Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #124296. 	[Title] Investigating the Value of a Good Input Representation [Abstract] This paper is reprinted from Computational Learning Theory and Natural Learning Systems, vol. 3, T. Petsche, S. Judd, and S. Hanson, (eds.), forthcoming 1995. Copyrighted 1995 by MIT Press Abstract The ability of an inductive learning system to find a good solution to a given problem is dependent upon the representation used for the features of the problem. A number of factors, including training-set size and the ability of the learning algorithm to perform constructive induction, can mediate the effect of an input representation on the accuracy of a learned concept description. We present experiments that evaluate the effect of input representation on generalization performance for the real-world problem of finding genes in DNA. Our experiments that demonstrate that: (1) two different input representations for this task result in significantly different generalization performance for both neural networks and decision trees; and (2) both neural and symbolic methods for constructive induction fail to bridge the gap between these two representations. We believe that this real-world domain provides an interesting challenge problem for the machine learning subfield of constructive induction because the relationship between the two representations is well known, and because conceptually, the representational shift involved in constructing the better representation should not be too imposing. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #211875. 	[Title] Protein Structure Prediction: Selecting Salient Features from Large Candidate Pools [Abstract] We introduce a parallel approach, "DT-Select," for selecting features used by inductive learning algorithms to predict protein secondary structure. DT-Select is able to rapidly choose small, nonredundant feature sets from pools containing hundreds of thousands of potentially useful features. It does this by building a decision tree, using features from the pool, that classifies a set of training examples. The features included in the tree provide a compact description of the training data and are thus suitable for use as inputs to other inductive learning algorithms. Empirical experiments in the protein secondary-structure task, in which sets of complex features chosen by DT-Select are used to augment a standard artificial neural network representation, yield surprisingly little performance gain, even though features are selected from very large feature pools. We discuss some possible reasons for this result. 1 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #33412. 	[Title] Learning to Predict Reading Frames in E. coli DNA Sequences [Abstract] Two fundamental problems in analyzing DNA sequences are (1) locating the regions of a DNA sequence that encode proteins, and (2) determining the reading frame for each region. We investigate using artificial neural networks (ANNs) to find coding regions, determine reading frames, and detect frameshift errors in E. coli DNA sequences. We describe our adaptation of the approach used by Uberbacher and Mural to identify coding regions in human DNA, and we compare the performance of ANNs to several conventional methods for predicting reading frames. Our experiments demonstrate that ANNs can outperform these conventional approaches. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #34708. 	[Title] Learning to Represent Codons: A Challenge Problem for Constructive Induction [Abstract] The ability of an inductive learning system to find a good solution to a given problem is dependent upon the representation used for the features of the problem. Systems that perform constructive induction are able to change their representation by constructing new features. We describe an important, real-world problem finding genes in DNA that we believe offers an interesting challenge to constructive-induction researchers. We report experiments that demonstrate that: (1) two different input representations for this task result in significantly different generalization performance for both neural networks and decision trees; and (2) both neural and symbolic methods for constructive induction fail to bridge the gap between these two representations. We believe that this real-world domain provides an interesting challenge problem for constructive induction because the relationship between the two representations is well known, and because the representational shift involved in construct ing the better representation is not imposing. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #51834. 	[Title] Rerepresenting and Restructuring Domain Theories: A Constructive Induction Approach [Abstract] Theory revision integrates inductive learning and background knowledge by combining training examples with a coarse domain theory to produce a more accurate theory. There are two challenges that theory revision and other theory-guided systems face. First, a representation language appropriate for the initial theory may be inappropriate for an improved theory. While the original representation may concisely express the initial theory, a more accurate theory forced to use that same representation may be bulky, cumbersome, and difficult to reach. Second, a theory structure suitable for a coarse domain theory may be insufficient for a fine-tuned theory. Systems that produce only small, local changes to a theory have limited value for accomplishing complex structural alterations that may be required. Consequently, advanced theory-guided learning systems require flexible representation and flexible structure. An analysis of various theory revision systems and theory-guided learning systems reveals specific strengths and weaknesses in terms of these two desired properties. Designed to capture the underlying qualities of each system, a new system uses theory-guided constructive induction. Experiments in three domains show improvement over previous theory-guided systems. This leads to a study of the behavior, limitations, and potential of theory-guided constructive induction. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #46491. 	