Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #129897. 	[Title] The out-of-bootstrap method for model averaging and selection [Abstract] We propose a bootstrap-based method for model averaging and selection that focuses on training points that are left out of individual bootstrap samples. This information can be used to estimate optimal weighting factors for combining estimates from different bootstrap samples, and also for finding the best subsets the linear model setting. These proposals provide alternatives to Bayesian approaches to model averaging and selection, requiring less computation and fewer subjective choices. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131267. 	[Title] Parallel Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling. [Abstract] Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) samplers have proved remarkably popular as tools for Bayesian computation. However, problems can arise in their application when the density of interest is high dimensional and strongly correlated. In these circumstances the sampler may be slow to traverse the state space and mixing is poor. In this article we offer a partial solution to this problem. The state space of the Markov chain is augmented to accommodate multiple chains in parallel. Updates to individual chains are based around a genetic style crossover operator acting on `parent' states drawn from the population of chains. This process makes efficient use of gradient information implicitly encoded within the distribution of states across the population. Empirical studies support the claim that the crossover operator acting on a parallel population of chains improves mixing. This is illustrated with an example of sampling a high dimensional posterior probability density from a complex predictive model. By adopting a latent variable approach the methodology is extended to deal with variable selection and model averaging in high dimensions. This is illustrated with an example of knot selection for a spline interpolant. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1119751. 	[Title] An Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining Preferences [Abstract] The problem of combining preferences arises in several applications, such as combining the results of different search engines. This work describes an efficient algorithm for combining multiple preferences. We first give a formal framework for the problem. We then describe and analyze a new boosting algorithm for combining preferences called RankBoost. We also describe an efficient implementation of the algorithm for a restricted case. We discuss two experiments we carried out to assess the performance of RankBoost. In the first experiment, we used the algorithm to combine different WWW search strategies, each of which is a query expansion for a given domain. For this task, we compare the performance of RankBoost to the individual search strategies. The second experiment is a collaborative-filtering task for making movie recommendations. Here, we present results comparing RankBoost to nearest-neighbor and regression algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #16008. 	[Title] [12] J. Whittaker. Graphical Models in Applied Mathematical Multivariate Statis- [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #105865. 	[Title] Statistical Ideas for Selecting Network Architectures [Abstract] Choosing the architecture of a neural network is one of the most important problems in making neural networks practically useful, but accounts of applications usually sweep these details under the carpet. How many hidden units are needed? Should weight decay be used, and if so how much? What type of output units should be chosen? And so on. We address these issues within the framework of statistical theory for model This paper is principally concerned with architecture selection issues for feed-forward neural networks (also known as multi-layer perceptrons). Many of the same issues arise in selecting radial basis function networks, recurrent networks and more widely. These problems occur in a much wider context within statistics, and applied statisticians have been selecting and combining models for decades. Two recent discussions are [4, 5]. References [3, 20, 21, 22] discuss neural networks from a statistical perspective. choice, which provides a number of workable approximate answers. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #642827. 	[Title] Decomposable graphical Gaussian model determination [Abstract] We propose a methodology for Bayesian model determination in decomposable graphical Gaussian models. To achieve this aim we consider a hyper inverse Wishart prior distribution on the concentration matrix for each given graph. To ensure compatibility across models, such prior distributions are obtained by marginalisation from the prior conditional on the complete graph. We explore alternative structures for the hyperparameters of the latter, and their consequences for the model. Model determination is carried out by implementing a reversible jump MCMC sampler. In particular, the dimension-changing move we propose involves adding or dropping an edge from the graph. We characterise the set of moves which preserve the decomposability of the graph, giving a fast algorithm for maintaining the junction tree representation of the graph at each sweep. As state variable, we propose to use the incomplete variance-covariance matrix, containing only the elements for which the corresponding element of the inverse is nonzero. This allows all computations to be performed locally, at the clique level, which is a clear advantage for the analysis of large and complex data-sets. Finally, the statistical and computational performance of the procedure is illustrated by means of both artificial and real multidimensional data-sets. