Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1114864. 	[Title] Machine Learning: An Annotated Bibliography for the 1995 AI Statistics Tutorial on Machine Learning (Version 1) [Abstract] This is a brief annotated bibliography that I wanted to make available to the attendees of my Machine Learning tutorial at the 1995 AI & Statistics Workshop. These slides are available in my WWW pages under slides. Please contact me if you have any questions. Please also note the date (listed above) on which this was most recently updated. While I plan to make occasional updates to this file, it is bound to be outdated quickly. Also, I apologize for the lack of figures, but my time on this project is limited and the slides should compensate. Finally, this bibliography is, by definition, This book is now out of date. Both Pat Langley and Tom Mitchell are in the process of writing textbooks on this subject, but we're still waiting for them. Until then, I suggest looking at both the Readings and the recent ML conference proceedings (both International and European). There are also a few introductory papers on this subject, though I haven't gotten around to putting them in here yet. However, Pat Langley and Dennis Kibler (1988) have written a good paper on ML as an empirical science, and Pat has written several editorials of use to the ML author (Langley 1986; 1987; 1990). incomplete, and I've left out many other references that may be of some use. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1117184. 	[Title] NACODAE: Navy Conversational Decision Aids Environment [Abstract] This report documents NACODAE, the Navy Conversational Decision Aids Environment being developed at the Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence (NCARAI), which is a branch of the Naval Research Laboratory. NA-CODAE is a software prototype that is being developed under the Practical Advances in Case-Based Reasoning project, which is funded by the Office for Naval Research, for the purpose of assisting Navy and other DoD personnel in decision aids tasks such as system maintenance, operational training, crisis response planning, logistics, fault diagnosis, target classification, and meteorological nowcasting. Implemented in Java, NACODAE can be used on any machine containing a Java virtual machine (e.g., PCs, Unix). This document describes and exemplifies NACODAE's capabilities. Our goal is to transition this tool to operational personnel, and to continue its enhancement through user feedback and by testing recent research advances in case-based reasoning and related areas. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #235776. 	[Title] Recursive Automatic Algorithm Selection for Inductive Learning [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 94-61 August 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106052. 	[Title] Lazy Acquisition of Place Knowledge [Abstract] In this paper we define the task of place learning and describe one approach to this problem. Our framework represents distinct places as evidence grids, a probabilistic description of occupancy. Place recognition relies on nearest neighbor classification, augmented by a registration process to correct for translational differences between the two grids. The learning mechanism is lazy in that it involves the simple storage of inferred evidence grids. Experimental studies with physical and simulated robots suggest that this approach improves place recognition with experience, that it can handle significant sensor noise, that it benefits from improved quality in stored cases, and that it scales well to environments with many distinct places. Additional studies suggest that using historical information about the robot's path through the environment can actually reduce recognition accuracy. Previous researchers have studied evidence grids and place learning, but they have not combined these two powerful concepts, nor have they used systematic experimentation to evaluate their methods' abilities. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #13960. 	[Title] Using a Case Base of Surfaces to Speed-Up Reinforcement Learning [Abstract] This paper demonstrates the exploitation of certain vision processing techniques to index into a case base of surfaces. The surfaces are the result of reinforcement learning and represent the optimum choice of actions to achieve some goal from anywhere in the state space. This paper shows how strong features that occur in the interaction of the system with its environment can be detected early in the learning process. Such features allow the system to identify when an identical, or very similar, task has been solved previously and to retrieve the relevant surface. This results in an orders of magnitude increase in learning rate. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6925. 	[Title] Solving the Multiple-Instance Problem with Axis-Parallel Rectangles [Abstract] The multiple instance problem arises in tasks where the training examples are ambiguous: a single example object may have many alternative feature vectors (instances) that describe it, and yet only one of those feature vectors may be responsible for the observed classification of the object. This paper describes and compares three kinds of algorithms that learn axis-parallel rectangles to solve the multiple-instance problem. Algorithms that ignore the multiple instance problem perform very poorly. An algorithm that directly confronts the multiple instance problem (by attempting to identify which feature vectors are responsible for the observed classifications) performs best, giving 89% correct predictions on a musk-odor prediction task. The paper also illustrates the use of artificial data to debug and compare these algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4878. 	