Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8703. 	[Title] Theory Refinement Combining Analytical and Empirical Methods [Abstract] This article describes a comprehensive approach to automatic theory revision. Given an imperfect theory, the approach combines explanation attempts for incorrectly classified examples in order to identify the failing portions of the theory. For each theory fault, correlated subsets of the examples are used to inductively generate a correction. Because the corrections are focused, they tend to preserve the structure of the original theory. Because the system starts with an approximate domain theory, in general fewer training examples are required to attain a given level of performance (classification accuracy) compared to a purely empirical system. The approach applies to classification systems employing a propositional Horn-clause theory. The system has been tested in a variety of application domains, and results are presented for problems in the domains of molecular biology and plant disease diagnosis. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1272. 	[Title] Learning a set of primitive actions with an Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1(1):81-106, [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6917. 	[Title] Covering vs. Divide-and-Conquer for Top-Down Induction of Logic Programs [Abstract] covering has been formalized and used extensively. In this work, the divide-and-conquer technique is formalized as well and compared to the covering technique in a logic programming framework. Covering works by repeatedly specializing an overly general hypothesis, on each iteration focusing on finding a clause with a high coverage of positive examples. Divide-and-conquer works by specializing an overly general hypothesis once, focusing on discriminating positive from negative examples. Experimental results are presented demonstrating that there are cases when more accurate hypotheses can be found by divide-and-conquer than by covering. Moreover, since covering considers the same alternatives repeatedly it tends to be less efficient than divide-and-conquer, which never considers the same alternative twice. On the other hand, covering searches a larger hypothesis space, which may result in that more compact hypotheses are found by this technique than by divide-and-conquer. Furthermore, divide-and-conquer is, in contrast to covering, not applicable to learn ing recursive definitions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #353541. 	[Title] Building Intelligent Agents for Web-Based Tasks: A Theory-Refinement Approach [Abstract] We present and evaluate an infrastructure with which to rapidly and easily build intelligent software agents for Web-based tasks. Our design is centered around two basic functions: ScoreThis-Link and ScoreThisPage. If given highly accurate such functions, standard heuristic search would lead to efficient retrieval of useful information. Our approach allows users to tailor our system's behavior by providing approximate advice about the above functions. This advice is mapped into neural network implementations of the two functions. Subsequent reinforcements from the Web (e.g., dead links) and any ratings of retrieved pages that the user wishes to provide are, respectively, used to refine the link- and page-scoring functions. Hence, our agent architecture provides an appealing middle ground between nonadaptive "agent" programming languages and systems that solely learn user preferences from the user's ratings of pages. We present a case study where we provide some simple advice and specialize our general-purpose system into a "home-page finder". An empirical study demonstrates that our approach leads to a more effective home-page finder than that of a leading commercial Web search engine. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #308232. 	[Title] Extending Theory Refinement to M-of-N Rules [Abstract] In recent years, machine learning research has started addressing a problem known as theory refinement. The goal of a theory refinement learner is to modify an incomplete or incorrect rule base, representing a domain theory, to make it consistent with a set of input training examples. This paper presents a major revision of the Either propositional theory refinement system. Two issues are discussed. First, we show how run time efficiency can be greatly improved by changing from a exhaustive scheme for computing repairs to an iterative greedy method. Second, we show how to extend Either to refine M-of-N rules. The resulting algorithm, Neither (New Either), is more than an order of magnitude faster and produces significantly more accurate results with theories that fit the M-of-N format. To demonstrate the advantages of Neither, we present experimental results from two real-world domains. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #104840. 	[Title] An Optimized Theory Revision Module [Abstract] Theory revision systems typically use a set of theory-to-theory transformations f k g to hill-climb from a given initial theory to a new theory whose empirical accuracy, over a given set of labeled training instances fc j g, is a local maximum. At the heart of each such process is an "evaluator", which compares the accuracy of the current theory KB with that of each of its "neighbors" f k (KB)g, with the goal of determining which neighbor has the highest accuracy. The obvious "wrapper" evaluator simply evaluates each individual neighbor theory KB k = k (KB) on each instance c j . As it can be very expensive to evaluate a single theory on a single instance, and there can be a great many training instances and a huge number of neighbors, this approach can be prohibitively slow. We present an alternative system which employs a smarter evaluator that quickly computes the accuracy of a transformed theory k (KB) by "looking inside" KB and reasoning about the effects of the k transformation. We compare the performance of with the naive wrapper system on real-world theories obtained from a fielded expert system, and find that runs over 35 times faster than , while attaining the same accuracy. This paper also discusses 's source of power. Keywords: theory revision, efficient algorithm, hill-climbing system Multiple Submissions: We have submited a related version of this paper to AAAI96. fl We gratefully acknowledge the many helpful comments on this report from George Drastal, Chandra Mouleeswaran and Geoff Towell. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6539. 	[Title] Quantifying Prior Determination Knowledge using the PAC Learning Model [Abstract] Prior knowledge, or bias, regarding a concept can speed up the task of learning it. Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) learning is a mathematical model of concept learning that can be used to quantify the speed up due to different forms of bias on learning. Thus far, PAC learning has mostly been used to analyze syntactic bias, such as limiting concepts to conjunctions of boolean prepositions. This paper demonstrates that PAC learning can also be used to analyze semantic bias, such as a domain theory about the concept being learned. The key idea is to view the hypothesis space in PAC learning as that consistent with all prior knowledge, syntactic and semantic. In particular, the paper presents a PAC analysis of determinations, a type of relevance knowledge. The results of the analysis reveal crisp distinctions and relations among different determinations, and illustrate the usefulness of an analysis based on the PAC model. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27535. 	[Title] Combining Connectionist and Symbolic Learning to Refine Certainty-Factor Rule Bases [Abstract] This paper describes Rapture | a system for revising probabilistic knowledge bases that combines connectionist and symbolic learning methods. Rapture uses a modified version of backpropagation to refine the certainty factors of a probabilistic rule base and it uses ID3's information-gain heuristic to add new rules. Results on refining three actual expert knowledge bases demonstrate that this combined approach generally performs better than previous methods. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #34961. 	[Title] Comparing Methods for Refining Certainty-Factor Rule-Bases [Abstract] This paper compares two methods for refining uncertain knowledge bases using propositional certainty-factor rules. The first method, implemented in the Rapture system, employs neural-network training to refine the certainties of existing rules but uses a symbolic technique to add new rules. The second method, based on the one used in the Kbann system, initially adds a complete set of potential new rules with very low certainty and allows neural-network training to filter and adjust these rules. Experimental results indicate that the former method results in significantly faster training and produces much simpler refined rule bases with slightly greater accuracy. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105428. 	[Title] From Theory Refinement to KB Maintenance: a Position Statement [Abstract] Since we consider theory refinement (TR) as a possible key concept for a methodologically clear view of knowledge-base maintenance, we try to give a structured overview about the actual state-of-the-art in TR. This overview is arranged along the description of TR as a search problem. We explain the basic approach, show the variety of existing systems and try to give some hints about the direction future research should go. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #101143. 	[Title] Issues in Goal-Driven Explanation [Abstract] When a reasoner explains surprising events for its internal use, a key motivation for explaining is to perform learning that will facilitate the achievement of its goals. Human explainers use a range of strategies to build explanations, including both internal reasoning and external information search, and goal-based considerations have a profound effect on their choices of when and how to pursue explanations. However, standard AI models of explanation rely on goal-neutral use of a single fixed strategy|generally backwards chaining|to build their explanations. This paper argues that explanation should be modeled as a goal-driven learning process for gathering and transforming information, and discusses the issues involved in developing an active multi-strategy process for goal-driven explanation. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #101145. 	[Title] Abduction, Experience, and Goals: A Model of Everyday Abductive Explanation* [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #51866. 	[Title] Bias-Driven Revision of Logical Domain Theories [Abstract] The theory revision problem is the problem of how best to go about revising a deficient domain theory using information contained in examples that expose inaccuracies. In this paper we present our approach to the theory revision problem for propositional domain theories. The approach described here, called PTR, uses probabilities associated with domain theory elements to numerically track the ``ow'' of proof through the theory. This allows us to measure the precise role of a clause or literal in allowing or preventing a (desired or undesired) derivation for a given example. This information is used to efficiently locate and repair awed elements of the theory. PTR is proved to converge to a theory which correctly classifies all examples, and shown experimentally to be fast and accurate even for deep theories. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #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 #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 #1102751. 	[Title] The Challenge of Revising an Impure Theory [Abstract] A pure rule-based program will return a set of answers to each query; and will return the same answer set even if its rules are re-ordered. However, an impure program, which includes the Prolog cut "!" and not() operators, can return different answers if the rules are re-ordered. There are also many reasoning systems that return only the first answer found for each query; these first answers, too, depend on the rule order, even in pure rule-based systems. A theory revision algorithm, seeking a revised rule-base whose expected accuracy, over the distribution of queries, is optimal, should therefore consider modifying the order of the rules. This paper first shows that a polynomial number of training "labeled queries" (each a query coupled with its correct answer) provides the distribution information necessary to identify the optimal ordering. It then proves, however, that the task of determining which ordering is optimal, once given this information, is intractable even in trivial situations; e.g., even if each query is an atomic literal, we are seeking only a "perfect" theory, and the rule base is propositional. We also prove that this task is not even approximable: Unless P = N P , no polynomial time algorithm can produce an ordering of an n-rule theory whose accuracy is within n fl of optimal, for some fl &gt; 0. We also prove similar hardness, and non-approximatability, results for the related tasks of determining, in these impure contexts, (1) the optimal ordering of the antecedents; (2) the optimal set of rules to add or (3) to delete; and (4) the optimal priority values for a set of defaults. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1103394. 	[Title] The evaluation of Anapron: A case study in evaluating a case-based system [Abstract] This paper presents a case study in evaluating a case-based system. It describes the evaluation of Anapron, a system that pronounces names by a combination of rule-based and case-based reasoning. Three sets of experiments were run on Anapron: a set of exploratory measurements to profile the system's operation; a comparison between Anapron and other name-pronunciation systems; and a set of studies that modified various parts of the system to isolate the contribution of each. Lessons learned from these experiments for CBR evaluation methodology and for CBR theory are discussed. This work may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any commercial purpose. Permission to copy in whole or in part without payment of fee is granted for nonprofit educational and research purposes provided that all such whole or partial copies include the following: a notice that such copying is by permission of Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts; an acknowledgment of the authors and individual contributions to the work; and all applicable portions of the copyright notice. Copying, reproduction, or republishing for any other purpose shall require a license with payment of fee to Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories. All rights reserved. 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 #22564. 	[Title] PRONOUNCING NAMES BY A COMBINATION OF RULE-BASED AND CASE-BASED REASONING [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #22566. 	[Title] A comparison of Anapron with seven other name-pronunciation systems [Abstract] This paper presents an experiment comparing a new name-pronunciation system, Anapron, with seven existing systems: three state-of-the-art commercial systems (from Bellcore, Bell Labs, and DEC), two variants of a machine-learning system (NETtalk), and two humans. Anapron works by combining rule-based and case-based reasoning. It is based on the idea that it is much easier to improve a rule-based system by adding case-based reasoning to it than by tuning the rules to deal with every exception. In the experiment described here, Anapron used a set of rules adapted from MITalk and elementary foreign-language textbooks, and a case library of 5000 names. With these components | which required relatively little knowledge engineering | Anapron was found to perform almost at the level of the commercial systems, and significantly better than the two versions of NETtalk. This work may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any commercial purpose. Permission to copy in whole or in part without payment of fee is granted for nonprofit educational and research purposes provided that all such whole or partial copies include the following: a notice that such copying is by permission of Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts; an acknowledgment of the authors and individual contributions to the work; and all applicable portions of the copyright notice. Copying, reproduction, or republishing for any other purpose shall require a license with payment of fee to Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories. All rights reserved. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #51879. 	[Title] Combining Symbolic and Connectionist Learning Methods to Refine Certainty-Factor Rule-Bases [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4649. 	[Title] Finding Accurate Frontiers: A Knowledge-Intensive Approach to Relational Learning [Abstract] An approach to analytic learning is described that searches for accurate entailments of a Horn Clause domain theory. A hill-climbing search, guided by an information based evaluation function, is performed by applying a set of operators that derive frontiers from domain theories. The analytic learning system is one component of a multi-strategy relational learning system. We compare the accuracy of concepts learned with this analytic strategy to concepts learned with an analytic strategy that operationalizes the domain theory. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #212777. 	[Title] Inductive Learning of Characteristic Concept Descriptions from Small Sets of Classified Examples [Abstract] This paper presents a novel idea to the problem of learning concept descriptions from examples. Whereas most existing approaches rely on a large number of classified examples, the approach presented in the paper is aimed at being applicable when only a few examples are classified as positive (and negative) instances of a concept. The approach tries to take advantage of the information which can be induced from descriptions of unclassified objects using a conceptual clustering algorithm. The system Cola is described and results of applying Cola in two real-world domains are presented. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1127851. 	[Title] Generating Declarative Language Bias for Top-Down ILP Algorithms [Abstract] Many of today's algorithms for Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) put a heavy burden and responsibility on the user, because their declarative bias have to be defined in a rather low-level fashion. To address this issue, we developed a method for generating declarative language bias for top-down ILP systems from high-level declarations. The key feature of our approach is the distinction between a user level and an expert level of language bias declarations. The expert provides abstract meta-declarations, and the user declares the relationship between the meta-level and the given database to obtain a low-level declarative language bias. The suggested languages allow for compact and abstract specifications of the declarative language bias for top-down ILP systems using schemata. We verified several properties of the translation algorithm that generates schemata, and applied it successfully to a few chemical domains. As a consequence, we propose to use a two-level approach to generate declarative language bias. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10796. 	[Title] An Improved Algorithm for Incremental Induction of Decision Trees [Abstract] Technical Report 94-07 February 7, 1994 (updated April 25, 1994) This paper will appear in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning. Abstract This paper presents an algorithm for incremental induction of decision trees that is able to handle both numeric and symbolic variables. In order to handle numeric variables, a new tree revision operator called `slewing' is introduced. Finally, a non-incremental method is given for finding a decision tree based on a direct metric of a candidate tree. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #252715. 	[Title] EMERALD: An Integrated System of Machine Learning and Discovery Programs to Support AI Education and [Abstract] With the rapid expansion of machine learning methods and applications, there is a strong need for computer-based interactive tools that support education in this area. The EMERALD system was developed to provide hands-on experience and an interactive demonstration of several machine learning and discovery capabilities for students in AI and cognitive science, and for AI professionals. The current version of EMERALD integrates five programs that exhibit different types of machine learning and discovery: learning rules from examples, determining structural descriptions of object classes, inventing conceptual clusterings of entities, predicting sequences of objects, and discovering equations characterizing collections of quantitative and qualitative data. EMERALD extensively uses color graphic capabilities, voice synthesis, and a natural language representation of the knowledge acquired by the learning programs. Each program is presented as a "learning robot," which has its own "personality," expressed by its icon, its voice, the comments it generates during the learning process, and the results of learning presented as natural language text and/or voice output. Users learn about the capabilities of each "robot" both by being challenged to perform some learning tasks themselves, and by creating their own similar tasks to challenge the "robot." EMERALD is an extension of ILLIAN, an initial, much smaller version that toured eight major US Museums of Science, and was seen by over half a million visitors. EMERALD's architecture allows it to incorporate new programs and new capabilities. The system runs on SUN workstations, and is available to universities and educational institutions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10798. 	[Title] Learning physical descriptions from functional definitions, examples, Learning from examples: The effect of different conceptual [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #502574. 	[Title] References Automatic student modeling and bug library construction using theory refinement. Ph.D. ml/ Symbolic revision [Abstract] ASSERT demonstrates how theory refinement techniques developed in machine learning can be used to ef fec-tively build student models for intelligent tutoring systems. This application is unique since it inverts the normal goal of theory refinement from correcting errors in a knowledge base to introducing them. A comprehensive experiment involving a lar ge number of students interacting with an automated tutor for teaching concepts in C ++ programming was used to evaluate the approach. This experiment demonstrated the ability of theory refinement to generate more accurate student models than raw induction, as well as the ability of the resulting models to support individualized feedback that actually improves students subsequent performance. Carr, B. and Goldstein, I. (1977). Overlays: a theory of modeling for computer aided instruction. T echnical Report A. I. Memo 406, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Sandberg, J. and Barnard, Y . (1993). Education and technology: What do we know? And where is AI? Artificial Intelligence Communications, 6(1):47-58. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #92589. 	