Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #411092. 	[Title] LEARNING LOGICAL EXCEPTIONS IN CHESS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6917. 	[Title] Covering vs. Divide-and-Conquer for Top-Down Induction of Logic Programs [Abstract] covering has been formalized and used extensively. In this work, the divide-and-conquer technique is formalized as well and compared to the covering technique in a logic programming framework. Covering works by repeatedly specializing an overly general hypothesis, on each iteration focusing on finding a clause with a high coverage of positive examples. Divide-and-conquer works by specializing an overly general hypothesis once, focusing on discriminating positive from negative examples. Experimental results are presented demonstrating that there are cases when more accurate hypotheses can be found by divide-and-conquer than by covering. Moreover, since covering considers the same alternatives repeatedly it tends to be less efficient than divide-and-conquer, which never considers the same alternative twice. On the other hand, covering searches a larger hypothesis space, which may result in that more compact hypotheses are found by this technique than by divide-and-conquer. Furthermore, divide-and-conquer is, in contrast to covering, not applicable to learn ing recursive definitions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #189574. 	[Title] Theory Refinement on Bayesian Networks [Abstract] Theory refinement is the task of updating a domain theory in the light of new cases, to be done automatically or with some expert assistance. The problem of theory refinement under uncertainty is reviewed here in the context of Bayesian statistics, a theory of belief revision. The problem is reduced to an incremental learning task as follows: the learning system is initially primed with a partial theory supplied by a domain expert, and thereafter maintains its own internal representation of alternative theories which is able to be interrogated by the domain expert and able to be incrementally refined from data. Algorithms for refinement of Bayesian networks are presented to illustrate what is meant by "partial theory", "alternative theory representation", etc. The algorithms are an incremental variant of batch learning algorithms from the literature so can work well in batch and incremental mode. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153160. 	[Title] Inductive Logic Programming [Abstract] A new research area, Inductive Logic Programming, is presently emerging. While inheriting various positive characteristics of the parent subjects of Logic Programming and Machine Learning, it is hoped that the new area will overcome many of the limitations of its forebears. The background to present developments within this area is discussed and various goals and aspirations for the increasing body of researchers are identified. Inductive Logic Programming needs to be based on sound principles from both Logic and Statistics. On the side of statistical justification of hypotheses we discuss the possible relationship between Algorithmic Complexity theory and Probably-Approximately-Correct (PAC) Learning. In terms of logic we provide a unifying framework for Muggleton and Buntine's Inverse Resolution (IR) and Plotkin's Relative Least General Generali-sation (RLGG) by rederiving RLGG in terms of IR. This leads to a discussion of the feasibility of extending the RLGG framework to allow for the invention of new predicates, previously discussed only within the context of IR. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #83725. 	[Title] Explanations of Empirically Derived Reactive Plans [Abstract] Given an adequate simulation model of the task environment and payoff function that measures the quality of partially successful plans, competition-based heuristics such as genetic algorithms can develop high performance reactive rules for interesting sequential decision tasks. We have previously described an implemented system, called SAMUEL, for learning reactive plans and have shown that the system can successfully learn rules for a laboratory scale tactical problem. In this paper, we describe a method for deriving explanations to justify the success of such empirically derived rule sets. The method consists of inferring plausible subgoals and then explaining how the reactive rules trigger a sequence of actions (i.e., a stra tegy) to satisfy the subgoals. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130637. 	[Title] Observation and Generalisation in a Simulated Robot World [Abstract] This paper describes a program which observes the behaviour of actors in a simulated world and uses these observations as guides to conducting experiments. An experiment is a sequence of actions carried out by an actor in order to support or weaken the case for a generalisation of a concept. A generalisation is attempted when the program observes a state of the world which is similar to a some previous state. A partial matching algorithm is used to find substitutions which enable the two states to be unified. The generalisation of the two states is their unifier. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #348437. 	[Title] Learning First-Order Acyclic Horn Programs from Entailment [Abstract] In this paper, we consider learning first-order Horn programs from entailment. In particular, we show that any subclass of first-order acyclic Horn programs with constant arity is exactly learnable from equivalence and entailment membership queries provided it allows a polynomial-time subsumption procedure and satisfies some closure conditions. One consequence of this is that first-order acyclic determinate Horn programs with constant arity are exactly learnable from equiv alence and entailment membership queries. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #101662. 	