[Title] Cooperative Case-Based Reasoning [Abstract] We are investigating possible modes of cooperation among homogeneous agents with learning capabilities. In this paper we will be focused on agents that learn and solve problems using Case-based Reasoning (CBR), and we will present two modes of cooperation among them: Distributed Case-based Reasoning (DistCBR) and Collective Case-based Reasoning (ColCBR). We illustrate these modes with an application where different CBR agents able to recommend chromatography techniques for protein purification cooperate. The approach taken is to extend Noos, the representation language being used by the CBR agents. Noos is knowledge modeling framework designed to integrate learning methods and based on the task/method decomposition principle. The extension we present, Plural Noos, allows communication and cooperation among agents implemented in Noos by means of three basic constructs: alien references, foreign method evaluation, and mobile methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3218. 	[Title] Rule Induction with CN2: Some Recent Improvements [Abstract] The CN2 algorithm induces an ordered list of classification rules from examples using entropy as its search heuristic. In this short paper, we describe two improvements to this algorithm. Firstly, we present the use of the Laplacian error estimate as an alternative evaluation function and secondly, we show how unordered as well as ordered rules can be generated. We experimentally demonstrate significantly improved performances resulting from these changes, thus enhancing the usefulness of CN2 as an inductive tool. Comparisons with Quinlan's C4.5 are also made. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #69397. 	[Title] Dynamical Selection of Learning Algorithms [Abstract] Determining the conditions for which a given learning algorithm is appropriate is an open problem in machine learning. Methods for selecting a learning algorithm for a given domain have met with limited success. This paper proposes a new approach to predicting a given example's class by locating it in the "example space" and then choosing the best learner(s) in that region of the example space to make predictions. The regions of the example space are defined by the prediction patterns of the learners being used. The learner(s) chosen for prediction are selected according to their past performance in that region. This dynamic approach to learning algorithm selection is compared to other methods for selecting from multiple learning algorithms. The approach is then extended to weight rather than select the algorithms according to their past performance in a given region. Both approaches are further evaluated on a set of Determining the conditions for which a given learning algorithm is appropriate is an open problem in machine learning. Methods for selecting a learning algorithm for a given domain (e.g. [Aha92, Breiman84]) or for a portion of the domain ([Brodley93, Brodley94]) have met with limited success. This paper proposes a new approach that dynamically selects a learning algorithm for each example by locating it in the "example space" and then choosing the best learner(s) for prediction in that part of the example space. The regions of the example space are formed by the observed prediction patterns of the learners being used. The learner(s) chosen for prediction are selected according to their past performance in that region which is defined by the "cross-validation history." This paper introduces DS, a method for the dynamic selection of a learning algorithm(s). We call it "dynamic" because the learning algorithm(s) used to classify a novel example depends on that example. Preliminary experimentation motivated DW, an extension to DS that dynamically weights the learners predictions according to their regional accuracy. Further experimentation compares DS and DW to a collection of other meta-learning strategies such as cross-validation ([Breiman84]) and various forms of stacking ([Wolpert92]). In this phase of the experiementation, the meta-learners have six constituent learners which are heterogeneous in their search and representation methods (e.g. a rule learner, CN2 [Clark89]; a decision tree learner, C4.5 [Quinlan93]; an oblique decision tree learner, OC1 [Murthy93]; an instance-based learner, PEBLS [Cost93]; a k-nearest neighbor learner, ten domains and compared to several other meta-learning strategies. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1115677. 	