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8079. 	[Title] Bias Plus Variance Decomposition for Zero-One Loss Functions [Abstract] We present a bias-variance decomposition of expected misclassification rate, the most commonly used loss function in supervised classification learning. The bias-variance decomposition for quadratic loss functions is well known and serves as an important tool for analyzing learning algorithms, yet no decomposition was offered for the more commonly used zero-one (misclassification) loss functions until the recent work of Kong & Dietterich (1995) and Breiman (1996). Their decomposition suffers from some major shortcomings though (e.g., potentially negative variance), which our decomposition avoids. We show that, in practice, the naive frequency-based estimation of the decomposition terms is by itself biased and show how to correct for this bias. We illustrate the decomposition on various algorithms and datasets from the UCI repository. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #137873. 	[Title] Stacked Density Estimation [Abstract] Technical Report No. 97-36, Information and Computer Science Department, University of California, Irvine Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49811. 	[Title] Estimating the Accuracy of Learned Concepts [Abstract] This paper investigates alternative estimators of the accuracy of concepts learned from examples. In particular, the cross-validation and 632 bootstrap estimators are studied, using synthetic training data and the foil learning algorithm. Our experimental results contradict previous papers in statistics, which advocate the 632 bootstrap method as superior to cross-validation. Nevertheless, our results also suggest that conclusions based on cross-validation in previous machine learning papers are unreliable. Specifically, our observations are that (i) the true error of the concept learned by foil from independently drawn sets of examples of the same concept varies widely, (ii) the estimate of true error provided by cross-validation has high variability but is approximately unbiased, and (iii) the 632 bootstrap estimator has lower variability than cross-validation, but is systematically biased. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1107861. 	[Title] Boosting Trees for Cost-Sensitive Classifications [Abstract] This paper explores two boosting techniques for cost-sensitive tree classification in the situation where misclassification costs change very often. Ideally, one would like to have only one induction, and use the induced model for different misclassification costs. Thus, it demands robustness of the induced model against cost changes. Combining multiple trees gives robust predictions against this change. We demonstrate that ordinary boosting combined with the minimum expected cost criterion to select the prediction class is a good solution under this situation. We also introduce a variant of the ordinary boosting procedure which utilizes the cost information during training. We show that the proposed technique performs better than the ordinary boosting in terms of misclassification cost. However, this technique requires to induce a set of new trees every time the cost changes. Our empirical investigation also reveals some interesting behavior of boosting decision trees for cost-sensitive classification. 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 #1109542. 	[Title] The covariance inflation criterion for adaptive model selection [Abstract] We propose a new criterion for model selection in prediction problems. The covariance inflation criterion adjusts the training error by the average covariance of the predictions and responses, when the prediction rule is applied to permuted versions of the dataset. This criterion can be applied to general prediction problems (for example regression or classification), and to general prediction rules (for example stepwise regression, tree-based models and neural nets). As a byproduct we obtain a measure of the effective number of parameters used by an adaptive procedure. We relate the covariance inflation criterion to other model selection procedures and illustrate its use in some regression and classification problems. We also revisit the conditional bootstrap approach to model selection. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #423463. 	