[Title] 28 Learning Bayesian Networks Using Feature Selection [Abstract] This paper introduces a novel enhancement for learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. The new approach selects a subset of features that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase. We examine explicitly the effects of two aspects of the algorithm, feature selection and node ordering. Our approach generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and display predictive accuracy comparable Bayesian networks are being increasingly recognized as an important representation for probabilistic reasoning. For many domains, the need to specify the probability distributions for a Bayesian network is considerable, and learning these probabilities from data using an algorithm like K2 [Cooper92] could alleviate such specification difficulties. We describe an extension to the Bayesian network learning approaches introduced in K2. Our goal is to construct networks that are simpler to evaluate but still have high predictive accuracy relative to networks that model all features. Rather than use all database features (or attributes) for constructing the network, we select a subset of features that maximize the predictive accuracy of the network. Then the learning process uses only the selected features as nodes in learning the Bayesian network. We examine explicitly the effects of two aspects of the algorithm: (a) feature selection, and (b) node ordering. Our experimental results verify that this approach generates networks that are compu-tationally simpler to evaluate and display predictive accuracy comparable to the predictive accuracy of Bayesian networks that model all features. Our results, similar to those observed by other studies of feature selection in learning [Caruana94, John94, Langley94a, Langley94b], demonstrate that feature selection provides comparable predictive accuracy using smaller networks. For example, by selecting as few as 18% of the features for the to that of Bayesian networks which model all attributes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #449841. 	[Title] Theory-Guided Induction of Logic Programs by Inference of Regular Languages recursive clauses. merlin on the [Abstract] resent allowed sequences of resolution steps for the initial theory. There are, however, many characterizations of allowed sequences of resolution steps that cannot be expressed by a set of resolvents. One approach to this problem is presented, the system mer-lin, which is based on an earlier technique for learning finite-state automata that represent allowed sequences of resolution steps. merlin extends the previous technique in three ways: i) negative examples are considered in addition to positive examples, ii) a new strategy for performing generalization is used, and iii) a technique for converting the learned automaton to a logic program is included. Results from experiments are presented in which merlin outperforms both a system using the old strategy for performing generalization, and a traditional covering technique. The latter result can be explained by the limited expressiveness of hypotheses produced by covering and also by the fact that covering needs to produce the correct base clauses for a recursive definition before Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4274. 	[Title] Multi-Strategy Learning and Theory Revision [Abstract] This paper presents the system WHY, which learns and updates a diagnostic knowledge base using domain knowledge and a set of examples. The a-priori knowledge consists of a causal model of the domain, stating the relationships among basic phenomena, and a body of phenomenological theory, describing the links between abstract concepts and their possible manifestations in the world. The phenomenological knowledge is used deductively, the causal model is used abductively and the examples are used inductively. The problems of imperfection and intractability of the theory are handled by allowing the system to make assumptions during its reasoning. In this way, robust knowledge can be learned with limited complexity and limited number of examples. The system works in a first order logic environment and has been applied in a real domain. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #434. 	[Title] Learning Analytically and Inductively [Abstract] Learning is a fundamental component of intelligence, and a key consideration in designing cognitive architectures such as Soar [ Laird et al., 1986 ] . This chapter considers the question of what constitutes an appropriate general-purpose learning mechanism. We are interested in mechanisms that might explain and reproduce the rich variety of learning capabilities of humans, ranging from learning perceptual-motor skills such as how to ride a bicycle, to learning highly cognitive tasks such as how to play chess. Research on learning in fields such as cognitive science, artificial intelligence, neurobiology, and statistics has led to the identification of two distinct classes of learning methods: inductive and analytic. Inductive methods, such as neural network Backpropagation, learn general laws by finding statistical correlations and regularities among a large set of training examples. In contrast, analytical methods, such as Explanation-Based Learning, acquire general laws from many fewer training examples. They rely instead on prior knowledge to analyze individual training examples in detail, then use this analysis to distinguish relevant example features from the irrelevant. The question considered in this chapter is how to best combine inductive and analytical learning in an architecture that seeks to cover the range of learning exhibited by intelligent systems such as humans. We present a specific learning mechanism, Explanation Based Neural Network learning (EBNN), that blends these two types of learning, and present experimental results demonstrating its ability to learn control strategies for a mobile robot using Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #85688. 	[Title] Finding new rules for incomplete theories: Explicit biases for induction with contextual information. In Proceedings [Abstract] addressed in KBANN (which translates a theory into a neural-net, refines it using backpropagation, and then retranslates the result back into rules) by adding extra hidden units and connections to the initial network; however, this would require predetermining the num In this paper, we have presented constructive induction techniques recently added to the EITHER theory refinement system. Intermediate concept utilization employs existing rules in the theory to derive higher-level features for use in induction. Intermediate concept creation employs inverse resolution to introduce new intermediate concepts in order to fill gaps in a theory than span multiple levels. These revisions allow EITHER to make use of imperfect domain theories in the ways typical of previous work in both constructive induction and theory refinement. As a result, EITHER is able to handle a wider range of theory imperfections than any other existing theory refinement system. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #18619. 	[Title] Heterogeneous Uncertainty Sampling for Supervised Learning [Abstract] Uncertainty sampling methods iteratively request class labels for training instances whose classes are uncertain despite the previous labeled instances. These methods can greatly reduce the number of instances that an expert need label. One problem with this approach is that the classifier best suited for an application may be too expensive to train or use during the selection of instances. We test the use of one classifier (a highly efficient probabilistic one) to select examples for training another (the C4.5 rule induction program). Despite being chosen by this heterogeneous approach, the uncertainty samples yielded classifiers with lower error rates than random samples ten times larger. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #173884. 	[Title] Revising Bayesian Network Parameters Using Backpropagation [Abstract] The problem of learning Bayesian networks with hidden variables is known to be a hard problem. Even the simpler task of learning just the conditional probabilities on a Bayesian network with hidden variables is hard. In this paper, we present an approach that learns the conditional probabilities on a Bayesian network with hidden variables by transforming it into a multi-layer feedforward neural network (ANN). The conditional probabilities are mapped onto weights in the ANN, which are then learned using standard backpropagation techniques. To avoid the problem of exponentially large ANNs, we focus on Bayesian networks with noisy-or and noisy-and nodes. Experiments on real world classification problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our technique. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10435. 	