Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1125393. 	[Title] Beyond predictive accuracy: what? [Abstract] Today's potential users of machine learning technology are faced with the non-trivial problem of choosing, from the large, ever-increasing number of available tools, the one most appropriate for their particular task. To assist the often non-initiated users, it is desirable that this model selection process be automated. Using experience from base level learning, researchers have proposed meta-learning as a possible solution. Historically, predictive accuracy has been the de facto criterion, with most work in meta-learning focusing on the discovery of rules that match applications to models based on accuracy only. Although predictive accuracy is clearly an important criterion, it is also the case that there are a number of other criteria that could, and often ought to, be considered when learning about model selection. This paper presents a number of such criteria and discusses the impact they have on meta-level approaches to model selection. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1121057. 	[Title] Inductive CBR for Customer Support [Abstract] Over the past few years, the telecommunications paradigm has been shifting rapidly from hardware to middleware. In particular, the traditional issues of service characteristics and network control are being replaced by the modern, customer-driven issues of network and service management (e.g., electronic commerce, one-stop shops). An area of service management which has extremely high visibility and negative impact when managed badly is that of problem handling. Problem handling is a very knowledge intensive activity, particularly nowadays with the increase in number and complexity of services becoming available. Trials at several BT support centres have already demonstrated the potential of case-based reasoning technology in improving current practice for problem detection and diagnosis. A major cost involved in implementing a case-based system is in the manual building of the initial case base and then in the subsequent maintenance of that case base over time. This paper shows how inductive machine learning can be combined with case-based reasoning to produce an intelligent system capable of both extracting knowledge from raw data automatically and reasoning from that knowledge. In addition to discovering knowledge in existing data repositories, the integrated system may be used to acquire and revise knowledge continually. Experiments with the suggested integrated approach demonstrate promise and justify the next step. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #47682. 	[Title] Using Precepts to Augment Training Set Learning an input whose value is don't-care in some [Abstract] are used in turn to approximate A. Empirical studies show that good results can be achieved with TSL [8, 11]. However, TSL has several drawbacks. Training set learners (e.g., backpropagation) are typically slow as they may require many passes over the training set. Also, there is no guarantee that, given an arbitrary training set, the system will find enough good critical features to get a reasonable approximation of A. Moreover, the number of features to be searched is exponential in the number of inputs, and TSL becomes computationally expensive [1]. Finally, the scarcity of interesting positive theoretical results suggests the difficulty of learning without sufficient a priori knowledge. The goal of learning systems is to generalize. Generalization is commonly based on the set of critical features the system has available. Training set learners typically extract critical features from a random set of examples. While this approach is attractive, it suffers from the exponential growth of the number of features to be searched. We propose to extend it by endowing the system with some a priori knowledge, in the form of precepts. Advantages of the augmented system are speedup, improved generalization, and greater parsimony. This paper presents a precept-driven learning algorithm. Its main features include: 1) distributed implementation, 2) bounded learning and execution times, and 3) ability to handle both correct and incorrect precepts. Results of simulations on real-world data demonstrate promise. This paper presents precept-driven learning (PDL). PDL is intended to overcome some of TSL's weaknesses. In PDL, the training set is augmented by a small set of precepts. A pair p = (i, o) in I O is called an example. A precept is an example in which some of the i-entries (inputs) are set to the special value don't-care. An input whose value is not don't-care is said to be asserted. If i has no effect on the value of the output. The use of the special value don't-care is therefore as a shorthand. A pair containing don't-care inputs represents as many examples as the product of the sizes of the input domains of its don't-care inputs. 1. Introduction Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #509379. 	