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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #39890. 	[Title] A THEORY OF INFERRED CAUSATION perceive causal relationships in uncon trolled observations. 2. the task [Abstract] This paper concerns the empirical basis of causation, and addresses the following issues: We propose a minimal-model semantics of causation, and show that, contrary to common folklore, genuine causal influences can be distinguished from spurious covariations following standard norms of inductive reasoning. We also establish a sound characterization of the conditions under which such a distinction is possible. We provide an effective algorithm for inferred causation and show that, for a large class of data the algorithm can uncover the direction of causal influences as defined above. Finally, we ad dress the issue of non-temporal causation. Please summarise all the given information.

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 #1123689. 	[Title] A Parallel Learning Algorithm for Bayesian Inference Networks [Abstract] We present a new parallel algorithm for learning Bayesian inference networks from data. Our learning algorithm exploits both properties of the MDL-based score metric, and a distributed, asynchronous, adaptive search technique called nagging. Nagging is intrinsically fault tolerant, has dynamic load balancing features, and scales well. We demonstrate the viability, effectiveness, and scalability of our approach empirically with several experiments using on the order of 20 machines. More specifically, we show that our distributed algorithm can provide optimal solutions for larger problems as well as good solutions for Bayesian networks of up to 150 variables. 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 #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.

Paper #189574 has the title `Theory Refinement on Bayesian Networks  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #189574 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #189574 has the title `Theory Refinement on Bayesian Networks  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #189574 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: Probabilistic_Methods