Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #521252. 	[Title] Similarity Metrics: A Formal Unification of Cardinal and Non-Cardinal Similarity Measures [Abstract] In [9] we introduced a formal framework for constructing ordinal similarity measures, and suggested how this might also be applied to cardinal measures. In this paper we will place this approach in a more general framework, called similarity metrics. In this framework, ordinal similarity metrics (where comparison returns a boolean value) can be combined with cardinal metrics (returning a numeric value) and, indeed, with metrics returning values of other types, to produce new metrics. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #200480. 	[Title] CBET: a Case Base Exploration Tool [Abstract]  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 #346243. 	[Title] Inductive Bias in Case-Based Reasoning Systems [Abstract] In order to learn more about the behaviour of case-based reasoners as learning systems, we form-alise a simple case-based learner as a PAC learning algorithm, using the case-based representation hCB; i. We first consider a `naive' case-based learning algorithm CB1( H ) which learns by collecting all available cases into the case-base and which calculates similarity by counting the number of features on which two problem descriptions agree. We present results concerning the consistency of this learning algorithm and give some partial results regarding its sample complexity. We are able to characterise CB1( H ) as a `weak but general' learning algorithm. We then consider how the sample complexity of case-based learning can be reduced for specific classes of target concept by the application of inductive bias, or prior knowledge of the class of target concepts. Following recent work demonstrating how case-based learning can be improved by choosing a similarity measure appropriate to the concept being learnt, we define a second case-based learning `algorithm' CB2 which learns using the best possible similarity measure that might be inferred for the chosen target concept. While CB2 is not an executable learning strategy (since the chosen similarity measure is defined in terms of a priori knowledge of the actual target concept) it allows us to assess in the limit the maximum possible contribution of this approach to case-based learning. Also, in addition to illustrating the role of inductive bias, the definition of CB2 simplifies the general problem of establishing which functions might be represented in the form hCB; i. Reasoning about the case-based representation in this special case has therefore been a little more straight-forward than in the general case of CB1( H ), allowing more substantial results regarding representable functions and sample complexity to be presented for CB2. In assessing these results, we are forced to conclude that case-based learning is not the best approach to learning the chosen concept space (the space of monomial functions). We discuss, however, how our study has demonstrated, in the context of case-based learning, the operation of concepts well known in machine learning such as inductive bias and the trade-off between computational complexity and sample complexity. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #521251. 	[Title] A Yardstick for the Evaluation of Case-Based Classifiers [Abstract] This paper proposes that the generalisation capabilities of a case-based reasoning system can be evaluated by comparison with a `rote-learning' algorithm which uses a very simple generalisation strategy. Two such algorithms are defined, and expressions for their classification accuracy are derived as a function of the size of training sample. A series of experiments using artificial and `natural' data sets is described in which the learning curve for a case-based learner is compared with those for the apparently trivial rote-learning learning algorithms. The results show that in a number of `plausible' situations, the learning curves for a simple case-based learner and the `majority' rote-learner can barely be distinguished, although a domain is demonstrated where favourable performance from the case-based learner is observed. This suggests that the maxim of case-based reasoning that `similar problems have similar solutions' may be useful as the basis of a generalisation strategy only in selected domains. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6343. 	[Title] A Review and Empirical Evaluation of Feature Weighting Methods for a Class of Lazy Learning Algorithms [Abstract] Many lazy learning algorithms are derivatives of the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) classifier, which uses a distance function to generate predictions from stored instances. Several studies have shown that k-NN's performance is highly sensitive to the definition of its distance function. Many k-NN variants have been proposed to reduce this sensitivity by parameterizing the distance function with feature weights. However, these variants have not been categorized nor empirically compared. This paper reviews a class of weight-setting methods for lazy learning algorithms. We introduce a framework for distinguishing these methods and empirically compare them. We observed four trends from our experiments and conducted further studies to highlight them. Our results suggest that methods which use performance feedback to assign weight settings demonstrated three advantages over other methods: they require less pre-processing, perform better in the presence of interacting features, and generally require less training data to learn good settings. We also found that continuous weighting methods tend to outperform feature selection algorithms for tasks where some features are useful but less important than others. 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 #1125992. 	[Title] Towards a Theory of Optimal Similarity Measures way of learning a similarity measure from the [Abstract] The effectiveness of a case-based reasoning system is known to depend critically on its similarity measure. However, it is not clear whether there are elusive and esoteric similarity measures which might improve the performance of a case-based reasoner if substituted for the more commonly used measures. This paper therefore deals with the problem of choosing the best similarity measure, in the limited context of instance-based learning of classifications of a discrete example space. We consider both `fixed' similarity measures and `learnt' ones. In the former case, we give a definition of a similarity measure which we believe to be `optimal' w.r.t. the current prior distribution of target concepts and prove its optimality within a restricted class of similarity measures. We then show how this `optimal' similarity measure is instantiated by some specific prior distributions, and conclude that a very simple similarity measure is as good as any other in these cases. In a further section, we then show how our definition leads naturally to a conjecture about the Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #141868. 	