Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #158614. 	[Title] Efficient Algorithms for Identifying Relevant Features [Abstract] This paper describes efficient methods for exact and approximate implementation of the MIN-FEATURES bias, which prefers consistent hypotheses definable over as few features as possible. This bias is useful for learning domains where many irrelevant features are present in the training data. We first introduce FOCUS-2, a new algorithm that exactly implements the MIN-FEATURES bias. This algorithm is empirically shown to be substantially faster than the FOCUS algorithm previously given in [ Al-muallim and Dietterich, 1991 ] . We then introduce the Mutual-Information-Greedy, Simple-Greedy and Weighted-Greedy algorithms, which apply efficient heuristics for approximating the MIN-FEATURES bias. These algorithms employ greedy heuristics that trade optimality for computational efficiency. Experimental studies show that the learning performance of ID3 is greatly improved when these algorithms are used to preprocess the training data by eliminating the irrelevant features from ID3's consideration. In particular, the Weighted-Greedy algorithm provides an excellent and efficient approximation of the MIN Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #17798. 	[Title] Using Decision Trees to Improve Case-Based Learning [Abstract] This paper shows that decision trees can be used to improve the performance of case-based learning (CBL) systems. We introduce a performance task for machine learning systems called semi-flexible prediction that lies between the classification task performed by decision tree algorithms and the flexible prediction task performed by conceptual clustering systems. In semi-flexible prediction, learning should improve prediction of a specific set of features known a priori rather than a single known feature (as in classification) or an arbitrary set of features (as in conceptual clustering). We describe one such task from natural language processing and present experiments that compare solutions to the problem using decision trees, CBL, and a hybrid approach that combines the two. In the hybrid approach, decision trees are used to specify the features to be included in k-nearest neighbor case retrieval. Results from the experiments show that the hybrid approach outperforms both the decision tree and case-based approaches as well as two case-based systems that incorporate expert knowledge into their case retrieval algorithms. Results clearly indicate that decision trees can be used to improve the performance of CBL systems and do so without reliance on potentially expensive expert knowledge. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #552469. 	[Title] On Learning More Concepts [Abstract] The coverage of a learning algorithm is the number of concepts that can be learned by that algorithm from samples of a given size. This paper asks whether good learning algorithms can be designed by maximizing their coverage. The paper extends a previous upper bound on the coverage of any Boolean concept learning algorithm and describes two algorithms|Multi-Balls and Large-Ball|whose coverage approaches this upper bound. Experimental measurement of the coverage of the ID3 and FRINGE algorithms shows that their coverage is far below this bound. Further analysis of Large-Ball shows that although it learns many concepts, these do not seem to be very interesting concepts. Hence, coverage maximization alone does not appear to yield practically-useful learning algorithms. The paper concludes with a definition of coverage within a bias, which suggests a way that coverage maximization could be applied to strengthen weak preference biases. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1123867. 	[Title] A Study of Maximal-Coverage Learning Algorithms [Abstract] The coverage of a learning algorithm is the number of concepts that can be learned by that algorithm from samples of a given size. This paper asks whether good learning algorithms can be designed by maximizing their coverage. The paper extends a previous upper bound on the coverage of any Boolean concept learning algorithm and describes two algorithms|Multi-Balls and Large-Ball|whose coverage approaches this upper bound. Experimental measurement of the coverage of the ID3 and FRINGE algorithms shows that their coverage is far below this bound. Further analysis of Large-Ball shows that although it learns many concepts, these do not seem to be very interesting concepts. Hence, coverage maximization alone does not appear to yield practically-useful learning algorithms. The paper concludes with a definition of coverage within a bias, which suggests a way that coverage maximization could be applied to strengthen weak preference biases. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3231. 	[Title] Irrelevant Features and the Subset Selection Problem [Abstract] We address the problem of finding a subset of features that allows a supervised induction algorithm to induce small high-accuracy concepts. We examine notions of relevance and irrelevance, and show that the definitions used in the machine learning literature do not adequately partition the features into useful categories of relevance. We present definitions for irrelevance and for two degrees of relevance. These definitions improve our understanding of the behavior of previous subset selection algorithms, and help define the subset of features that should be sought. The features selected should depend not only on the features and the target concept, but also on the induction algorithm. We describe a method for feature subset selection using cross-validation that is applicable to any induction algorithm, and discuss experiments conducted with ID3 and C4.5 on artificial and real datasets. 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 #711598. 	[Title] Pattern Theoretic Knowledge Discovery [Abstract] Future research directions in Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD) include the ability to extract an overlying concept relating useful data. Current limitations involve the search complexity to find that concept and what it means to be "useful." The Pattern Theory research crosses over in a natural way to the aforementioned domain. The goal of this paper is threefold. First, we present a new approach to the problem of learning by Discovery and robust pattern finding. Second, we explore the current limitations of a Pattern Theoretic approach as applied to the general KDD problem. Third, we exhibit its performance with experimental results on binary functions, and we compare those results with C4.5. This new approach to learning demonstrates a powerful method for finding patterns in a robust manner. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #259126. 	[Title] A Monotonic Measure for Optimal Feature Selection [Abstract] Feature selection is a problem of choosing a subset of relevant features. In general, only exhaustive search can bring about the optimal subset. With a monotonic measure, exhaustive search can be avoided without sacrificing optimality. Unfortunately, most error- or distance-based measures are not monotonic. A new measure is employed in this work that is monotonic and fast to compute. The search for relevant features according to this measure is guaranteed to be complete but not exhaustive. Experiments are conducted for verification. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10169. 	[Title] Learning Boolean Concepts in the Presence of Many Irrelevant Features [Abstract]  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 #10177. 	[Title] Learning in the Presence of Malicious Errors [Abstract] In this paper we study an extension of the distribution-free model of learning introduced by Valiant [23] (also known as the probably approximately correct or PAC model) that allows the presence of malicious errors in the examples given to a learning algorithm. Such errors are generated by an adversary with unbounded computational power and access to the entire history of the learning algorithm's computation. Thus, we study a worst-case model of errors. Our results include general methods for bounding the rate of error tolerable by any learning algorithm, efficient algorithms tolerating nontrivial rates of malicious errors, and equivalences between problems of learning with errors and standard combinatorial optimization problems. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #636098. 	[Title] NP-Completeness of Searches for Smallest Possible Feature Sets a subset of the set of all [Abstract] In many learning problems, the learning system is presented with values for features that are actually irrelevant to the concept it is trying to learn. The FOCUS algorithm, due to Almuallim and Dietterich, performs an explicit search for the smallest possible input feature set S that permits a consistent mapping from the features in S to the output feature. The FOCUS algorithm can also be seen as an algorithm for learning determinations or functional dependencies, as suggested in [6]. Another algorithm for learning determinations appears in [7]. The FOCUS algorithm has superpolynomial runtime, but Almuallim and Di-etterich leave open the question of tractability of the underlying problem. In this paper, the problem is shown to be NP-complete. We also describe briefly some experiments that demonstrate the benefits of determination learning, and show that finding lowest-cardinality determinations is easier in practice than finding minimal determi Define the MIN-FEATURES problem as follows: given a set X of examples (which are each composed of a a binary value specifying the value of the target feature and a vector of binary values specifying the values of the other features) and a number n, determine whether or not there exists some feature set S such that: We show that MIN-FEATURES is NP-complete by reducing VERTEX-COVER to MIN-FEATURES. 1 The VERTEX-COVER problem may be stated as the question: given a graph G with vertices V and edges E, is there a subset V 0 of V , of size m, such that each edge in E is connected to at least one vertex in V 0 ? We may reduce an instance of VERTEX-COVER to an instance of MIN-FEATURES by mapping each edge in E to an example in X, with one input feature for every vertex in V . 1 In [8], a "proof" is reported for this result by reduction to set covering. The proof therefore fails to show NP-completeness. nations. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #15429. 	[Title] A General Lower Bound on the Number of Examples Needed for Learning [Abstract] We prove a lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ) on the number of random examples required for distribution-free learning of a concept class C, where VCdim(C) is the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension and * and ffi are the accuracy and confidence parameters. This improves the previous best lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C)), and comes close to the known general upper bound of O( 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ln 1 * ) for consistent algorithms. We show that for many interesting concept classes, including kCNF and kDNF, our bound is actually tight to within a constant factor. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #85452. 	[Title] Constructive Induction Using a Non-Greedy Strategy for Feature Selection [Abstract] We present a method for feature construction and selection that finds a minimal set of conjunctive features that are appropriate to perform the classification task. For problems where this bias is appropriate, the method outperforms other constructive induction algorithms and is able to achieve higher classification accuracy. The application of the method in the search for minimal multi-level boolean expressions is presented and analyzed with the help of some examples. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39131. 	[Title] Oblivious Decision Trees and Abstract Cases [Abstract] In this paper, we address the problem of case-based learning in the presence of irrelevant features. We review previous work on attribute selection and present a new algorithm, Oblivion, that carries out greedy pruning of oblivious decision trees, which effectively store a set of abstract cases in memory. We hypothesize that this approach will efficiently identify relevant features even when they interact, as in parity concepts. We report experimental results on artificial domains that support this hypothesis, and experiments with natural domains that show improvement in some cases but not others. In closing, we discuss the implications of our experiments, consider additional work on irrelevant features, and outline some directions for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20850. 	