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 #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 #137873. 	[Title] Stacked Density Estimation [Abstract] Technical Report No. 97-36, Information and Computer Science Department, University of California, Irvine Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153811. 	[Title] Structural Regression Trees [Abstract] In many real-world domains the task of machine learning algorithms is to learn a theory predicting numerical values. In particular several standard test domains used in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) are concerned with predicting numerical values from examples and relational and mostly non-determinate background knowledge. However, so far no ILP algorithm except one can predict numbers and cope with non-determinate background knowledge. (The only exception is a covering algorithm called FORS.) In this paper we present Structural Regression Trees (SRT), a new algorithm which can be applied to the above class of problems by integrating the statistical method of regression trees into ILP. SRT constructs a tree containing a literal (an atomic formula or its negation) or a conjunction of literals in each node, and assigns a numerical value to each leaf. SRT provides more comprehensible results than purely statistical methods, and can be applied to a class of problems most other ILP systems cannot handle. Experiments in several real-world domains demonstrate that the approach is competitive with existing methods, indicating that the advantages are not at the expense of predictive accuracy. 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 #12439. 	[Title] Improving the Performance of Radial Basis Function Networks by Learning Center Locations [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3233. 	[Title] A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection [Abstract] We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods: cross-validation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical results in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), ten-fold cross-validation may be better than the more expensive leave-one-out cross-validation. We report on a large-scale experiment|over half a million runs of C4.5 and a Naive-Bayes algorithm|to estimate the effects of different parameters on these algorithms on real-world datasets. For cross-validation, we vary the number of folds and whether the folds are stratified or not; for bootstrap, we vary the number of bootstrap samples. Our results indicate that for real-word datasets similar to ours, the best method to use for model selection is ten-fold stratified cross validation, even if computation power allows using more folds. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1109542. 	[Title] The covariance inflation criterion for adaptive model selection [Abstract] We propose a new criterion for model selection in prediction problems. The covariance inflation criterion adjusts the training error by the average covariance of the predictions and responses, when the prediction rule is applied to permuted versions of the dataset. This criterion can be applied to general prediction problems (for example regression or classification), and to general prediction rules (for example stepwise regression, tree-based models and neural nets). As a byproduct we obtain a measure of the effective number of parameters used by an adaptive procedure. We relate the covariance inflation criterion to other model selection procedures and illustrate its use in some regression and classification problems. We also revisit the conditional bootstrap approach to model selection. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110438. 	[Title] A Method of Combining Multiple Probabilistic Classifiers through Soft Competition on Different Feature Sets [Abstract] A novel method is proposed for combining multiple probabilistic classifiers on different feature sets. In order to achieve the improved classification performance, a generalized finite mixture model is proposed as a linear combination scheme and implemented based on radial basis function networks. In the linear combination scheme, soft competition on different feature sets is adopted as an automatic feature rank mechanism so that different feature sets can be always simultaneously used in an optimal way to determine linear combination weights. For training the linear combination scheme, a learning algorithm is developed based on Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. The proposed method has been applied to a typical real world problem, viz. speaker identification, in which different feature sets often need consideration simultaneously for robustness. Simulation results show that the proposed method yields good performance in speaker identification. 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 #36140. 	[Title] Error-Correcting Output Codes: A General Method for Improving Multiclass Inductive Learning Programs [Abstract] Multiclass learning problems involve finding a definition for an unknown function f(x) whose range is a discrete set containing k &gt; 2 values (i.e., k "classes"). The definition is acquired by studying large collections of training examples of the form hx i ; f(x i )i. Existing approaches to this problem include (a) direct application of multiclass algorithms such as the decision-tree algorithms ID3 and CART, (b) application of binary concept learning algorithms to learn individual binary functions for each of the k classes, and (c) application of binary concept learning algorithms with distributed output codes such as those employed by Sejnowski and Rosenberg in the NETtalk system. This paper compares these three approaches to a new technique in which BCH error-correcting codes are employed as a distributed output representation. We show that these output representations improve the performance of ID3 on the NETtalk task and of backpropagation on an isolated-letter speech-recognition task. These results demonstrate that error-correcting output codes provide a general-purpose method for improving the performance of inductive learning programs on multiclass problems. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #116528. 	[Title] Selection of Relevant Features and Examples in Machine Learning [Abstract] In this survey, we review work in machine learning on methods for handling data sets containing large amounts of irrelevant information. We focus on two key issues: the problem of selecting relevant features, and the problem of selecting relevant examples. We describe the advances that have been made on these topics in both empirical and theoretical work in machine learning, and we present a general framework that we use to compare different methods. We close with some challenges for future work in this area. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #323128. 	[Title] Error-Correcting Output Coding Corrects Bias and Variance [Abstract] Previous research has shown that a technique called error-correcting output coding (ECOC) can dramatically improve the classification accuracy of supervised learning algorithms that learn to classify data points into one of k 2 classes. This paper presents an investigation of why the ECOC technique works, particularly when employed with decision-tree learning algorithms. It shows that the ECOC method| like any form of voting or committee|can reduce the variance of the learning algorithm. Furthermore|unlike methods that simply combine multiple runs of the same learning algorithm|ECOC can correct for errors caused by the bias of the learning algorithm. Experiments show that this bias correction ability relies on the non-local be havior of C4.5. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #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 #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 #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 #2654. 	[Title] Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm [Abstract] In an earlier paper, we introduced a new boosting algorithm called AdaBoost which, theoretically, can be used to significantly reduce the error of any learning algorithm that consistently generates classifiers whose performance is a little better than random guessing. We also introduced the related notion of a pseudo-loss which is a method for forcing a learning algorithm of multi-label concepts to concentrate on the labels that are hardest to discriminate. In this paper, we describe experiments we carried out to assess how well AdaBoost with and without pseudo-loss, performs on real learning problems. We performed two sets of experiments. The first set compared boosting to Breiman's bagging method when used to aggregate various classifiers (including decision trees and single attribute-value tests). We compared the performance of the two methods on a collection of machine-learning benchmarks. In the second set of experiments, we studied in more detail the performance of boosting using a nearest-neighbor classifier on an OCR problem. 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 #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 #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 #4330. 	[Title] Hierarchical Mixtures of Experts and the EM Algorithm [Abstract] We present a tree-structured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hierarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM's). Learning is treated as a maximum likelihood problem; in particular, we present an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm for adjusting the parameters of the architecture. We also develop an on-line learning algorithm in which the parameters are updated incrementally. Comparative simulation results are presented in the robot dynamics domain. This report describes research done at the Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, the Center for Biological and Computational Learning, and the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for CBCL is provided in part by a grant from the NSF (ASC-9217041). Support for the laboratory's artificial intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Dept. of Defense. The authors were supported by a grant from the McDonnell-Pew Foundation, by a grant from ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, by a grant from Siemens Corporation, by by grant IRI-9013991 from the National Science Foundation, by grant N00014-90-J-1942 from the Office of Naval Research, and by NSF grant ECS-9216531 to support an Initiative in Intelligent Control at MIT. Michael I. Jordan is a NSF Presidential Young Investigator. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #52847. 	[Title] Rule-based Machine Learning Methods for Functional Prediction [Abstract] We describe a machine learning method for predicting the value of a real-valued function, given the values of multiple input variables. The method induces solutions from samples in the form of ordered disjunctive normal form (DNF) decision rules. A central objective of the method and representation is the induction of compact, easily interpretable solutions. This rule-based decision model can be extended to search efficiently for similar cases prior to approximating function values. Experimental results on real-world data demonstrate that the new techniques are competitive with existing machine learning and statistical methods and can sometimes yield superior regression performance. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Paper #7032 has the title `Combining estimates in regression and classification  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #7032 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #7032 has the title `Combining estimates in regression and classification  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #7032 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Probabilistic_Methods