[Title] Learning from positive data [Abstract] Gold showed in 1967 that not even regular grammars can be exactly identified from positive examples alone. Since it is known that children learn natural grammars almost exclusively from positives examples, Gold's result has been used as a theoretical support for Chomsky's theory of innate human linguistic abilities. In this paper new results are presented which show that within a Bayesian framework not only grammars, but also logic programs are learnable with arbitrarily low expected error from positive examples only. In addition, we show that the upper bound for expected error of a learner which maximises the Bayes' posterior probability when learning from positive examples is within a small additive term of one which does the same from a mixture of positive and negative examples. An Inductive Logic Programming implementation is described which avoids the pitfalls of greedy search by global optimisation of this function during the local construction of individual clauses of the hypothesis. Results of testing this implementation on artificially-generated data-sets are reported. These results are in agreement with the theoretical predictions. 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 #22563. 	[Title] A Comparative Study of ID3 and Backpropagation for English Text-to-Speech Mapping [Abstract] The performance of the error backpropagation (BP) and ID3 learning algorithms was compared on the task of mapping English text to phonemes and stresses. Under the distributed output code developed by Sejnowski and Rosenberg, it is shown that BP consistently out-performs ID3 on this task by several percentage points. Three hypotheses explaining this difference were explored: (a) ID3 is overfitting the training data, (b) BP is able to share hidden units across several output units and hence can learn the output units better, and (c) BP captures statistical information that ID3 does not. We conclude that only hypothesis (c) is correct. By augmenting ID3 with a simple statistical learning procedure, the performance of BP can be approached but not matched. More complex statistical procedures can improve the performance of both BP and ID3 substantially. A study of the residual errors suggests that there is still substantial room for improvement in learning methods for text-to-speech mapping. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153064. 	[Title] Stochastic Logic Programs [Abstract] One way to represent a machine learning algorithm's bias over the hypothesis and instance space is as a pair of probability distributions. This approach has been taken both within Bayesian learning schemes and the framework of U-learnability. However, it is not obvious how an Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) system should best be provided with a probability distribution. This paper extends the results of a previous paper by the author which introduced stochastic logic programs as a means of providing a structured definition of such a probability distribution. Stochastic logic programs are a generalisation of stochastic grammars. A stochastic logic program consists of a set of labelled clauses p : C where p is from the interval [0; 1] and C is a range-restricted definite clause. A stochastic logic program P has a distributional semantics, that is one which assigns a probability distribution to the atoms of each predicate in the Herbrand base of the clauses in P . These probabilities are assigned to atoms according to an SLD-resolution strategy which employs a stochastic selection rule. It is shown that the probabilities can be computed directly for fail-free logic programs and by normalisation for arbitrary logic programs. The stochastic proof strategy can be used to provide three distinct functions: 1) a method of sampling from the Herbrand base which can be used to provide selected targets or example sets for ILP experiments, 2) a measure of the information content of examples or hypotheses; this can be used to guide the search in an ILP system and 3) a simple method for conditioning a given stochastic logic program on samples of data. Functions 1) and 3) are used to measure the generality of hypotheses in the ILP system Progol4.2. This supports an implementation of a Bayesian technique for learning from positive examples only. fl This paper is an extension of a paper with the same title which appeared in [12] Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4649. 	[Title] Finding Accurate Frontiers: A Knowledge-Intensive Approach to Relational Learning [Abstract] An approach to analytic learning is described that searches for accurate entailments of a Horn Clause domain theory. A hill-climbing search, guided by an information based evaluation function, is performed by applying a set of operators that derive frontiers from domain theories. The analytic learning system is one component of a multi-strategy relational learning system. We compare the accuracy of concepts learned with this analytic strategy to concepts learned with an analytic strategy that operationalizes the domain theory. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1127851. 	[Title] Generating Declarative Language Bias for Top-Down ILP Algorithms [Abstract] Many of today's algorithms for Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) put a heavy burden and responsibility on the user, because their declarative bias have to be defined in a rather low-level fashion. To address this issue, we developed a method for generating declarative language bias for top-down ILP systems from high-level declarations. The key feature of our approach is the distinction between a user level and an expert level of language bias declarations. The expert provides abstract meta-declarations, and the user declares the relationship between the meta-level and the given database to obtain a low-level declarative language bias. The suggested languages allow for compact and abstract specifications of the declarative language bias for top-down ILP systems using schemata. We verified several properties of the translation algorithm that generates schemata, and applied it successfully to a few chemical domains. As a consequence, we propose to use a two-level approach to generate declarative language bias. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1118764. 	