[Title] Compression-Based Feature Subset Selection  Keywords: Minimum Description Length Principle, Cross Validation, Noise [Abstract] Irrelevant and redundant features may reduce both predictive accuracy and comprehensibility of induced concepts. Most common Machine Learning approaches for selecting a good subset of relevant features rely on cross-validation. As an alternative, we present the application of a particular Minimum Description Length (MDL) measure to the task of feature subset selection. Using the MDL principle allows taking into account all of the available data at once. The new measure is information-theoretically plausible and yet still simple and therefore efficiently computable. We show empirically that this new method for judging the value of feature subsets is more efficient than and performs at least as well as methods based on cross-validation. Domains with both a large number of training examples and a large number of possible features yield the biggest gains in efficiency. Thus our new approach seems to scale up better to large learning problems than previous methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #63477. 	[Title] Efficient Feature Selection in Conceptual Clustering [Abstract] Feature selection has proven to be a valuable technique in supervised learning for improving predictive accuracy while reducing the number of attributes considered in a task. We investigate the potential for similar benefits in an unsupervised learning task, conceptual clustering. The issues raised in feature selection by the absence of class labels are discussed and an implementation of a sequential feature selection algorithm based on an existing conceptual clustering system is described. Additionally, we present a second implementation which employs a technique for improving the efficiency of the search for an optimal description and compare the performance of both algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1107067. 	[Title] On the Greediness of Feature Selection Algorithms [Abstract] Based on our analysis and experiments using real-world datasets, we find that the greediness of forward feature selection algorithms does not severely corrupt the accuracy of function approximation using the selected input features, but improves the efficiency significantly. Hence, we propose three greedier algorithms in order to further enhance the efficiency of the feature selection processing. We provide empirical results for linear regression, locally weighted regression and k-nearest-neighbor models. We also propose to use these algorithms to develop an offline Chinese and Japanese handwriting recognition system with auto matically configured, local models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49660. 	[Title] Feature Subset Selection as Search with Probabilistic Estimates [Abstract] Irrelevant features and weakly relevant features may reduce the comprehensibility and accuracy of concepts induced by supervised learning algorithms. We formulate the search for a feature subset as an abstract search problem with probabilistic estimates. Searching a space using an evaluation function that is a random variable requires trading off accuracy of estimates for increased state exploration. We show how recent feature subset selection algorithms in the machine learning literature fit into this search problem as simple hill climbing approaches, and conduct a small experiment using a best-first search technique. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #63486. 	[Title] Evaluation and Selection of Biases in Machine Learning [Abstract] In this introduction, we define the term bias as it is used in machine learning systems. We motivate the importance of automated methods for evaluating and selecting biases using a framework of bias selection as search in bias and meta-bias spaces. Recent research in the field of machine learning bias is summarized. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #158614 has the title `Efficient Algorithms for Identifying Relevant Features  
` and the abstract `This paper describes efficient methods for exact and approximate implementation of the MIN-FEATURES bias, which prefers consistent hypotheses definable over as few features as possible. This bias is useful for learning domains where many irrelevant features are present in the training data. We first introduce FOCUS-2, a new algorithm that exactly implements the MIN-FEATURES bias. This algorithm is empirically shown to be substantially faster than the FOCUS algorithm previously given in [ Al-muallim and Dietterich, 1991 ] . We then introduce the Mutual-Information-Greedy, Simple-Greedy and Weighted-Greedy algorithms, which apply efficient heuristics for approximating the MIN-FEATURES bias. These algorithms employ greedy heuristics that trade optimality for computational efficiency. Experimental studies show that the learning performance of ID3 is greatly improved when these algorithms are used to preprocess the training data by eliminating the irrelevant features from ID3's consideration. In particular, the Weighted-Greedy algorithm provides an excellent and efficient approximation of the MIN 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #158614 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #158614 has the title `Efficient Algorithms for Identifying Relevant Features  
` and the abstract `This paper describes efficient methods for exact and approximate implementation of the MIN-FEATURES bias, which prefers consistent hypotheses definable over as few features as possible. This bias is useful for learning domains where many irrelevant features are present in the training data. We first introduce FOCUS-2, a new algorithm that exactly implements the MIN-FEATURES bias. This algorithm is empirically shown to be substantially faster than the FOCUS algorithm previously given in [ Al-muallim and Dietterich, 1991 ] . We then introduce the Mutual-Information-Greedy, Simple-Greedy and Weighted-Greedy algorithms, which apply efficient heuristics for approximating the MIN-FEATURES bias. These algorithms employ greedy heuristics that trade optimality for computational efficiency. Experimental studies show that the learning performance of ID3 is greatly improved when these algorithms are used to preprocess the training data by eliminating the irrelevant features from ID3's consideration. In particular, the Weighted-Greedy algorithm provides an excellent and efficient approximation of the MIN 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #158614 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: Theory