[Title] Model Selection for Generalized Linear Models via GLIB, with Application to Epidemiology 1 [Abstract] 1 This is the first draft of a chapter for Bayesian Biostatistics, edited by Donald A. Berry and Darlene K. Strangl. Adrian E. Raftery is Professor of Statistics and Sociology, Department of Statistics, GN-22, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Sylvia Richardson is Directeur de Recherche, INSERM Unite 170, 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94807 Villejuif CEDEX, France. Raftery's research was supported by ONR contract no. N-00014-91-J-1074, by the Ministere de la Recherche et de l'Espace, Paris, by the Universite de Paris VI, and by INRIA, Rocquencourt, France. Raftery thanks the latter two institutions, Paul Deheuvels and Gilles Celeux for hearty hospitality during his Paris sabbatical in which part of this chapter was written. The authors are grateful to Christine Montfort for excellent research assistance and to Mariette Gerber, Michel Chavance and David Madigan for helpful discussions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #280876. 	[Title] Principal Curve Clustering With Noise [Abstract] Technical Report 317 Department of Statistics University of Washington. 1 Derek Stanford is Graduate Research Assistant and Adrian E. Raftery is Professor of Statistics and Sociology, both at the Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Box 354322, Seattle, WA 98195-4322, USA. E-mail: stanford@stat.washington.edu and raftery@stat.washington.edu. Web: http://www.stat.washington.edu/raftery. This research was supported by ONR grants N00014-96-1-0192 and N00014-96-1-0330. The authors are grateful to Simon Byers, Gilles Celeux and Christian Posse for helpful discussions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #25772. 	[Title] Flexible Metric Nearest Neighbor Classiflcation [Abstract] The K-nearest-neighbor decision rule assigns an object of unknown class to the plurality class among the K labeled "training" objects that are closest to it. Closeness is usually deflned in terms of a metric distance on the Euclidean space with the input measurement variables as axes. The metric chosen to deflne this distance can strongly efiect performance. An optimal choice depends on the problem at hand as characterized by the respective class distributions on the input measurement space, and within a given problem, on the location of the unknown object in that space. In this paper new types of K-nearest-neighbor procedures are described that estimate the local relevance of each input variable, or their linear combinations, for each individual point to be classifled. This information is then used to separately customize the metric used to deflne distance from that object in flnding its nearest neighbors. These procedures are a hybrid between regular K-nearest-neighbor methods and treestructured recursive partitioning techniques popular in statistics and machine learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130927. 	[Title] Parametric regression 1.1 Learning problem model f bw b w in turn is an estimator [Abstract] Let us present briefly the learning problem we will address in this chapter and the following. The ultimate goal is the modelling of a mapping f : x 7! y from multidimensional input x to output y. The output can be multi-dimensional, but we will mostly address situations where it is a one dimensional real value. Furthermore, we should take into account the fact that we scarcely ever observe the actual true mapping y = f (x). This is due to perturbations such as e.g. observational noise. We will rather have a joint probability p (x; y). We expect this probability to be peaked for values of x and y corresponding to the mapping. We focus on automatic learning by example. A set D = of data sampled from the joint distribution p (x; y) = p (yjx) p (x) is collected. With the help of this set, we try to identify a model of the data, parameterised by a set of 1.2 Learning and optimisation The fit of the model to the system in a given point x is measured using a criterion representing the distance from the model prediction b y to the system, e (y; f w (x)). This is the local risk . The performance of the model is measured by the expected This quantity represents the ability to yield good performance for all the possible situations (i.e. (x; y) pairs) and is thus called generalisation error . The optimal set 1 parameters w: f w : x 7! b y. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130931. 	[Title] TH presentee par STATISTICAL LEARNING AND REGULARISATION FOR REGRESSION Application to system identification and time [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #7032. 	[Title] Combining estimates in regression and classification [Abstract] We consider the problem of how to combine a collection of general regression fit vectors in order to obtain a better predictive model. The individual fits may be from subset linear regression, ridge regression, or something more complex like a neural network. We develop a general framework for this problem and examine a recent cross-validation-based proposal called "stacking" in this context. Combination methods based on the bootstrap and analytic methods are also derived and compared in a number of examples, including best subsets regression and regression trees. Finally, we apply these ideas to classification problems where the estimated combination weights can yield insight into the structure of the problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1130934. 	