[Title] An Efficient Extension to Mixture Techniques for Prediction and Decision Trees [Abstract] We present a method for maintaining mixtures of prunings of a prediction or decision tree that extends the "node-based" prunings of [Bun90, WST95, HS97] to the larger class of edge-based prunings. The method includes an efficient online weight allocation algorithm that can be used for prediction, compression and classification. Although the set of edge-based prunings of a given tree is much larger than that of node-based prunings, our algorithm has similar space and time complexity to that of previous mixture algorithms for trees. Using the general on-line framework of Freund and Schapire [FS97], we prove that our algorithm maintains correctly the mixture weights for edge-based prunings with any bounded loss function. We also give a similar algorithm for the logarithmic loss function with a corresponding weight allocation algorithm. Finally, we describe experiments comparing node-based and edge-based mixture models for estimating the probability of the next word in English text, which show the ad vantages of edge-based models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #449841. 	[Title] Theory-Guided Induction of Logic Programs by Inference of Regular Languages recursive clauses. merlin on the [Abstract] resent allowed sequences of resolution steps for the initial theory. There are, however, many characterizations of allowed sequences of resolution steps that cannot be expressed by a set of resolvents. One approach to this problem is presented, the system mer-lin, which is based on an earlier technique for learning finite-state automata that represent allowed sequences of resolution steps. merlin extends the previous technique in three ways: i) negative examples are considered in addition to positive examples, ii) a new strategy for performing generalization is used, and iii) a technique for converting the learned automaton to a logic program is included. Results from experiments are presented in which merlin outperforms both a system using the old strategy for performing generalization, and a traditional covering technique. The latter result can be explained by the limited expressiveness of hypotheses produced by covering and also by the fact that covering needs to produce the correct base clauses for a recursive definition before Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #434. 	[Title] Learning Analytically and Inductively [Abstract] Learning is a fundamental component of intelligence, and a key consideration in designing cognitive architectures such as Soar [ Laird et al., 1986 ] . This chapter considers the question of what constitutes an appropriate general-purpose learning mechanism. We are interested in mechanisms that might explain and reproduce the rich variety of learning capabilities of humans, ranging from learning perceptual-motor skills such as how to ride a bicycle, to learning highly cognitive tasks such as how to play chess. Research on learning in fields such as cognitive science, artificial intelligence, neurobiology, and statistics has led to the identification of two distinct classes of learning methods: inductive and analytic. Inductive methods, such as neural network Backpropagation, learn general laws by finding statistical correlations and regularities among a large set of training examples. In contrast, analytical methods, such as Explanation-Based Learning, acquire general laws from many fewer training examples. They rely instead on prior knowledge to analyze individual training examples in detail, then use this analysis to distinguish relevant example features from the irrelevant. The question considered in this chapter is how to best combine inductive and analytical learning in an architecture that seeks to cover the range of learning exhibited by intelligent systems such as humans. We present a specific learning mechanism, Explanation Based Neural Network learning (EBNN), that blends these two types of learning, and present experimental results demonstrating its ability to learn control strategies for a mobile robot using Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #101811. 	[Title] Programming Research Group A LEARNABILITY MODEL FOR UNIVERSAL REPRESENTATIONS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #84020. 	[Title] Classifiers: A Theoretical and Empirical Study [Abstract] This paper describes how a competitive tree learning algorithm can be derived from first principles. The algorithm approximates the Bayesian decision theoretic solution to the learning task. Comparative experiments with the algorithm and the several mature AI and statistical families of tree learning algorithms currently in use show the derived Bayesian algorithm is consistently as good or better, although sometimes at computational cost. Using the same strategy, we can design algorithms for many other supervised and model learning tasks given just a probabilistic representation for the kind of knowledge to be learned. As an illustration, a second learning algorithm is derived for learning Bayesian networks from data. Implications to incremental learning and the use of multiple models are also discussed. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #23738. 	[Title] A THEORY OF LEARNING CLASSIFICATION RULES [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #73146. 	[Title] LEARNING BAYESIAN NETWORKS WITH LOCAL STRUCTURE [Abstract] We examine a novel addition to the known methods for learning Bayesian networks from data that improves the quality of the learned networks. Our approach explicitly represents and learns the local structure in the conditional probability distributions (CPDs) that quantify these networks. This increases the space of possible models, enabling the representation of CPDs with a variable number of parameters. The resulting learning procedure induces models that better emulate the interactions present in the data. We describe the theoretical foundations and practical aspects of learning local structures and provide an empirical evaluation of the proposed learning procedure. This evaluation indicates that learning curves characterizing this procedure converge faster, in the number of training instances, than those of the standard procedure, which ignores the local structure of the CPDs. Our results also show that networks learned with local structures tend to be more complex (in terms of arcs), yet require fewer parameters. 