[Title] Comparison of Regression Methods, Symbolic Induction Methods and Neural Networks in Morbidity Diagnosis and Mortality [Abstract] Classifier induction algorithms differ on what inductive hypotheses they can represent, and on how they search their space of hypotheses. No classifier is better than another for all problems: they have selective superiority. This paper empirically compares six classifier induction algorithms on the diagnosis of equine colic and the prediction of its mortality. The classification is based on simultaneously analyzing sixteen features measured from a patient. The relative merits of the algorithms (linear regression, decision trees, nearest neighbor classifiers, the Model Class Selection system, logistic regression (with and without feature selection), and neural nets) are qualitatively discussed, and the generalization accuracies quantitatively analyzed. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #200480. 	[Title] CBET: a Case Base Exploration Tool [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #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 #46887. 	[Title] Learning Polynomial Functions by Feature Construction [Abstract] We present a method for learning higher-order polynomial functions from examples using linear regression and feature construction. Regression is used on a set of training instances to produce a weight vector for a linear function over the feature set. If this hypothesis is imperfect, a new feature is constructed by forming the product of the two features that most effectively predict the squared error of the current hypothesis. The algorithm is then repeated. In an extension to this method, the specific pair of features to combine is selected by measuring their joint ability to predict the hypothesis' error. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6311. 	[Title] Dynamic Automatic Model Selection [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 92-30 February 1992 Abstract The problem of how to learn from examples has been studied throughout the history of machine learning, and many successful learning algorithms have been developed. A problem that has received less attention is how to select which algorithm to use for a given learning task. The ability of a chosen algorithm to induce a good generalization depends on how appropriate the model class underlying the algorithm is for the given task. We define an algorithm's model class to be the representation language it uses to express a generalization of the examples. Supervised learning algorithms differ in their underlying model class and in how they search for a good generalization. Given this characterization, it is not surprising that some algorithms find better generalizations for some, but not all tasks. Therefore, in order to find the best generalization for each task, an automated learning system must search for the appropriate model class in addition to searching for the best generalization within the chosen class. This thesis proposal investigates the issues involved in automating the selection of the appropriate model class. The presented approach has two facets. Firstly, the approach combines different model classes in the form of a model combination decision tree, which allows the best representation to be found for each subconcept of the learning task. Secondly, which model class is the most appropriate is determined dynamically using a set of heuristic rules. Explicit in each rule are the conditions in which a particular model class is appropriate and if it is not, what should be done next. In addition to describing the approach, this proposal describes how the approach will be evaluated in order to demonstrate that it is both an efficient and effective method for automatic model selection. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1108267. 	[Title] Cooperative Bayesian and Case-Based Reasoning for Solving Multiagent Planning Tasks [Abstract] We describe an integrated problem solving architecture named INBANCA in which Bayesian networks and case-based reasoning (CBR) work cooperatively on multiagent planning tasks. This includes two-team dynamic tasks, and this paper concentrates on simulated soccer as an example. Bayesian networks are used to characterize action selection whereas a case-based approach is used to determine how to implement actions. This paper has two contributions. First, we survey integrations of case-based and Bayesian approaches from the perspective of a popular CBR task decomposition framework, thus explaining what types of integrations have been attempted. This allows us to explain the unique aspects of our proposed integration. Second, we demonstrate how Bayesian nets can be used to provide environmental context, and thus feature selection information, for the case-based reasoner. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1120563. 	[Title] Preparing Case Retrieval Nets for Distributed Processing [Abstract] In this paper, we discuss two approaches of applying the memory model of Case Retrieval Nets to applications where a distributed processing of information is required. For this, we distinguish two types of such applications, namely (a) the case of distributed case libraries and (b) the case of distributed cases. While a solution to the former is straightforward, the latter requires an extension to Case Retrieval Nets which provides a kind of partitioning of the entire net structure. This extended model even allows for a concurrent implementation of the retrieval process or for the use of collaborative agents for retrieval. Keywords: Case-based reasoning, case retrieval, memory structures, distributed processing. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #521269. 	