[Title] 82 Lag-space estimation in time-series modelling keep track of cases where the estimation of P [Abstract] When m = 0 (no delays), we set A 0 (ffi) = f(j; k) ; j 6= kg, such that P m (*jffi) depends only on *. The estimated probabilities above become quite noisy when the number of elements in set A m and B m are small. For this reason, we estimate the standard deviation of P m (*jffi). Notice that this estimate is the empirical average of a binomial variable (either a given couple satisfied the conditions on ffi and *, or it does not). The standard deviation is then estimated easily by: Generally speaking, P m (*jffi) increases with * (laxer output test), and when ffi approaches 0 (stricter input condition). Let us now define by P m (*) the maximum over ffi of P m (*jffi): P m (*) = max ffi&gt;0 P m (*jffi). The dependability index is defined as: P 0 (*) represents how much data passes the continuity test when no input information is available. This dependability index measures how much of the remaining continuity information is associated with involving input i m . This index is then averaged over * with respect to the probability (1 P 0 (*)): m (*) (1 P 0 (*)) d* (4.8) It is clear that m (*), and therefore its average, should be positive quantities. Furthermore, if the system is deterministic, the dependability is zero after a certain number of inputs, so the sum of averages saturates. If the system is also noise-free, they sum up to 1. For any m greater than the embedding dimension: refers to results obtained using this method. 4.6 Statistical variable selection Statistical variable selection (or feature selection) encompasses a number of techniques aimed at choosing a relevant subset of input variables in a regression or a classification problem. As in the rest of this document, we will limit ourselves to considerations related to the regression problem, even though most methods discussed below apply to classification as well. Variable selection can be seen as a part of the data analysis problem: the selection (or discard) of a variable tells us about the relevance of the associated measurement to the modelled system. In a general setting, this is a purely combinatorial problem: given V possible variables, there is 2 V possible subsets (including the empty set and the full set) of these variables. Given a performance measure, such as prediction error, the only optimal scheme is to test all these subset and choose the one that gives the best performance. It is easy to see that such an extensive scheme is only viable when the number of variables is rather low. Identifying 2 V models when we have more than a few variables requires too much computation. A number of techniques have been devised to overcome this combinatorial limit. Some of them use an iterative, locally optimal technique to construct an estimate of the relevant subset in a number of steps. We will refer to them as stepwise selection methods, not to be con fused with stepwise regression, a subset of these methods that we will address below. In forward selection, we start with an empty set of variables. At each step, we select a candidate variable using a selection criteria, check whether this variable should be added to the set, and iterate until a given stop condition is reached. On the contrary, backward elimination methods start with the full set of all input variables. At each step, the least significant variable is selected according to a selection criteria. If this variable is irrelevant, it is removed and the process is iterated until a stop condition is reached. It is easy to devise examples where the inclusion of a variable causes a previously included variable to become irrelevant. It thus seems appropriate to consider running a backward elimination each time a new variable is added by forward selection. This combination of both ap proaches is known as stepwise regression in the linear regression con Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #308920. 	[Title] A Graphical Characterization of Lattice Conditional Independence Models [Abstract] Lattice conditional independence (LCI) models for multivariate normal data recently have been introduced for the analysis of non-monotone missing data patterns and of nonnested dependent linear regression models ( seemingly unrelated regressions). It is shown here that the class of LCI models coincides with a subclass of the class of graphical Markov models determined by acyclic digraphs (ADGs), namely, the subclass of transitive ADG models. An explicit graph - theoretic characterization of those ADGs that are Markov equivalent to some transitive ADG is obtained. This characterization allows one to determine whether a specific ADG D is Markov equivalent to some transitive ADG, hence to some LCI model, in polynomial time, without an exhaustive search of the (exponentially large) equivalence class [D ]. These results do not require the existence or positivity of joint densities. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1109439. 	[Title] Classifying Seismic Signals by Integrating Ensembles of Neural Networks [Abstract] This paper proposes a classification scheme based on integration of multiple Ensembles of ANNs. It is demonstrated on a classification problem, in which seismic signals of Natural Earthquakes must be distinguished from seismic signals of Artificial Explosions. A Redundant Classification Environment consists of several Ensembles of Neural Networks is created and trained on Bootstrap Sample Sets, using various data representations and architectures. The ANNs within the Ensembles are aggregated (as in Bagging) while the Ensembles are integrated non-linearly, in a signal adaptive manner, using a posterior confidence measure based on the agreement (variance) within the Ensembles. The proposed Integrated Classification Machine achieved 92.1% correct classifications on the seismic test data. Cross Validation evaluations and comparisons indicate that such integration of a collection of ANN's Ensembles is a robust way for handling high dimensional problems with a complex non-stationary signal space as in the current Seismic Classification problem. 