Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #18773. 	[Title] Building Classifiers using Bayesian Networks [Abstract] Recent work in supervised learning has shown that a surprisingly simple Bayesian classifier with strong assumptions of independence among features, called naive Bayes, is competitive with state of the art classifiers such as C4.5. This fact raises the question of whether a classifier with less restrictive assumptions can perform even better. In this paper we examine and evaluate approaches for inducing classifiers from data, based on recent results in the theory of learning Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks are factored representations of probability distributions that generalize the naive Bayes classifier and explicitly represent statements about independence. Among these approaches we single out a method we call Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), which outperforms naive Bayes, yet at the same time maintains the computational simplicity (no search involved) and robustness which are characteristic of naive Bayes. We experimentally tested these approaches using benchmark problems from the U. C. Irvine repository, and compared them against C4.5, naive Bayes, and wrapper-based feature selection methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #88356. 	[Title] Learning Limited Dependence Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] We present a framework for characterizing Bayesian classification methods. This framework can be thought of as a spectrum of allowable dependence in a given probabilistic model with the Naive Bayes algorithm at the most restrictive end and the learning of full Bayesian networks at the most general extreme. While much work has been carried out along the two ends of this spectrum, there has been surprising little done along the middle. We analyze the assumptions made as one moves along this spectrum and show the tradeoffs between model accuracy and learning speed which become critical to consider in a variety of data mining domains. We then present a general induction algorithm that allows for traversal of this spectrum depending on the available computational power for carrying out induction and show its application in a number of domains with different properties. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #2653. 	[Title] A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting how the weight-update rule [Abstract] We consider the problem of dynamically apportioning resources among a set of options in a worst-case on-line framework. The model we study can be interpreted as a broad, abstract extension of the well-studied on-line prediction model to a general decision-theoretic setting. We show that the multiplicative weight-update rule of Littlestone and Warmuth [10] can be adapted to this model yielding bounds that are slightly weaker in some cases, but applicable to a considerably more general class of learning problems. We show how the resulting learning algorithm can be applied to a variety of problems, including gambling, multiple-outcome prediction, repeated games and prediction of points in R n Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #167656. 	[Title] BOOSTING AND NAIVE BAYESIAN LEARNING [Abstract] Although so-called naive Bayesian classification makes the unrealistic assumption that the values of the attributes of an example are independent given the class of the example, this learning method is remarkably successful in practice, and no uniformly better learning method is known. Boosting is a general method of combining multiple classifiers due to Yoav Freund and Rob Schapire. This paper shows that boosting applied to naive Bayesian classifiers yields combination classifiers that are representationally equivalent to standard feedforward multilayer perceptrons. (An ancillary result is that naive Bayesian classification is a nonparametric, nonlinear generalization of logistic regression.) As a training algorithm, boosted naive Bayesian learning is quite different from backpropagation, and has definite advantages. Boosting requires only linear time and constant space, and hidden nodes are learned incrementally, starting with the most important. On the real-world datasets on which the method has been tried so far, generalization performance is as good as or better than the best published result using any other learning method. Unlike all other standard learning algorithms, naive Bayesian learning, with and without boosting, can be done in logarithmic time with a linear number of parallel computing units. Accordingly, these learning methods are highly plausible computationally as models of animal learning. Other arguments suggest that they are plausible behaviorally also. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #114189. 	[Title] Searching for dependencies in Bayesian classifiers j A n V n j If the attributes [Abstract] Naive Bayesian classifiers which make independence assumptions perform remarkably well on some data sets but poorly on others. We explore ways to improve the Bayesian classifier by searching for dependencies among attributes. We propose and evaluate two algorithms for detecting dependencies among attributes and show that the backward sequential elimination and joining algorithm provides the most improvement over the naive Bayesian classifier. The domains on which the most improvement occurs are those domains on which the naive Bayesian classifier is significantly less accurate than a decision tree learner. This suggests that the attributes used in some common databases are not independent conditioned on the class and that the violations of the independence assumption that affect the accuracy of the classifier The Bayesian classifier (Duda & Hart, 1973) is a probabilistic method for classification. It can be used to determine the probability that an example j belongs to class C i given values of attributes of an example represented as a set of n nominally-valued attribute-value pairs of the form A 1 = V 1 j : ^ P (A k = V k j jC i ) may be estimated from the training data. To determine the most likely class of a test example, the probability of each class is computed with Equation 1. A classifier created in this manner is sometimes called a simple (Langley, 1993) or naive (Kononenko, 1990) Bayesian classifier. One important evaluation metric for machine learning methods is the predictive accuracy on unseen examples. This is measured by randomly selecting a subset of the examples in a database to use as training examples and reserving the remainder to be used as test examples. In the case of the simple Bayesian classifier, the training examples are used to estimate probabilities and Equation 1.1 is then used can be detected from training data. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3222. 	[Title] Beyond Independence: Conditions for the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier [Abstract] The simple Bayesian classifier (SBC) is commonly thought to assume that attributes are independent given the class, but this is apparently contradicted by the surprisingly good performance it exhibits in many domains that contain clear attribute dependences. No explanation for this has been proposed so far. In this paper we show that the SBC does not in fact assume attribute independence, and can be optimal even when this assumption is violated by a wide margin. The key to this finding lies in the distinction between classification and probability estimation: correct classification can be achieved even when the probability estimates used contain large errors. We show that the previously-assumed region of optimality of the SBC is a second-order infinitesimal fraction of the actual one. This is followed by the derivation of several necessary and several sufficient conditions for the optimality of the SBC. For example, the SBC is optimal for learning arbitrary conjunctions and disjunctions, even though they violate the independence assumption. The paper also reports empirical evidence of the SBC's competitive performance in domains containing substantial degrees of attribute dependence. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3223. 	[Title] Supervised and Unsupervised Discretization of Continuous Features [Abstract] Many supervised machine learning algorithms require a discrete feature space. In this paper, we review previous work on continuous feature discretization, identify defining characteristics of the methods, and conduct an empirical evaluation of several methods. We compare binning, an unsupervised discretization method, to entropy-based and purity-based methods, which are supervised algorithms. We found that the performance of the Naive-Bayes algorithm significantly improved when features were discretized using an entropy-based method. In fact, over the 16 tested datasets, the discretized version of Naive-Bayes slightly outperformed C4.5 on average. We also show that in some cases, the performance of the C4.5 induction algorithm significantly improved if features were discretized in advance; in our experiments, the performance never significantly degraded, an interesting phenomenon considering the fact that C4.5 is capable of locally discretiz ing features. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39126. 	[Title] Toward Optimal Feature Selection [Abstract] In this paper, we examine a method for feature subset selection based on Information Theory. Initially, a framework for defining the theoretically optimal, but computation-ally intractable, method for feature subset selection is presented. We show that our goal should be to eliminate a feature if it gives us little or no additional information beyond that subsumed by the remaining features. In particular, this will be the case for both irrelevant and redundant features. We then give an efficient algorithm for feature selection which computes an approximation to the optimal feature selection criterion. The conditions under which the approximate algorithm is successful are examined. Empirical results are given on a number of data sets, showing that the algorithm effectively han dles datasets with large numbers of features. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28957. 	[Title] Operations for Learning with Graphical Models decomposition techniques and the demonstration that graphical models provide [Abstract] This paper is a multidisciplinary review of empirical, statistical learning from a graphical model perspective. Well-known examples of graphical models include Bayesian networks, directed graphs representing a Markov chain, and undirected networks representing a Markov field. These graphical models are extended to model data analysis and empirical learning using the notation of plates. Graphical operations for simplifying and manipulating a problem are provided including decomposition, differentiation, and the manipulation of probability models from the exponential family. Two standard algorithm schemas for learning are reviewed in a graphical framework: Gibbs sampling and the expectation maximization algorithm. Using these operations and schemas, some popular algorithms can be synthesized from their graphical specification. This includes versions of linear regression, techniques for feed-forward networks, and learning Gaussian and discrete Bayesian networks from data. The paper concludes by sketching some implications for data analysis and summarizing how some popular algorithms fall within the framework presented. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #5055. 	[Title] Boosting the Margin: A New Explanation for the Effectiveness of Voting Methods [Abstract] One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this phenomenon is related to the distribution of margins of the training examples with respect to the generated voting classification rule, where the margin of an example is simply the difference between the number of correct votes and the maximum number of votes received by any incorrect label. We show that techniques used in the analysis of Vapnik's support vector classifiers and of neural networks with small weights can be applied to voting methods to relate the margin distribution to the test error. We also show theoretically and experimentally that boosting is especially effective at increasing the margins of the training examples. Finally, we compare our explanation to those based on the bias-variance decomposition. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #18773 has the title `Building Classifiers using Bayesian Networks  
` and the abstract `Recent work in supervised learning has shown that a surprisingly simple Bayesian classifier with strong assumptions of independence among features, called naive Bayes, is competitive with state of the art classifiers such as C4.5. This fact raises the question of whether a classifier with less restrictive assumptions can perform even better. In this paper we examine and evaluate approaches for inducing classifiers from data, based on recent results in the theory of learning Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks are factored representations of probability distributions that generalize the naive Bayes classifier and explicitly represent statements about independence. Among these approaches we single out a method we call Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), which outperforms naive Bayes, yet at the same time maintains the computational simplicity (no search involved) and robustness which are characteristic of naive Bayes. We experimentally tested these approaches using benchmark problems from the U. C. Irvine repository, and compared them against C4.5, naive Bayes, and wrapper-based feature selection methods. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #18773 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #18773 has the title `Building Classifiers using Bayesian Networks  
` and the abstract `Recent work in supervised learning has shown that a surprisingly simple Bayesian classifier with strong assumptions of independence among features, called naive Bayes, is competitive with state of the art classifiers such as C4.5. This fact raises the question of whether a classifier with less restrictive assumptions can perform even better. In this paper we examine and evaluate approaches for inducing classifiers from data, based on recent results in the theory of learning Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks are factored representations of probability distributions that generalize the naive Bayes classifier and explicitly represent statements about independence. Among these approaches we single out a method we call Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), which outperforms naive Bayes, yet at the same time maintains the computational simplicity (no search involved) and robustness which are characteristic of naive Bayes. We experimentally tested these approaches using benchmark problems from the U. C. Irvine repository, and compared them against C4.5, naive Bayes, and wrapper-based feature selection methods. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #18773 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