[Title] Similarity Metrics: A Formal Unification of Cardinal and Non-Cardinal Similarity Measures [Abstract] In [9] we introduced a formal framework for constructing ordinal similarity measures, and suggested how this might also be applied to cardinal measures. In this paper we will place this approach in a more general framework, called similarity metrics. In this framework, ordinal similarity metrics (where comparison returns a boolean value) can be combined with cardinal metrics (returning a numeric value) and, indeed, with metrics returning values of other types, to produce new metrics. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106103. 	[Title] Bias and the Probability of Generalization [Abstract] In order to be useful, a learning algorithm must be able to generalize well when faced with inputs not previously presented to the system. A bias is necessary for any generalization, and as shown by several researchers in recent years, no bias can lead to strictly better generalization than any other when summed over all possible functions or applications. This paper provides examples to illustrate this fact, but also explains how a bias or learning algorithm can be better than another in practice when the probability of the occurrence of functions is taken into account. It shows how domain knowledge and an understanding of the conditions under which each learning algorithm performs well can be used to increase the probability of accurate generalization, and identifies several of the conditions that should be considered when attempting to select an appropriate bias for a particular problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1120444. 	[Title] Systematic Evaluation of Design Decisions in CBR Systems [Abstract] Two important goals in the evaluation of an AI theory or model are to assess the merit of the design decisions in the performance of an implemented computer system and to analyze the impact in the performance when the system faces problem domains with different characteristics. This is particularly difficult in case-based reasoning systems because such systems are typically very complex, as are the tasks and domains in which they operate. We present a methodology for the evaluation of case-based reasoning systems through systematic empirical experimentation over a range of system configurations and environmental conditions, coupled with rigorous statistical analysis of the results of the experiments. This methodology enables us to understand the behavior of the system in terms of the theory and design of the computational model, to select the best system configuration for a given domain, and to predict how the system will behave in response to changing domain and problem characteristics. A case study of a mul-tistrategy case-based and reinforcement learning system which performs autonomous robotic navigation is presented as an example. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1111614. 	[Title] SaxEx a case-based reasoning system for generating expressive musical performances [Abstract] We have studied the problem of generating expressive musical performances in the context of tenor saxophone interpretations. We have done several recordings of a tenor sax playing different Jazz ballads with different degrees of expressiveness including an inexpressive interpretation of each ballad. These recordings are analyzed, using SMS spectral modeling techniques, to extract information related to several expressive parameters. This set of parameters and the scores constitute the set of cases (examples) of a case-based system. From this set of cases, the system infers a set of possible expressive transformations for a given new phrase applying similarity criteria, based on background musical knowledge, between this new phrase and the set of cases. Finally, SaxEx applies the inferred expressive transformations to the new phrase using the synthesis capabilities of SMS. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1103038. 	[Title] The Management of Context-Sensitive Features: A Review of Strategies [Abstract] In this paper, we review five heuristic strategies for handling context-sensitive features in supervised machine learning from examples. We discuss two methods for recovering lost (implicit) contextual information. We mention some evidence that hybrid strategies can have a synergetic effect. We then show how the work of several machine learning researchers fits into this framework. While we do not claim that these strategies exhaust the possibilities, it appears that the framework includes all of the techniques that can be found in the published literature on context sensitive learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6334. 	[Title] Prototype and Feature Selection by Sampling and Random Mutation Hill Climbing Algorithms [Abstract] With the goal of reducing computational costs without sacrificing accuracy, we describe two algorithms to find sets of prototypes for nearest neighbor classification. Here, the term prototypes refers to the reference instances used in a nearest neighbor computation the instances with respect to which similarity is assessed in order to assign a class to a new data item. Both algorithms rely on stochastic techniques to search the space of sets of prototypes and are simple to implement. The first is a Monte Carlo sampling algorithm; the second applies random mutation hill climbing. On four datasets we show that only three or four prototypes sufficed to give predictive accuracy equal or superior to a basic nearest neighbor algorithm whose run-time storage costs were approximately 10 to 200 times greater. We briefly investigate how random mutation hill climbing may be applied to select features and prototypes simultaneously. Finally, we explain the performance of the sampling algorithm on these datasets in terms of a statistical measure of the extent of clustering displayed by the target classes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #14529. 	