[Title] ABSTRACTION CONSIDERED HARMFUL: LAZY LEARNING OF LANGUAGE PROCESSING [Abstract]  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 #3220. 	[Title] A Weighted Nearest Neighbor Algorithm for Learning with Symbolic Features [Abstract] In the past, nearest neighbor algorithms for learning from examples have worked best in domains in which all features had numeric values. In such domains, the examples can be treated as points and distance metrics can use standard definitions. In symbolic domains, a more sophisticated treatment of the feature space is required. We introduce a nearest neighbor algorithm for learning in domains with symbolic features. Our algorithm calculates distance tables that allow it to produce real-valued distances between instances, and attaches weights to the instances to further modify the structure of feature space. We show that this technique produces excellent classification accuracy on three problems that have been studied by machine learning researchers: predicting protein secondary structure, identifying DNA promoter sequences, and pronouncing English text. Direct experimental comparisons with the other learning algorithms show that our nearest neighbor algorithm is comparable or superior in all three domains. In addition, our algorithm has advantages in training speed, simplicity, and perspicuity. We conclude that experimental evidence favors the use and continued development of nearest neighbor algorithms for domains such as the ones studied here. 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 #39131. 	[Title] Oblivious Decision Trees and Abstract Cases [Abstract] In this paper, we address the problem of case-based learning in the presence of irrelevant features. We review previous work on attribute selection and present a new algorithm, Oblivion, that carries out greedy pruning of oblivious decision trees, which effectively store a set of abstract cases in memory. We hypothesize that this approach will efficiently identify relevant features even when they interact, as in parity concepts. We report experimental results on artificial domains that support this hypothesis, and experiments with natural domains that show improvement in some cases but not others. In closing, we discuss the implications of our experiments, consider additional work on irrelevant features, and outline some directions for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #359067. 	[Title] Supporting Conversational Case-Based Reasoning in an Integrated Reasoning Framework  Conversational Case-Based Reasoning [Abstract] Conversational case-based reasoning (CCBR) has been successfully used to assist in case retrieval tasks. However, behavioral limitations of CCBR motivate the search for integrations with other reasoning approaches. This paper briefly describes our group's ongoing efforts towards enhancing the inferencing behaviors of a conversational case-based reasoning development tool named NaCoDAE. In particular, we focus on integrating NaCoDAE with machine learning, model-based reasoning, and generative planning modules. This paper defines CCBR, briefly summarizes the integrations, and explains how they enhance the overall system. Our research focuses on enhancing the performance of conversational case-based reasoning (CCBR) systems (Aha & Breslow, 1997). CCBR is a form of case-based reasoning where users initiate problem solving conversations by entering an initial problem description in natural language text. This text is assumed to be a partial rather than a complete problem description. The CCBR system then assists in eliciting refinements of this description and in suggesting solutions. Its primary purpose is to provide a focus of attention for the user so as to quickly provide a solution(s) for their problem. Figure 1 summarizes the CCBR problem solving cycle. Cases in a CCBR library have three components: Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #521183. 	[Title] Formalising the knowledge content of case memory systems [Abstract] Discussions of case-based reasoning often reflect an implicit assumption that a case memory system will become better informed, i.e. will increase in knowledge, as more cases are added to the case-base. This paper considers formalisations of this `knowledge content' which are a necessary preliminary to more rigourous analysis of the performance of case-based reasoning systems. In particular we are interested in modelling the learning aspects of case-based reasoning in order to study how the performance of a case-based reasoning system changes as it accumlates problem-solving experience. The current paper presents a `case-base semantics' which generalises recent formalisations of case-based classification. Within this framework, the paper explores various issues in assuring that these sematics are well-defined, and illustrates how the knowledge content of the case memory system can be seen to reside in both the chosen similarity measure and in the cases of the case-base. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #521252 has the title `Similarity Metrics: A Formal Unification of Cardinal and Non-Cardinal Similarity Measures  
` and the abstract `In [9] we introduced a formal framework for constructing ordinal similarity measures, and suggested how this might also be applied to cardinal measures. In this paper we will place this approach in a more general framework, called similarity metrics. In this framework, ordinal similarity metrics (where comparison returns a boolean value) can be combined with cardinal metrics (returning a numeric value) and, indeed, with metrics returning values of other types, to produce new metrics.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #521252 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #521252 has the title `Similarity Metrics: A Formal Unification of Cardinal and Non-Cardinal Similarity Measures  
` and the abstract `In [9] we introduced a formal framework for constructing ordinal similarity measures, and suggested how this might also be applied to cardinal measures. In this paper we will place this approach in a more general framework, called similarity metrics. In this framework, ordinal similarity metrics (where comparison returns a boolean value) can be combined with cardinal metrics (returning a numeric value) and, indeed, with metrics returning values of other types, to produce new metrics.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #521252 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