[Title] Improving accuracy by combining rule-based and case-based reasoning [Abstract] An architecture is presented for combining rule-based and case-based reasoning. The architecture is intended for domains that are understood reasonably well, but still imperfectly. It uses a set of rules, which are taken to be only approximately correct, to obtain a preliminary answer for a given problem; it then draws analogies from cases to handle exceptions to the rules. Having rules together with cases not only increases the architecture's domain coverage, it also allows innovative ways of doing case-based reasoning: the same rules that are used for rule-based reasoning are also used by the case-based component to do case indexing and case adaptation. The architecture was applied to the task of name pronunciation, and, with minimal knowledge engineering, was found to perform almost at the level of the best commercial systems. Moreover, its accuracy was found to exceed what it could have achieved with rules or cases alone, thus demonstrating the accuracy improvement afforded by combining rule-based and case-based reasoning. This work may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any commercial purpose. Permission to copy in whole or in part without payment of fee is granted for nonprofit educational and research purposes provided that all such whole or partial copies include the following: a notice that such copying is by permission of Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts; an acknowledgment of the authors and individual contributions to the work; and all applicable portions of the copyright notice. Copying, reproduction, or republishing for any other purpose shall require a license with payment of fee to Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories. All rights reserved. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1154500. 	[Title]  [Abstract] Empirical Learning Results in POLLYANNA The value of empirical learning is demonstrated by results of testing the theory space search (TSS) component of POLLYANNA. Empirical data shows approximations generated from generic simplifying assumptions to have widely varying levels of accuracy and efficiency. The candidate theory space includes some theories with Pareto optimal combinations of accuracy and efficiency, as well as others that are non-optimal. Empirical learning is thus needed to separate the optimal theories from the non-optimal ones. It works as a filter on the process of generating approximations from generic simplifying assumptions. Empirical tests serve an additional purpose as well. Theory space search collects data that precisely characterizes the tradeoff between accuracy and efficiency among the candidate approximate theories. The tradeoff data can be used to select a theory that best balances the competing objectives of accuracy and efficiency in a manner appropriate to the intended performance context. The feasibility of empirical learning is also addressed by results of testing the theory space search component of POLLYANNA. In order for empirical testing to be feasible, candidate approximate theories must be operationally usable. Candidate hearts theories generated by POLLYANNA are shown to be operationally usable by experimental results from the theory space search (TSS) phase of learning. They run on a real machine producing results that can be compared with training examples. Feasibility also depends on the information and computation costs of empirical testing. Information costs result from the need to supply the system with training examples. Computation costs result from the need to execute candidate theories. Both types of costs grow with the numbers of candidate theories to be tested. Experimental results show that empirical testing in POLLYANNA is limited more by the computation costs of executing candidate theories than by the information costs of obtaining many training examples. POLLYANNA contrasts in this respect with traditional inductive learning systems. The feasibility of empirical learning depends also on the intended performance context, and on the resources available in the context of learning. Measurements from the theory space search phase indicate that TSS algorithms performing exhaustive search would not be feasible for the hearts domain, although they may be feasible for other applications. TSS algorithms that avoid exhaustive search hold considerably more promise. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #51909. 	[Title] Automated Refinement of First-Order Horn-Clause Domain Theories [Abstract] Knowledge acquisition is a difficult, error-prone, and time-consuming task. The task of automatically improving an existing knowledge base using learning methods is addressed by the class of systems performing theory refinement. This paper presents a system, Forte (First-Order Revision of Theories from Examples), which refines first-order Horn-clause theories by integrating a variety of different revision techniques into a coherent whole. Forte uses these techniques within a hill-climbing framework, guided by a global heuristic. It identifies possible errors in the theory and calls on a library of operators to develop possible revisions. The best revision is implemented, and the process repeats until no further revisions are possible. Operators are drawn from a variety of sources, including propositional theory refinement, first-order induction, and inverse resolution. Forte is demonstrated in several domains, including logic programming and qualitative modelling. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6213. 	[Title] Machine Learning Learning to Predict by the Methods of Temporal Differences Keywords: Incremental learning, prediction, [Abstract] This article introduces a class of incremental learning procedures specialized for prediction|that is, for using past experience with an incompletely known system to predict its future behavior. Whereas conventional prediction-learning methods assign credit by means of the difference between predicted and actual outcomes, the new methods assign credit by means of the difference between temporally successive predictions. Although such temporal-difference methods have been used in Samuel's checker player, Holland's bucket brigade, and the author's Adaptive Heuristic Critic, they have remained poorly understood. Here we prove their convergence and optimality for special cases and relate them to supervised-learning methods. For most real-world prediction problems, temporal-difference methods require less memory and less peak computation than conventional methods; and they produce more accurate predictions. We argue that most problems to which supervised learning is currently applied are really prediction problems of the sort to which temporal-difference methods can be applied to advantage. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10183. 	[Title] Concept Learning and Heuristic Classification in Weak-Theory Domains 1 [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #41417. 	[Title] Case-based Acquisition of User Preferences for Solution Improvement in Ill-Structured Domains [Abstract] 1 We have developed an approach to acquire complicated user optimization criteria and use them to guide Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #411092. 	[Title] LEARNING LOGICAL EXCEPTIONS IN CHESS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6741. 	[Title] LEARNING CONCEPTS BY ASKING QUESTIONS [Abstract] Tw o important issues in machine learning are explored: the role that memory plays in acquiring new concepts; and the extent to which the learner can take an active part in acquiring these concepts. This chapter describes a program, called Marvin, which uses concepts it has learned previously to learn new concepts. The program forms hypotheses about the concept being learned and tests the hypotheses by asking the trainer questions. Learning begins when the trainer shows Marvin an example of the concept to be learned. The program determines which objects in the example belong to concepts stored in the memory. A description of the new concept is formed by using the information obtained from the memory to generalize the description of the training example. The generalized description is tested when the program constructs new examples and shows these to the trainer, asking if they belong to the target concept. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #135765. 	[Title] Specialization of Recursive Predicates [Abstract] When specializing a recursive predicate in order to exclude a set of negative examples without excluding a set of positive examples, it may not be possible to specialize or remove any of the clauses in a refutation of a negative example without excluding any positive exam ples. A previously proposed solution to this problem is to apply program transformation in order to obtain non-recursive target predicates from recursive ones. However, the application of this method prevents recursive specializations from being found. In this work, we present the algorithm spectre ii which is not limited to specializing non-recursive predicates. The key idea upon which the algorithm is based is that it is not enough to specialize or remove clauses in refutations of negative examples in order to obtain correct specializations, but it is sometimes necessary to specialize clauses that appear only in refutations of positive examples. In contrast to its predecessor spectre, the new algorithm is not limited to specializing clauses defining one predicate only, but may specialize clauses defining multiple predicates. Furthermore, the positive and negative examples are no longer required to be instances of the same predicate. It is proven that the algorithm produces a correct specialization when all positive examples are logical consequences of the original program, there is a finite number of derivations of positive and negative examples and when no positive and negative examples have the same sequence of input clauses in their refutations. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #135766. 	[Title] Specialization of Logic Programs by Pruning SLD-Trees [Abstract] program w.r.t. positive and negative examples can be viewed as the problem of pruning an SLD-tree such that all refutations of negative examples and no refutations of positive examples are excluded. It is shown that the actual pruning can be performed by applying unfolding and clause removal. The algorithm spectre is presented, which is based on this idea. The input to the algorithm is, besides a logic program and positive and negative examples, a computation rule, which determines the shape of the SLD-tree that is to be pruned. It is shown that the generality of the resulting specialization is dependent on the computation rule, and experimental results are presented from using three different computation rules. The experiments indicate that the computation rule should be formulated so that the number of applications of unfolding is kept as low as possible. The algorithm, which uses a divide-and-conquer method, is also compared with a covering algorithm. The experiments show that a higher predictive accuracy can be achieved if the focus is on discriminating positive from negative examples rather than on achieving a high coverage of positive examples only. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #601561. 	[Title] Applying a Machine Learning Workbench: Experience with Agricultural Databases [Abstract] This paper reviews our experience with the application of machine learning techniques to agricultural databases. We have designed and implemented a machine learning workbench, WEKA, which permits rapid experimentation on a given dataset using a variety of machine learning schemes, and has several facilities for interactive investigation of the data: preprocessing attributes, evaluating and comparing the results of different schemes, and designing comparative experiments to be run offline. We discuss the partnership between agricultural scientist and machine learning researcher that our experience has shown to be vital to success. We review in some detail a particular agricultural application concerned with the culling of dairy herds. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #208345. 	[Title] CHIRON: Planning in an Open-Textured Domain [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1112026. 	[Title] Modifying Network Architectures for Certainty-Factor Rule-Base Revision [Abstract] This paper describes Rapture | a system for revising probabilistic rule bases that converts symbolic rules into a connectionist network, which is then trained via connectionist techniques. It uses a modified version of backpropagation to refine the certainty factors of the rule base, and uses ID3's information-gain heuristic (Quinlan, 1986) to add new rules. Work is currently under way for finding improved techniques for modifying network architectures that include adding hidden units using the UPSTART algorithm (Frean, 1990). A case is made via comparison with fully connected connectionist techniques for keeping the rule base as close to the original as possible, adding new input units only as needed. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #89308. 	[Title] Focusing Construction and Selection of Abductive Hypotheses [Abstract] Many abductive understanding systems explain novel situations by a chaining process that is neutral to explainer needs beyond generating some plausible explanation for the event being explained. This paper examines the relationship of standard models of abductive understanding to the case-based explanation model. In case-based explanation, construction and selection of abductive hypotheses are focused by specific explanations of prior episodes and by goal-based criteria reflecting current information needs. The case-based method is inspired by observations of human explanation of anomalous events during everyday understanding, and this paper focuses on the method's contributions to the problems of building good explanations in everyday domains. We identify five central issues, compare how those issues are addressed in traditional and case-based explanation models, and discuss motivations for using the case-based approach to facilitate generation of plausible and useful explanations in domains that are complex and imperfectly un derstood. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105887. 	[Title] Knowledge Acquisition with a Knowledge-Intensive Machine Learning System [Abstract] In this paper, we investigate the integration of knowledge acquisition and machine learning techniques. We argue that existing machine learning techniques can be made more useful as knowledge acquisition tools by allowing the expert to have greater control over and interaction with the learning process. We describe a number of extensions to FOCL (a multistrategy Horn-clause learning program) that have greatly enhanced its power as a knowledge acquisition tool, paying particular attention to the utility of maintaining a connection between a rule and the set of examples explained by the rule. The objective of this research is to make the modification of a domain theory analogous to the use of a spread sheet. A prototype knowledge acquisition tool, FOCL-1-2-3, has been constructed in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20193. 	[Title] The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples [Abstract] This paper describes the Structure-Mapping Engine (SME), a program for studying analogical processing. SME has been built to explore Gentner's Structure-mapping theory of analogy, and provides a "tool kit" for constructing matching algorithms consistent with this theory. Its flexibility enhances cognitive simulation studies by simplifying experimentation. Furthermore, SME is very efficient, making it a useful component in machine learning systems as well. We review the Structure-mapping theory and describe the design of the engine. We analyze the complexity of the algorithm, and demonstrate that most of the steps are polynomial, typically bounded by O (N 2 ). Next we demonstrate some examples of its operation taken from our cognitive simulation studies and work in machine learning. Finally, we compare SME to other analogy programs and discuss several areas for future work. This paper appeared in Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1989, pp 1-63. For more information, please contact forbus@ils.nwu.edu Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #22883. 	