[Title] Concept Learning and Flexible Weighting [Abstract] We previously introduced an exemplar model, named GCM-ISW, that exploits a highly flexible weighting scheme. Our simulations showed that it records faster learning rates and higher asymptotic accuracies on several artificial categorization tasks than models with more limited abilities to warp input spaces. This paper extends our previous work; it describes experimental results that suggest human subjects also invoke such highly flexible schemes. In particular, our model provides significantly better fits than models with less flexibility, and we hypothesize that humans selectively weight attributes depending on an item's location in the input space. We need more flexible models Many theories of human concept learning posit that concepts are represented by prototypes (Reed, 1972) or exemplars (Medin & Schaffer, 1978). Prototype models represent concepts by the "best example" or "central tendency" of the concept. 1 A new item belongs in a category C if it is relatively similar to C's prototype. Prototype models are relatively inflexible; they discard a great deal of information that people use during concept learning (e.g., the number of exemplars in a concept (Homa & Cultice, 1984), the variability of features (Fried & Holyoak, 1984), correlations between features (Medin et al., 1982), and the particular exemplars used (Whittlesea, 1987)). of concept learning Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1119295. 	[Title] Distance Induction in First Order Logic used for classification via a k-nearest-neighbor process. Experiments on [Abstract] This paper tackles the supervised induction of a distance from examples described as Horn clauses or constrained clauses. In opposition to syntax-driven approaches, this approach is discrimination-driven: it proceeds by defining a small set of complex discriminant hypotheses. These hypotheses serve as new concepts, used to redescribe the initial examples. Further, this redescription can be embedded into the space of natural integers, and a distance between examples thus naturally follows. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #399173. 	[Title] Corporate Memories as Distributed Case Libraries [Abstract] Rising operating costs and structural transformations such as resizing and globaliza-tion of companies all over the world have brought into focus the emerging discipline of knowledge management that is concerned with making knowledge pay off. Corporate memories form an important part of such knowledge management initiatives in a company. In this paper, we discuss how viewing corporate memories as distributed case libraries can benefit from existing techniques for distributed case-based reasoning for resource discovery and exploitation of previous expertise. We present two techniques developed in the context of multi-agent case-based reasoning for accessing and exploiting past experience from corporate memory resources. The first approach, called Negotiated Retrieval, deals with retrieving and assembling "case pieces" from different resources in a corporate memory to form a good overall case. The second approach, based on Federated Peer Learning, deals with two modes of cooperation called DistCBR and ColCBR that let an agent exploit the experience and expertise of peer agents to achieve a local task. fl The first author would like to acknowledge the support by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. IRI-9523419 and EEC-9209623. The second author's research reported in this paper has been developed at the IIIA inside the ANALOG Project funded by Spanish CICYT grant 122/93. The content of this paper does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the US Government, the Kingdom of Spain Government, or the Catalonia Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1481. 	[Title] (1994); Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological [Abstract] Case-based reasoning is a recent approach to problem solving and learning that has got a lot of attention over the last few years. Originating in the US, the basic idea and underlying theories have spread to other continents, and we are now within a period of highly active research in case-based reasoning in Europe, as well. This paper gives an overview of the foundational issues related to case-based reasoning, describes some of the leading methodological approaches within the field, and exemplifies the current state through pointers to some systems. Initially, a general framework is defined, to which the subsequent descriptions and discussions will refer. The framework is influenced by recent methodologies for knowledge level descriptions of intelligent systems. The methods for case retrieval, reuse, solution testing, and learning are summarized, and their actual realization is discussed in the light of a few example systems that represent different CBR approaches. We also discuss the role of case-based methods as one type of reasoning and learning method within an integrated system architecture. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1113934. 	[Title] Integration of Case-Based Reasoning and Neural Networks Approaches for Classification [Abstract] Several different approaches have been used to describe concepts for supervised learning tasks. In this paper we describe two approaches which are: prototype-based incremental neural networks and case-based reasoning approaches. We show then how we can improve a prototype-based neural network model by storing some specific instances in a CBR memory system. This leads us to propose a co-processing hybrid model for classification. 1 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #239829. 	[Title] Improving Minority Class Prediction Using Case-Specific Feature Weights [Abstract] This paper addresses the problem of handling skewed class distributions within the case-based learning (CBL) framework. We first present as a baseline an information-gain-weighted CBL algorithm and apply it to three data sets from natural language processing (NLP) with skewed class distributions. Although overall performance of the baseline CBL algorithm is good, we show that the algorithm exhibits poor performance on minority class instances. We then present two CBL algorithms designed to improve the performance of minority class predictions. Each variation creates test-case-specific feature weights by first observing the path taken by the test case in a decision tree created for the learning task, and then using path-specific information gain values to create an appropriate weight vector for use during case retrieval. When applied to the NLP data sets, the algorithms are shown to significantly increase the accuracy of minority class predictions while maintaining or improving overall classification accuracy. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153891. 	[Title] Conceptual Analogy [Abstract] Conceptual analogy (CA) is an approach that integrates conceptualization, i.e., memory organization based on prior experiences and analogical reasoning (Borner 1994a). It was implemented prototypically and tested to support the design process in building engineering (Borner and Janetzko 1995, Borner 1995). There are a number of features that distinguish CA from standard approaches to CBR and AR. First of all, CA automatically extracts the knowledge needed to support design tasks (i.e., complex case representations, the relevance of object features and relations, and proper adaptations) from attribute-value representations of prior layouts. Secondly, it effectively determines the similarity of complex case representations in terms of adaptability. Thirdly, implemented and integrated into a highly interactive and adaptive system architecture it allows for incremental knowledge acquisition and user support. This paper surveys the basic assumptions and the psychological results which influenced the development of CA. It sketches the knowledge representation formalisms employed and characterizes the sub-processes needed to integrate memory organization and analogical reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1102567. 	[Title] Computer-Supported Argumentation for Cooperative Design on the World-Wide Web [Abstract] This paper describes an argumentation system for cooperative design applications on the Web. The system provides experts involved in such procedures means of expressing and weighing their individual arguments and preferences, in order to argue for or against the selection of a certain choice. It supports defeasible and qualitative reasoning in the presence of ill-structured information. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which call a variety of procedures for the propagation of information in the corresponding discussion graph. The paper also reports on the integration of Case Based Reasoning techniques, used to resolve current design issues by considering previous similar situations, and the specitcation of similarity measures between the various argumentation items, the aim being to estimate the variations among opinions of the designers involved in cooperative design. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20584. 	[Title] Multivariate versus Univariate Decision Trees [Abstract] COINS Technical Report 92-8 January 1992 Abstract In this paper we present a new multivariate decision tree algorithm LMDT, which combines linear machines with decision trees. LMDT constructs each test in a decision tree by training a linear machine and then eliminating irrelevant and noisy variables in a controlled manner. To examine LMDT's ability to find good generalizations we present results for a variety of domains. We compare LMDT empirically to a univariate decision tree algorithm and observe that when multivariate tests are the appropriate bias for a given data set, LMDT finds small accurate trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6767. 	