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.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1108551. 	[Title] From: Computational Learning Theory and Natural Systems, Chapter 18, "Cross-validation and Modal Theories", Cross-Validation and [Abstract] Cross-validation is a frequently used, intuitively pleasing technique for estimating the accuracy of theories learned by machine learning algorithms. During testing of a machine learning algorithm (foil) on new databases of prokaryotic RNA transcription promoters which we have developed, cross-validation displayed an interesting phenomenon. One theory is found repeatedly and is responsible for very little of the cross-validation error, whereas other theories are found very infrequently which tend to be responsible for the majority of the cross-validation error. It is tempting to believe that the most frequently found theory (the "modal theory") may be more accurate as a classifier of unseen data than the other theories. However, experiments showed that modal theories are not more accurate on unseen data than the other theories found less frequently during cross-validation. Modal theories may be useful in predicting when cross-validation is a poor estimate of true accuracy. We offer explanations 1 For correspondence: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1121867. 	[Title] MAJORITY VOTE CLASSIFIERS: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1997. 	[Title] Cross-Validation and the Bootstrap: Estimating the Error Rate of a Prediction Rule [Abstract] A training set of data has been used to construct a rule for predicting future responses. What is the error rate of this rule? The traditional answer to this question is given by cross-validation. The cross-validation estimate of prediction error is nearly unbiased, but can be highly variable. This article discusses bootstrap estimates of prediction error, which can be thought of as smoothed versions of cross-validation. A particular bootstrap method, the 632+ rule, is shown to substantially outperform cross-validation in a catalog of 24 simulation experiments. Besides providing point estimates, we also consider estimating the variability of an error rate estimate. All of the results here are nonparametric, and apply to any possible prediction rule: however we only study classification problems with 0-1 loss in detail. Our simulations include "smooth" prediction rules like Fisher's Linear Discriminant Function, and unsmooth ones like Nearest Neighbors. 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 #1104851. 	[Title] Improving Bagging Performance by Increasing Decision Tree Diversity [Abstract] Ensembles of decision trees often exhibit greater predictive accuracy than single trees alone. Bagging and boosting are two standard ways of generating and combining multiple trees. Boosting has been empirically determined to be the more effective of the two, and it has recently been proposed that this may be because it produces more diverse trees than bagging. This paper reports empirical findings that strongly support this hypothesis. We enforce greater decision tree diversity in bagging by a simple modification of the underlying decision tree learner that utilizes randomly-generated decision stumps of predefined depth as the starting point for tree induction. The modified procedure yields very competitive results while still retaining one of the attractive properties of bagging: all iterations are independent. Additionally, we also investigate a possible integration of bagging and boosting. All these ensemble-generating procedures are compared empirically on various domains. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #561364. 	[Title] Markov Chain Monte Carlo Model Determination for Hierarchical and Graphical Log-linear Models [Abstract] The Bayesian approach to comparing models involves calculating the posterior probability of each plausible model. For high-dimensional contingency tables, the set of plausible models is very large. We focus attention on reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo (Green, 1995) and develop strategies for calculating posterior probabilities of hierarchical, graphical or decomposable log-linear models. Even for tables of moderate size, these sets of models may be very large. The choice of suitable prior distributions for model parameters is also discussed in detail, and two examples are presented. For the first example, a 2 fi 3 fi 4 table, the model probabilities calculated using our reversible jump approach are compared with model probabilities calculated exactly or by using an alternative approximation. The second example is a 2 6 contingency table for which exact methods are infeasible, due to the large number of possible models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #310742. 	