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 #51909. 	[Title] Automated Refinement of First-Order Horn-Clause Domain Theories [Abstract] Knowledge acquisition is a difficult, error-prone, and time-consuming task. The task of automatically improving an existing knowledge base using learning methods is addressed by the class of systems performing theory refinement. This paper presents a system, Forte (First-Order Revision of Theories from Examples), which refines first-order Horn-clause theories by integrating a variety of different revision techniques into a coherent whole. Forte uses these techniques within a hill-climbing framework, guided by a global heuristic. It identifies possible errors in the theory and calls on a library of operators to develop possible revisions. The best revision is implemented, and the process repeats until no further revisions are possible. Operators are drawn from a variety of sources, including propositional theory refinement, first-order induction, and inverse resolution. Forte is demonstrated in several domains, including logic programming and qualitative modelling. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11342. 	[Title] On Pruning and Averaging Decision Trees [Abstract] Pruning a decision tree is considered by some researchers to be the most important part of tree building in noisy domains. While, there are many approaches to pruning, an alternative approach of averaging over decision trees has not received as much attention. We perform an empirical comparison of pruning with the approach of averaging over decision trees. For this comparison we use a computa-tionally efficient method of averaging, namely averaging over the extended fanned set of a tree. Since there are a wide range of approaches to pruning, we compare tree averaging with a traditional pruning approach, along with an optimal pruning approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6741. 	[Title] LEARNING CONCEPTS BY ASKING QUESTIONS [Abstract] Tw o important issues in machine learning are explored: the role that memory plays in acquiring new concepts; and the extent to which the learner can take an active part in acquiring these concepts. This chapter describes a program, called Marvin, which uses concepts it has learned previously to learn new concepts. The program forms hypotheses about the concept being learned and tests the hypotheses by asking the trainer questions. Learning begins when the trainer shows Marvin an example of the concept to be learned. The program determines which objects in the example belong to concepts stored in the memory. A description of the new concept is formed by using the information obtained from the memory to generalize the description of the training example. The generalized description is tested when the program constructs new examples and shows these to the trainer, asking if they belong to the target concept. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #135766. 	[Title] Specialization of Logic Programs by Pruning SLD-Trees [Abstract] program w.r.t. positive and negative examples can be viewed as the problem of pruning an SLD-tree such that all refutations of negative examples and no refutations of positive examples are excluded. It is shown that the actual pruning can be performed by applying unfolding and clause removal. The algorithm spectre is presented, which is based on this idea. The input to the algorithm is, besides a logic program and positive and negative examples, a computation rule, which determines the shape of the SLD-tree that is to be pruned. It is shown that the generality of the resulting specialization is dependent on the computation rule, and experimental results are presented from using three different computation rules. The experiments indicate that the computation rule should be formulated so that the number of applications of unfolding is kept as low as possible. The algorithm, which uses a divide-and-conquer method, is also compared with a covering algorithm. The experiments show that a higher predictive accuracy can be achieved if the focus is on discriminating positive from negative examples rather than on achieving a high coverage of positive examples only. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #135765. 	[Title] Specialization of Recursive Predicates [Abstract] When specializing a recursive predicate in order to exclude a set of negative examples without excluding a set of positive examples, it may not be possible to specialize or remove any of the clauses in a refutation of a negative example without excluding any positive exam ples. A previously proposed solution to this problem is to apply program transformation in order to obtain non-recursive target predicates from recursive ones. However, the application of this method prevents recursive specializations from being found. In this work, we present the algorithm spectre ii which is not limited to specializing non-recursive predicates. The key idea upon which the algorithm is based is that it is not enough to specialize or remove clauses in refutations of negative examples in order to obtain correct specializations, but it is sometimes necessary to specialize clauses that appear only in refutations of positive examples. In contrast to its predecessor spectre, the new algorithm is not limited to specializing clauses defining one predicate only, but may specialize clauses defining multiple predicates. Furthermore, the positive and negative examples are no longer required to be instances of the same predicate. It is proven that the algorithm produces a correct specialization when all positive examples are logical consequences of the original program, there is a finite number of derivations of positive and negative examples and when no positive and negative examples have the same sequence of input clauses in their refutations. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105887. 	[Title] Knowledge Acquisition with a Knowledge-Intensive Machine Learning System [Abstract] In this paper, we investigate the integration of knowledge acquisition and machine learning techniques. We argue that existing machine learning techniques can be made more useful as knowledge acquisition tools by allowing the expert to have greater control over and interaction with the learning process. We describe a number of extensions to FOCL (a multistrategy Horn-clause learning program) that have greatly enhanced its power as a knowledge acquisition tool, paying particular attention to the utility of maintaining a connection between a rule and the set of examples explained by the rule. The objective of this research is to make the modification of a domain theory analogous to the use of a spread sheet. A prototype knowledge acquisition tool, FOCL-1-2-3, has been constructed in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49895. 	[Title] The Origins of Inductive Logic Programming: A Prehistoric Tale [Abstract] This paper traces the development of the main ideas that have led to the present state of knowledge in Inductive Logic Programming. The story begins with research in psychology on the subject of human concept learning. Results from this research influenced early efforts in Artificial Intelligence which combined with the formal methods of inductive inference to evolve into the present discipline of Inductive Logic Programming. Inductive Logic Programming is often considered to be a young discipline. However, it has its roots in research dating back nearly 40 years. This paper traces the development of ideas beginning in psychology and the effect they had on concept learning research in Artificial Intelligence. Independent of any requirement for a psychological basis, formal methods of inductive inference were developed. These separate streams eventually gave rise to Inductive Logic Programming. This account is not entirely unbiased. More attention is given to the work of those researchers who most influenced my own interest in machine learning. Being a retrospective paper, I do not attempt to describe recent developments in ILP. This account only includes research prior to 1991 the year in which the term Inductive Logic Programming was first used (Muggleton, 1991). This is the reason for the subtitle A Prehistoric Tale. The major headings in the paper are taken from the names of periods in the evolution of life on Earth. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #9708. 	[Title] Acquiring Recursive and Iterative Concepts with Explanation-Based Learning explanation-based generalization, generalizing explanation structures, generalizing to [Abstract] University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Technical Report 876 (September 1989) Abstract In explanation-based learning, a specific problem's solution is generalized into a form that can be later used to solve conceptually similar problems. Most research in explanation-based learning involves relaxing constraints on the variables in the explanation of a specific example, rather than generalizing the graphical structure of the explanation itself. However, this precludes the acquisition of concepts where an iterative or recursive process is implicitly represented in the explanation by a fixed number of applications. This paper presents an algorithm that generalizes explanation structures and reports empirical results that demonstrate the value of acquiring recursive and iterative concepts. The BAGGER2 algorithm learns recursive and iterative concepts, integrates results from multiple examples, and extracts useful subconcepts during generalization. On problems where learning a recursive rule is not appropriate, the system produces the same result as standard explanation-based methods. Applying the learned recursive rules only requires a minor extension to a PROLOG-like problem solver, namely, the ability to explicitly call a specific rule. Empirical studies demonstrate that generalizing the structure of explanations helps avoid the recently reported negative effects of learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27249. 	[Title] Machine Learning Bias, Statistical Bias, and Statistical Variance of Decision Tree Algorithms [Abstract] The term "bias" is widely used|and with different meanings|in the fields of machine learning and statistics. This paper clarifies the uses of this term and shows how to measure and visualize the statistical bias and variance of learning algorithms. Statistical bias and variance can be applied to diagnose problems with machine learning bias, and the paper shows four examples of this. Finally, the paper discusses methods of reducing bias and variance. Methods based on voting can reduce variance, and the paper compares Breiman's bagging method and our own tree randomization method for voting decision trees. Both methods uniformly improve performance on data sets from the Irvine repository. Tree randomization yields perfect performance on the Letter Recognition task. A weighted nearest neighbor algorithm based on the infinite bootstrap is also introduced. In general, decision tree algorithms have moderate-to-high variance, so an important implication of this work is that variance|rather than appropriate or inappropriate machine learning bias|is an important cause of poor performance for decision tree algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #65650. 	