[Title] Model selection using measure functions [Abstract] The concept of measure functions for generalization performance is suggested. This concept provides an alternative way of selecting and evaluating learned models (classifiers). In addition, it makes it possible to state a learning problem as a computational problem. The the known prior (meta-)knowledge about the problem domain is captured in a measure function that, to each possible combination of a training set and a classifier, assigns a value describing how good the classifier is. The computational problem is then to find a classifier maximizing the measure function. We argue that measure functions are of great value for practical applications. Besides of being a tool for model selection, they: (i) force us to make explicit the relevant prior knowledge about the learning problem at hand, (ii) provide a deeper understanding of existing algorithms, and (iii) help us in the construction of problem-specific algorithms. We illustrate the last point by suggesting a novel algorithm based on incremental search for a classifier that optimizes a given measure function. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #63812. 	[Title] FLARE: Induction with Prior Knowledge [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #47683. 	[Title] AN INCREMENTAL LEARNING MODEL FOR COMMONSENSE REASONING [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #47684. 	[Title] AN EFFICIENT METRIC FOR HETEROGENEOUS INDUCTIVE LEARNING APPLICATIONS IN THE ATTRIBUTE-VALUE LANGUAGE 1 [Abstract] Many inductive learning problems can be expressed in the classical attribute-value language. In order to learn and to generalize, learning systems often rely on some measure of similarity between their current knowledge base and new information. The attribute-value language defines a heterogeneous multidimensional input space, where some attributes are nominal and others linear. Defining similarity, or proximity, of two points in such input spaces is non trivial. We discuss two representative homogeneous metrics and show examples of why they are limited to their own domains. We then address the issues raised by the design of a heterogeneous metric for inductive learning systems. In particular, we discuss the need for normalization and the impact of don't-care values. We propose a heterogeneous metric and evaluate it empirically on a simplified version of ILA. 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 #1105360. 	[Title] Stable ILP Exploring the Added Expressivity of Negation in the Background Knowledge [Abstract] We present stable ILP, a cross-disciplinary concept straddling machine learning and nonmonotonic reasoning. Stable models give meaning to logic programs containing negative assertions. In stable ILP, we employ stable models to represent the current state specified by (possibly) negative EDB and IDB rules. The state then serves as the background knowledge for a top-down ILP learner. We present a framework and implementation (system INDED) of one realization of stable ILP. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #63486. 	[Title] Evaluation and Selection of Biases in Machine Learning [Abstract] In this introduction, we define the term bias as it is used in machine learning systems. We motivate the importance of automated methods for evaluating and selecting biases using a framework of bias selection as search in bias and meta-bias spaces. Recent research in the field of machine learning bias is summarized. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1125393 has the title `Beyond predictive accuracy: what?  
` and the abstract `Today's potential users of machine learning technology are faced with the non-trivial problem of choosing, from the large, ever-increasing number of available tools, the one most appropriate for their particular task. To assist the often non-initiated users, it is desirable that this model selection process be automated. Using experience from base level learning, researchers have proposed meta-learning as a possible solution. Historically, predictive accuracy has been the de facto criterion, with most work in meta-learning focusing on the discovery of rules that match applications to models based on accuracy only. Although predictive accuracy is clearly an important criterion, it is also the case that there are a number of other criteria that could, and often ought to, be considered when learning about model selection. This paper presents a number of such criteria and discusses the impact they have on meta-level approaches to model selection.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1125393 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1125393 has the title `Beyond predictive accuracy: what?  
` and the abstract `Today's potential users of machine learning technology are faced with the non-trivial problem of choosing, from the large, ever-increasing number of available tools, the one most appropriate for their particular task. To assist the often non-initiated users, it is desirable that this model selection process be automated. Using experience from base level learning, researchers have proposed meta-learning as a possible solution. Historically, predictive accuracy has been the de facto criterion, with most work in meta-learning focusing on the discovery of rules that match applications to models based on accuracy only. Although predictive accuracy is clearly an important criterion, it is also the case that there are a number of other criteria that could, and often ought to, be considered when learning about model selection. This paper presents a number of such criteria and discusses the impact they have on meta-level approaches to model selection.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1125393 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: Case_Based