Cases and Small Disjuncts  
` and the abstract `Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. Small disjuncts are those disjuncts which cover only a few training examples. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts. This paper investigates the reasons why small disjuncts are more error prone than large disjuncts. It shows that when there are rare cases within a domain, then factors such as attribute noise, missing attributes, class noise and training set size can result in small disjuncts being more error prone than large disjuncts and in rare cases being more error prone than common cases. This paper also assesses the impact that these error prone small disjuncts and rare cases have on inductive learning (i.e., on error rate). One key conclusion is that when low levels of attribute noise are applied only to the training set (the ability to learn the correct concept is being evaluated), rare cases within a domain are primarily responsible for making learning difficult.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #545647 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #545647 has the title `Learning with Rare Cases and Small Disjuncts  
` and the abstract `Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. Small disjuncts are those disjuncts which cover only a few training examples. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts. This paper investigates the reasons why small disjuncts are more error prone than large disjuncts. It shows that when there are rare cases within a domain, then factors such as attribute noise, missing attributes, class noise and training set size can result in small disjuncts being more error prone than large disjuncts and in rare cases being more error prone than common cases. This paper also assesses the impact that these error prone small disjuncts and rare cases have on inductive learning (i.e., on error rate). One key conclusion is that when low levels of attribute noise are applied only to the training set (the ability to learn the correct concept is being evaluated), rare cases within a domain are primarily responsible for making learning difficult.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #545647 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