[Title] Bayesian Graphical Modeling for Intelligent Tutoring Systems [Abstract] Conventional Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) do not acknowledge uncertainty about the student's knowledge. Yet, both the outcome of any teaching intervention and the exact state of the student's knowledge are uncertain. In recent years, researchers have made startling progress in the management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems. Building on these developments, we describe an ITS architecture that explicitly models uncertainty. This will facilitate more accurate student modeling and provide ITS's which can learn. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #5086. 	[Title] Approximate Bayes Factors and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Generalized Linear Models [Abstract] Technical Report no. 255 Department of Statistics, University of Washington August 1993; Revised March 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1133028. 	[Title] An Efficient Method To Estimate Bagging's Generalization Error [Abstract] In bagging [Bre94a] one uses bootstrap replicates of the training set [Efr79, ET93] to try to improve a learning algorithm's performance. The computational requirements for estimating the resultant generalization error on a test set by means of cross-validation are often prohibitive; for leave-one-out cross-validation one needs to train the underlying algorithm on the order of m- times, where m is the size of the training set and is the number of replicates. This paper presents several techniques for exploiting the bias-variance decomposition [GBD92, Wol96] to estimate the generalization error of a bagged learning algorithm without invoking yet more training of the underlying learning algorithm. The best of our estimators exploits stacking [Wol92]. In a set of experiments reported here, it was found to be more accurate than both the alternative cross-validation-based estimator of the bagged algorithm's error and the cross-validation-based estimator of the underlying algorithm's error. This improvement was particularly pronounced for small test sets. This suggests a novel justification for using bagging| im proved estimation of generalization error. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106789. 	[Title] Model Selection for Consumer Loan Application Data [Abstract] Loan applications at banks are often long, requiring the applicant to provide large amounts of data. Is all of it necessary? Can we save the applicant some frustration and the bank some expense by using only a subset of the relevant variables? To answer this question, I have attempted to model the current loan approval process at a particular bank. I have used several model selection techniques for logistic regression, including stepwise regression, Occam's Window, Markov Chain Monte Carlo Model Composition (Raftery, Madigan, and Hoeting, 1993), and Bayesian Random Searching. The resulting models largely agree upon a subset of only one-third of the original variables. fl This paper was completed in partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. data analysis requirement. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #154982. 	[Title] Bias, variance and prediction error for classification rules [Abstract] We study the notions of bias and variance for classification rules. Following Efron (1978) we develop a decomposition of prediction error into its natural components. Then we derive bootstrap estimates of these components and illustrate how they can be used to describe the error behaviour of a classifier in practice. In the process we also obtain a bootstrap estimate of the error of a "bagged" classifier. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #162664. 	[Title] An Algorithm for the Construction of Bayesian Network Structures from Data [Abstract] Previous algorithms for the construction of Bayesian belief network structures from data have been either highly dependent on conditional independence (CI) tests, or have required an ordering on the nodes to be supplied by the user. We present an algorithm that integrates these two approaches - CI tests are used to generate an ordering on the nodes from the database which is then used to recover the underlying Bayesian network structure using a non CI based method. Results of preliminary evaluation of the algorithm on two networks (ALARM and LED) are presented. We also discuss some algo rithm performance issues and open problems. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #129896. 	[Title] Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Survival Analysis Improves Predictive Performance [Abstract] Survival analysis is concerned with finding models to predict the survival of patients or to assess the efficacy of a clinical treatment. A key part of the model-building process is the selection of the predictor variables. It is standard to use a stepwise procedure guided by a series of significance tests to select a single model, and then to make inference conditionally on the selected model. However, this ignores model uncertainty, which can be substantial. We review the standard Bayesian model averaging solution to this problem and extend it to survival analysis, introducing partial Bayes factors to do so for the Cox proportional hazards model. In two examples, taking account of model uncertainty enhances predictive performance, to an extent that could be clinically useful. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1127530. 	[Title] Bayesian inference for nondecomposable graphical Gaussian models [Abstract] In this paper we propose a method to calculate the posterior probability of a nondecomposable graphical Gaussian model. Our proposal is based on a new device to sample from Wishart distributions, conditional on the graphical constraints. As a result, our methodology allows Bayesian model selection within the whole class of graphical Gaussian models, including nondecomposable ones. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1102442. 	[Title] Unbiased Assessment of Learning Algorithms [Abstract] In order to rank the performance of machine learning algorithms, many researchers conduct experiments on benchmark data sets. Since most learning algorithms have domain-specific parameters, it is a popular custom to adapt these parameters to obtain a minimal error rate on the test set. The same rate is then used to rank the algorithm, which causes an optimistic bias. We quantify this bias, showing, in particular, that an algorithm with more parameters will probably be ranked higher than an equally good algorithm with fewer parameters. We demonstrate this result, showing the number of parameters and trials required in order to pretend to outperform C4.5 or FOIL, respectively, for various benchmark problems. We then describe out how unbiased ranking experiments should be conducted. 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 #1110000. 	[Title] FLEXIBLE PARAMETRIC MEASUREMENT ERROR MODELS [Abstract] Inferences in measurement error models can be sensitive to modeling assumptions. Specifically, if the model is incorrect then the estimates can be inconsistent. To reduce sensitivity to modeling assumptions and yet still retain the efficiency of parametric inference we propose to use flexible parametric models which can accommodate departures from standard parametric models. We use mixtures of normals for this purpose. We study two cases in detail: a linear errors-in-variables model and a change-point Berkson model. fl Raymond J. Carroll is Professor of Statistics, Nutrition and Toxicology, Department of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3143. Kathryn Roeder is Associate Professor, and Larry Wasser-man is Professor, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890. Carroll's research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (CA-57030). Roeder's research was supported by NSF grant DMS-9496219. Wasserman's research was supported by NIH grant RO1-CA54852 and NSF grants DMS-9303557 and DMS-9357646. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3187. 	[Title] A Reference Bayesian Test for Nested Hypotheses And its Relationship to the Schwarz Criterion [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3191. 	[Title] Model Selection and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Linear Regression Models [Abstract] 1 Adrian E. Raftery is Professor of Statistics and Sociology, David Madigan is Assistant Professor of Statistics, and Jennifer Hoeting is a Ph.D. Candidate, all at the Department of Statistics, GN-22, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. The research of Raftery and Hoeting was supported by ONR Contract N-00014-91-J-1074. Madigan's research was partially supported by NSF grant no. DMS 92111627. The authors are grateful to Danika Lew for research assistance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3192. 	[Title] Bayesian Graphical Models for Discrete Data [Abstract] z York's research was supported by a NSF graduate fellowship. The authors are grateful to Julian Besag, David Bradshaw, Jeff Bradshaw, James Carlsen, David Draper, Ivar Heuch, Robert Kass, Augustine Kong, Steffen Lauritzen, Adrian Raftery, and James Zidek for helpful comments and discussions. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #129897 has the title `The out-of-bootstrap method for model averaging and selection  
` and the abstract `We propose a bootstrap-based method for model averaging and selection that focuses on training points that are left out of individual bootstrap samples. This information can be used to estimate optimal weighting factors for combining estimates from different bootstrap samples, and also for finding the best subsets the linear model setting. These proposals provide alternatives to Bayesian approaches to model averaging and selection, requiring less computation and fewer subjective choices. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #129897 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #129897 has the title `The out-of-bootstrap method for model averaging and selection  
` and the abstract `We propose a bootstrap-based method for model averaging and selection that focuses on training points that are left out of individual bootstrap samples. This information can be used to estimate optimal weighting factors for combining estimates from different bootstrap samples, and also for finding the best subsets the linear model setting. These proposals provide alternatives to Bayesian approaches to model averaging and selection, requiring less computation and fewer subjective choices. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #129897 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