[Title] Machine Learning 27(1):51-68, 1997. Predicting nearly as well as the best pruning of a decision tree [Abstract] Many algorithms for inferring a decision tree from data involve a two-phase process: First, a very large decision tree is grown which typically ends up "over-fitting" the data. To reduce over-fitting, in the second phase, the tree is pruned using one of a number of available methods. The final tree is then output and used for classification on test data. In this paper, we suggest an alternative approach to the pruning phase. Using a given unpruned decision tree, we present a new method of making predictions on test data, and we prove that our algorithm's performance will not be "much worse" (in a precise technical sense) than the predictions made by the best reasonably small pruning of the given decision tree. Thus, our procedure is guaranteed to be competitive (in terms of the quality of its predictions) with any pruning algorithm. We prove that our procedure is very efficient and highly robust. Our method can be viewed as a synthesis of two previously studied techniques. First, we apply Cesa-Bianchi et al.'s [4] results on predicting using "expert advice" (where we view each pruning as an "expert") to obtain an algorithm that has provably low prediction loss, but that is com-putationally infeasible. Next, we generalize and apply a method developed by Buntine [3], [2] and Willems, Shtarkov and Tjalkens [20], [21] to derive a very efficient implementation of this procedure. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27250. 	[Title] Why Does Bagging Work? A Bayesian Account and its Implications bagging's success, both in a [Abstract] The error rate of decision-tree and other classification learners can often be much reduced by bagging: learning multiple models from bootstrap samples of the database, and combining them by uniform voting. In this paper we empirically test two alternative explanations for this, both based on Bayesian learning theory: (1) bagging works because it is an approximation to the optimal procedure of Bayesian model averaging, with an appropriate implicit prior; (2) bagging works because it effectively shifts the prior to a more appropriate region of model space. All the experimental evidence contradicts the first hypothesis, and confirms the second. Bagging (Breiman 1996a) is a simple and effective way to reduce the error rate of many classification learning algorithms. For example, in the empirical study described below, it reduces the error of a decision-tree learner in 19 of 26 databases, by 4% on average. In the bagging procedure, given a training set of size s, a "bootstrap" replicate of it is constructed by taking s samples with replacement from the training set. Thus a new training set of the same size is produced, where each of the original examples may appear once, more than once, or not. On average, 63% of the original examples will appear in the bootstrap sample. The learning algorithm is then applied to this training set. This procedure is repeated m times, and the resulting m models are aggregated by uniform voting. Bagging is one of several "multiple model" approaches that have recently received much attention (see, for example, (Chan, Stolfo, & Wolpert 1996)). Other procedures of this type include boosting (Freund & Schapire 1996) and stacking (Wolpert 1992). Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27895. 	[Title] Bibliography "SMART: Support Management Automated Reasoning Technology for COMPAQ Customer Service," "Instance-Based Learning Algorithms," Machine [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #417017. 	[Title] Relating Relational Learning Algorithms [Abstract] Relational learning algorithms are of special interest to members of the machine learning community; they offer practical methods for extending the representations used in algorithms that solve supervised learning tasks. Five approaches are currently being explored to address issues involved with using relational representations. This paper surveys algorithms embodying these approaches, summarizes their empirical evaluations, highlights their commonalities, and suggests potential directions for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153148. 	[Title] Learning Classification Trees [Abstract] Algorithms for learning classification trees have had successes in artificial intelligence and statistics over many years. This paper outlines how a tree learning algorithm can be derived using Bayesian statistics. This introduces Bayesian techniques for splitting, smoothing, and tree averaging. The splitting rule is similar to Quinlan's information gain, while smoothing and averaging replace pruning. Comparative experiments with reimplementations of a minimum encoding approach, Quinlan's C4 (Quinlan et al., 1987) and Breiman et al.'s CART (Breiman et al., 1984) show the full Bayesian algorithm can produce Publication: This paper is a final draft submitted for publication to the Statistics and Computing journal; a version with some minor changes appeared in Volume 2, 1992, pages 63-73. more accurate predictions than versions of these other approaches, though pay a computational price. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8703. 	[Title] Theory Refinement Combining Analytical and Empirical Methods [Abstract] This article describes a comprehensive approach to automatic theory revision. Given an imperfect theory, the approach combines explanation attempts for incorrectly classified examples in order to identify the failing portions of the theory. For each theory fault, correlated subsets of the examples are used to inductively generate a correction. Because the corrections are focused, they tend to preserve the structure of the original theory. Because the system starts with an approximate domain theory, in general fewer training examples are required to attain a given level of performance (classification accuracy) compared to a purely empirical system. The approach applies to classification systems employing a propositional Horn-clause theory. The system has been tested in a variety of application domains, and results are presented for problems in the domains of molecular biology and plant disease diagnosis. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #411092 has the title `LEARNING LOGICAL EXCEPTIONS IN CHESS  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #411092 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #411092 has the title `LEARNING LOGICAL EXCEPTIONS IN CHESS  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #411092 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: Rule_Learning