[Title] ID2-of-3: Constructive Induction of M of-N Concepts for Discriminators in Decision Trees [Abstract] We discuss an approach to constructing composite features during the induction of decision trees. The composite features correspond to m-of-n concepts. There are three goals of this research. First, we explore a family of greedy methods for building m-of-n concepts (one of which, GS, is described in this paper). Second, we show how these concepts can be formed as internal nodes of decision trees, serving as a bias to the learner. Finally, we evaluate the method on several artificially generated and naturally occurring data sets to determine the effects of this bias. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3229. 	[Title] Book Review  Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation Reviewed by: 2 [Abstract] Neural computation, also called connectionism, parallel distributed processing, neural network modeling or brain-style computation, has grown rapidly in the last decade. Despite this explosion, and ultimately because of impressive applications, there has been a dire need for a concise introduction from a theoretical perspective, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of connectionist approaches and establishing links to other disciplines, such as statistics or control theory. The Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation by Hertz, Krogh and Palmer (subsequently referred to as HKP) is written from the perspective of physics, the home discipline of the authors. The book fulfills its mission as an introduction for neural network novices, provided that they have some background in calculus, linear algebra, and statistics. It covers a number of models that are often viewed as disjoint. Critical analyses and fruitful comparisons between these models Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #66782. 	[Title] Using Qualitative Models to Guide Inductive Learning [Abstract] This paper presents a method for using qualitative models to guide inductive learning. Our objectives are to induce rules which are not only accurate but also explainable with respect to the qualitative model, and to reduce learning time by exploiting domain knowledge in the learning process. Such ex-plainability is essential both for practical application of inductive technology, and for integrating the results of learning back into an existing knowledge-base. We apply this method to two process control problems, a water tank network and an ore grinding process used in the mining industry. Surprisingly, in addition to achieving explainability the classificational accuracy of the induced rules is also increased. We show how the value of the qualitative models can be quantified in terms of their equivalence to additional training examples, and finally discuss possible extensions. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #124296 has the title `Investigating the Value of a Good Input Representation  
` and the abstract `This paper is reprinted from Computational Learning Theory and Natural Learning Systems, vol. 3, T. Petsche, S. Judd, and S. Hanson, (eds.), forthcoming 1995. Copyrighted 1995 by MIT Press Abstract The ability of an inductive learning system to find a good solution to a given problem is dependent upon the representation used for the features of the problem. A number of factors, including training-set size and the ability of the learning algorithm to perform constructive induction, can mediate the effect of an input representation on the accuracy of a learned concept description. We present experiments that evaluate the effect of input representation on generalization performance for the real-world problem of finding genes in DNA. Our experiments that demonstrate that: (1) two different input representations for this task result in significantly different generalization performance for both neural networks and decision trees; and (2) both neural and symbolic methods for constructive induction fail to bridge the gap between these two representations. We believe that this real-world domain provides an interesting challenge problem for the machine learning subfield of constructive induction because the relationship between the two representations is well known, and because conceptually, the representational shift involved in constructing the better representation should not be too imposing. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #124296 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #124296 has the title `Investigating the Value of a Good Input Representation  
` and the abstract `This paper is reprinted from Computational Learning Theory and Natural Learning Systems, vol. 3, T. Petsche, S. Judd, and S. Hanson, (eds.), forthcoming 1995. Copyrighted 1995 by MIT Press Abstract The ability of an inductive learning system to find a good solution to a given problem is dependent upon the representation used for the features of the problem. A number of factors, including training-set size and the ability of the learning algorithm to perform constructive induction, can mediate the effect of an input representation on the accuracy of a learned concept description. We present experiments that evaluate the effect of input representation on generalization performance for the real-world problem of finding genes in DNA. Our experiments that demonstrate that: (1) two different input representations for this task result in significantly different generalization performance for both neural networks and decision trees; and (2) both neural and symbolic methods for constructive induction fail to bridge the gap between these two representations. We believe that this real-world domain provides an interesting challenge problem for the machine learning subfield of constructive induction because the relationship between the two representations is well known, and because conceptually, the representational shift involved in constructing the better representation should not be too imposing. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #124296 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: Neural_Networks