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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #1999. 	[Title] WRAPPERS FOR PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AND OBLIVIOUS DECISION GRAPHS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131471. 	[Title] Search-based Class Discretization [Abstract] We present a methodology that enables the use of classification algorithms on regression tasks. We implement this method in system RECLA that transforms a regression problem into a classification one and then uses an existent classification system to solve this new problem. The transformation consists of mapping a continuous variable into an ordinal variable by grouping its values into an appropriate set of intervals. We use misclassification costs as a means to reflect the implicit ordering among the ordinal values of the new variable. We describe a set of alternative discretization methods and, based on our experimental results, justify the need for a search-based approach to choose the best method. Our experimental results confirm the validity of our search-based approach to class discretization, and reveal the accuracy benefits of adding misclassification costs. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6771. 	[Title] Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms [Abstract] This paper reviews five statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task. These tests are compared experimentally to determine their probability of incorrectly detecting a difference when no difference exists (type 1 error). Two widely-used statistical tests are shown to have high probability of Type I error in certain situations and should never be used. These tests are (a) a test for the difference of two proportions and (b) a paired-differences t test based on taking several random train/test splits. A third test, a paired-differences t test based on 10-fold cross-validation, exhibits somewhat elevated probability of Type I error. A fourth test, McNemar's test, is shown to have low Type I error. The fifth test is a new test, 5x2cv, based on 5 iterations of 2-fold cross-validation. Experiments show that this test also has good Type I error. The paper also measures the power (ability to detect algorithm differences when they do exist) of these tests. The 5x2cv test is shown to be slightly more powerful than McNemar's test. The choice of the best test is determined by the computational cost of running the learning algorithm. For algorithms that can be executed only once, McNemar's test is the only test with acceptable Type I error. For algorithms that can be executed ten times, the 5x2cv test is recommended, because it is slightly more powerful and because it directly measures variation due to the choice of training set. 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 #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 #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 #1123068. 	[Title] Targeting Business Users with Decision Table Classifiers [Abstract] Business users and analysts commonly use spreadsheets and 2D plots to analyze and understand their data. On-line Analytical Processing (OLAP) provides these users with added flexibility in pivoting data around different attributes and drilling up and down the multi-dimensional cube of aggregations. Machine learning researchers, however, have concentrated on hypothesis spaces that are foreign to most users: hyper-planes (Perceptrons), neural networks, Bayesian networks, decision trees, nearest neighbors, etc. In this paper we advocate the use of decision table classifiers that are easy for line-of-business users to understand. We describe several variants of algorithms for learning decision tables, compare their performance, and describe a visualization mechanism that we have implemented in MineSet. The performance of decision tables is comparable to other known algorithms, such as C4.5/C5.0, yet the resulting classifiers use fewer attributes and are more comprehensible. 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.

Paper #1102442 has the title `Unbiased Assessment of Learning Algorithms  
` and the 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. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1102442 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1102442 has the title `Unbiased Assessment of Learning Algorithms  
` and the 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. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1102442 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