[Title] On the Informativeness of the DNA Promoter Sequences Domain Theory [Abstract] The DNA promoter sequences domain theory and database have become popular for testing systems that integrate empirical and analytical learning. This note reports a simple change and reinterpretation of the domain theory in terms of M-of-N concepts, involving no learning, that results in an accuracy of 93.4% on the 106 items of the database. Moreover, an exhaustive search of the space of M-of-N domain theory interpretations indicates that the expected accuracy of a randomly chosen interpretation is 76.5%, and that a maximum accuracy of 97.2% is achieved in 12 cases. This demonstrates the informativeness of the domain theory, without the complications of understanding the interactions between various learning algorithms and the theory. In addition, our results help characterize the difficulty of learning using the DNA promoters theory. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #97892. 	[Title] Correcting Imperfect Domain Theories: A Knowledge-Level Analysis [Abstract] Explanation-Based Learning [Mitchell et al., 1986; DeJong and Mooney, 1986] has shown promise as a powerful analytical learning technique. However, EBL is severely hampered by the requirement of a complete and correct domain theory for successful learning to occur. Clearly, in non-trivial domains, developing such a domain theory is a nearly impossible task. Therefore, much research has been devoted to understanding how an imperfect domain theory can be corrected and extended during system performance. In this paper, we present a characterization of this problem, and use it to analyze past research in the area. Past characterizations of the problem (e.g, [Mitchell et al., 1986; Rajamoney and DeJong, 1987]) have viewed the types of performance errors caused by a faulty domain theory as primary. In contrast, we focus primarily on the types of knowledge deficiencies present in the theory, and from these derive the types of performance errors that can result. Correcting the theory can be viewed as a search through the space of possible domain theories, with a variety of knowledge sources that can be used to guide the search. We examine the types of knowledge used by a variety of past systems for this purpose. The hope is that this analysis will indicate the need for a "universal weak method" of domain theory correction, in which different sources of knowledge for theory correction can be freely and flexibly combined. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28389. 	[Title] Machine Learning,  Creating Advice-Taking Reinforcement Learners [Abstract] Learning from reinforcements is a promising approach for creating intelligent agents. However, reinforcement learning usually requires a large number of training episodes. We present and evaluate a design that addresses this shortcoming by allowing a connectionist Q-learner to accept advice given, at any time and in a natural manner, by an external observer. In our approach, the advice-giver watches the learner and occasionally makes suggestions, expressed as instructions in a simple imperative programming language. Based on techniques from knowledge-based neural networks, we insert these programs directly into the agent's utility function. Subsequent reinforcement learning further integrates and refines the advice. We present empirical evidence that investigates several aspects of our approach and show that, given good advice, a learner can achieve statistically significant gains in expected reward. A second experiment shows that advice improves the expected reward regardless of the stage of training at which it is given, while another study demonstrates that subsequent advice can result in further gains in reward. Finally, we present experimental results that indicate our method is more powerful than a naive technique for making use of advice. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1119078. 	[Title] Tractability of Theory Patching [Abstract] In this paper we consider the problem of theory patching, in which we are given a domain theory, some of whose components are indicated to be possibly flawed, and a set of labeled training examples for the domain concept. The theory patching problem is to revise only the indicated components of the theory, such that the resulting theory correctly classifies all the training examples. Theory patching is thus a type of theory revision in which revisions are made to individual components of the theory. Our concern in this paper is to determine for which classes of logical domain theories the theory patching problem is tractable. We consider both propositional and first-order domain theories, and show that the theory patching problem is equivalent to that of determining what information contained in a theory is stable regardless of what revisions might be performed to the theory. We show that determining stability is tractable if the input theory satisfies two conditions: that revisions to each theory component have monotonic effects on the classification of examples, and that theory components act independently in the classification of examples in the theory. We also show how the concepts introduced can be used to determine the soundness and completeness of particular theory patching algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #59244. 	[Title] Explaining Anomalies as a Basis for Knowledge Base Refinement [Abstract] Explanations play a key role in operationalization-based anomaly detection techniques. In this paper we show that their role is not limited to anomaly detection; they can also be used for guiding automated knowledge base refinement. We introduce a refinement procedure which takes: (i) a small number of refinement rules (rather than test cases), and (ii) explanations constructed in an attempt to reveal the cause (or causes) for inconsistencies detected during the verification process, and returns rule revisions aiming to recover the consistency of the KB-theory. Inconsistencies caused by more than one anomaly are handled at the same time, which improves the efficiency of the refinement process. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8687. 	[Title] The Difficulties of Learning Logic Programs with Cut [Abstract] As real logic programmers normally use cut (!), an effective learning procedure for logic programs should be able to deal with it. Because the cut predicate has only a procedural meaning, clauses containing cut cannot be learned using an extensional evaluation method, as is done in most learning systems. On the other hand, searching a space of possible programs (instead of a space of independent clauses) is unfeasible. An alternative solution is to generate first a candidate base program which covers the positive examples, and then make it consistent by inserting cut where appropriate. The problem of learning programs with cut has not been investigated before and this seems to be a natural and reasonable approach. We generalize this scheme and investigate the difficulties that arise. Some of the major shortcomings are actually caused, in general, by the need for intensional evaluation. As a conclusion, the analysis of this paper suggests, on precise and technical grounds, that learning cut is difficult, and current induction techniques should probably be restricted to purely declarative logic languages. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #75121. 	[Title] The Utility of Knowledge in Inductive Learning  Running Head: Knowledge in Inductive Learning [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #114. 	