[Title] Generalizing from Case Studies: A Case Study [Abstract] Most empirical evaluations of machine learning algorithms are case studies evaluations of multiple algorithms on multiple databases. Authors of case studies implicitly or explicitly hypothesize that the pattern of their results, which often suggests that one algorithm performs significantly better than others, is not limited to the small number of databases investigated, but instead holds for some general class of learning problems. However, these hypotheses are rarely supported with additional evidence, which leaves them suspect. This paper describes an empirical method for generalizing results from case studies and an example application. This method yields rules describing when some algorithms significantly outperform others on some dependent measures. Advantages for generalizing from case studies and limitations of this particular approach are also described. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1119987. 	[Title] Case-Based Sonogram Classification [Abstract] This report replicates and extends results reported by Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) personnel on the automatic classification of sonar images. They used novel case-based reasoning systems in their empirical studies, but did not obtain comparative analyses using standard classification algorithms. Therefore, the quality of the NAWC results were unknown. We replicated the NAWC studies and also tested several other classifiers (i.e., both case-based and otherwise) from the machine learning literature. These comparisons and their ramifications are detailed in this paper. Next, we investigated Fala and Walker's two suggestions for future work (i.e., on combining their similarity functions and on an alternative case representation). Finally, we describe several ways to incorporate additional domain-specific knowledge when applying case-based classifiers to similar tasks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #521207. 	[Title] A Formal Analysis of Case Base Retrieval [Abstract] Case based systems typically retrieve cases from the case base by applying similarity measures. The measures are usually constructed in an ad hoc manner. This report presents a toolbox for the systematic construction of similarity measures. In addition to paving the way to a design methodology for similarity measures, this systematic approach facilitates the identification of opportunities for parallelisation in case base retrieval. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1114864 has the title `Machine Learning: An Annotated Bibliography for the 1995 AI Statistics Tutorial on Machine Learning (Version 1)  
` and the abstract `This is a brief annotated bibliography that I wanted to make available to the attendees of my Machine Learning tutorial at the 1995 AI & Statistics Workshop. These slides are available in my WWW pages under slides. Please contact me if you have any questions. Please also note the date (listed above) on which this was most recently updated. While I plan to make occasional updates to this file, it is bound to be outdated quickly. Also, I apologize for the lack of figures, but my time on this project is limited and the slides should compensate. Finally, this bibliography is, by definition, This book is now out of date. Both Pat Langley and Tom Mitchell are in the process of writing textbooks on this subject, but we're still waiting for them. Until then, I suggest looking at both the Readings and the recent ML conference proceedings (both International and European). There are also a few introductory papers on this subject, though I haven't gotten around to putting them in here yet. However, Pat Langley and Dennis Kibler (1988) have written a good paper on ML as an empirical science, and Pat has written several editorials of use to the ML author (Langley 1986; 1987; 1990). incomplete, and I've left out many other references that may be of some use.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1114864 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1114864 has the title `Machine Learning: An Annotated Bibliography for the 1995 AI Statistics Tutorial on Machine Learning (Version 1)  
` and the abstract `This is a brief annotated bibliography that I wanted to make available to the attendees of my Machine Learning tutorial at the 1995 AI & Statistics Workshop. These slides are available in my WWW pages under slides. Please contact me if you have any questions. Please also note the date (listed above) on which this was most recently updated. While I plan to make occasional updates to this file, it is bound to be outdated quickly. Also, I apologize for the lack of figures, but my time on this project is limited and the slides should compensate. Finally, this bibliography is, by definition, This book is now out of date. Both Pat Langley and Tom Mitchell are in the process of writing textbooks on this subject, but we're still waiting for them. Until then, I suggest looking at both the Readings and the recent ML conference proceedings (both International and European). There are also a few introductory papers on this subject, though I haven't gotten around to putting them in here yet. However, Pat Langley and Dennis Kibler (1988) have written a good paper on ML as an empirical science, and Pat has written several editorials of use to the ML author (Langley 1986; 1987; 1990). incomplete, and I've left out many other references that may be of some use.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1114864 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: Case_Based