[Title] Learning to Act using Real-Time Dynamic Programming [Abstract] fl The authors thank Rich Yee, Vijay Gullapalli, Brian Pinette, and Jonathan Bachrach for helping to clarify the relationships between heuristic search and control. We thank Rich Sutton, Chris Watkins, Paul Werbos, and Ron Williams for sharing their fundamental insights into this subject through numerous discussions, and we further thank Rich Sutton for first making us aware of Korf's research and for his very thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We are very grateful to Dimitri Bertsekas and Steven Sullivan for independently pointing out an error in an earlier version of this article. Finally, we thank Harry Klopf, whose insight and persistence encouraged our interest in this class of learning problems. This research was supported by grants to A.G. Barto from the National Science Foundation (ECS-8912623 and ECS-9214866) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Bolling AFB (AFOSR-89-0526). Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #13686. 	[Title] Framework for Combining Symbolic and Neural Learning rule extraction from neural networks the KBANN algorithm [Abstract] Technical Report 1123, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Nov. 1992 ABSTRACT This article describes an approach to combining symbolic and connectionist approaches to machine learning. A three-stage framework is presented and the research of several groups is reviewed with respect to this framework. The first stage involves the insertion of symbolic knowledge into neural networks, the second addresses the refinement of this prior knowledge in its neural representation, while the third concerns the extraction of the refined symbolic knowledge. Experimental results and open research issues are discussed. A shorter version of this paper will appear in Machine Learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #89335. 	[Title] Utilising Explanation to Assist the Refinement of Knowledge-Based Systems [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8696. 	[Title] The Complexity of Theory Revision [Abstract] A knowledge-based system uses its database (a.k.a. its "theory") to produce answers to the queries it receives. Unfortunately, these answers may be incorrect if the underlying theory is faulty. Standard "theory revision" systems use a given set of "labeled queries" (each a query paired with its correct answer) to transform the given theory, by adding and/or deleting either rules and/or antecedents, into a related theory that is as accurate as possible. After formally defining the theory revision task and bounding its sample complexity, this paper addresses the task's computational complexity. It first proves that, unless P = N P , no polynomial time algorithm can identify the optimal theory, even given the exact distribution of queries, except in the most trivial of situations. It also shows that, except in such trivial situations, no polynomial-time algorithm can produce a theory whose inaccuracy is even close (i.e., within a particular polynomial factor) to optimal. These results justify the standard practice of hill-climbing to a locally-optimal theory, based on a given set of labeled sam ples. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #112378. 	[Title] Language-Independent Data-Oriented Grapheme-to-Phoneme Conversion [Abstract] We describe an approach to grapheme-to-phoneme conversion which is both language-independent and data-oriented. Given a set of examples (spelling words with their associated phonetic representation) in a language, a grapheme-to-phoneme conversion system is automatically produced for that language which takes as its input the spelling of words, and produces as its output the phonetic transcription according to the rules implicit in the training data. We describe the design of the system, and compare its performance to knowledge-based and alternative data-oriented approaches. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8699. 	[Title] Theory Revision in Fault Hierarchies [Abstract] The fault hierarchy representation is widely used in expert systems for the diagnosis of complex mechanical devices. On the assumption that an appropriate bias for a knowledge representation language is also an appropriate bias for learning in this domain, we have developed a theory revision method that operates directly on a fault hierarchy. This task presents several challenges: A typical training instance is missing most feature values, and the pattern of missing features is significant, rather than merely an effect of noise. Moreover, the accuracy of a candidate theory is measured by considering both the sequence of tests required to arrive at a diagnosis and its agreement with the diagnostic endpoints provided by an expert. This paper first describes the algorithm for theory revision of fault hierarchies that was designed to address these challenges, then discusses its application in knowledge base maintenance and reports on experiments that use to revise a fielded diagnostic system. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #267003. 	[Title] Integrating Initialization Bias and Search Bias in Neural Network Learning [Abstract] The use of previously learned knowledge during learning has been shown to reduce the number of examples required for good generalization, and to increase robustness to noise in the examples. In reviewing various means of using learned knowledge from a domain to guide further learning in the same domain, two underlying classes are discerned. Methods which use previous knowledge to initialize a learner (as an initialization bias), and those that use previous knowledge to constrain a learner (as a search bias). We show such methods in fact exploit the same domain knowledge differently, and can complement each other. This is shown by presenting a combined approach which both initializes and constrains a learner. This combined approach is seen to outperform the individual methods under the conditions that accurate previously learned domain knowledge is available, and that there are irrelevant features in the domain representation. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #8703 has the title `Theory Refinement Combining Analytical and Empirical Methods  
` and the abstract `This article describes a comprehensive approach to automatic theory revision. Given an imperfect theory, the approach combines explanation attempts for incorrectly classified examples in order to identify the failing portions of the theory. For each theory fault, correlated subsets of the examples are used to inductively generate a correction. Because the corrections are focused, they tend to preserve the structure of the original theory. Because the system starts with an approximate domain theory, in general fewer training examples are required to attain a given level of performance (classification accuracy) compared to a purely empirical system. The approach applies to classification systems employing a propositional Horn-clause theory. The system has been tested in a variety of application domains, and results are presented for problems in the domains of molecular biology and plant disease diagnosis. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #8703 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #8703 has the title `Theory Refinement Combining Analytical and Empirical Methods  
` and the abstract `This article describes a comprehensive approach to automatic theory revision. Given an imperfect theory, the approach combines explanation attempts for incorrectly classified examples in order to identify the failing portions of the theory. For each theory fault, correlated subsets of the examples are used to inductively generate a correction. Because the corrections are focused, they tend to preserve the structure of the original theory. Because the system starts with an approximate domain theory, in general fewer training examples are required to attain a given level of performance (classification accuracy) compared to a purely empirical system. The approach applies to classification systems employing a propositional Horn-clause theory. The system has been tested in a variety of application domains, and results are presented for problems in the domains of molecular biology and plant disease diagnosis. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #8703 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: Rule_Learning