Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3240. 	[Title] An Analysis of Bayesian Classifiers (1988), involves the formulation of average-case models for specific algorithms [Abstract] In this paper we present an average-case analysis of the Bayesian classifier, a simple induction algorithm that fares remarkably well on many learning tasks. Our analysis assumes a monotone conjunctive target concept, and independent, noise-free Boolean attributes. We calculate the probability that the algorithm will induce an arbitrary pair of concept descriptions and then use this to compute the probability of correct classification over the instance space. The analysis takes into account the number of training instances, the number of attributes, the distribution of these attributes, and the level of class noise. We also explore the behavioral implications of the analysis by presenting predicted learning curves for artificial domains, and give experimental results on these domains as a check on our reasoning. One goal of research in machine learning is to discover principles that relate algorithms and domain characteristics to behavior. To this end, many researchers have carried out systematic experimentation with natural and artificial domains in search of empirical regularities (e.g., Kibler & Langley, 1988). Others have focused on theoretical analyses, often within the paradigm of probably approximately correct learning (e.g., Haus-sler, 1990). However, most experimental studies are based only on informal analyses of the learning task, whereas most formal analyses address the worst case, and thus bear little relation to empirical results. ber of attributes, and the class and attribute frequencies, they obtain predictions about the behavior of induction algorithms and used experiments to check their analyses. 1 However, their research does not focus on algorithms typically used by the experimental and practical sides of machine learning, and it is important that average-case analyses be extended to such methods. Recently, there has been growing interest in probabilistic approaches to inductive learning. For example, Fisher (1987) has described Cobweb, an incremental algorithm for conceptual clustering that draws heavily on Bayesian ideas, and the literature reports a number of systems that build on this work (e.g., Allen & Lang-ley, 1990; Iba & Gennari, 1991; Thompson & Langley, 1991). Cheeseman et al. (1988) have outlined Auto-Class, a nonincremental system that uses Bayesian methods to cluster instances into groups, and other researchers have focused on the induction of Bayesian inference networks (e.g., Cooper & Kerskovits, 1991). These recent Bayesian learning algorithms are complex and not easily amenable to analysis, but they share a common ancestor that is simpler and more tractable. This supervised algorithm, which we refer to simply as a Bayesian classifier, comes originally from work in pattern recognition (Duda & Hart, 1973). The method stores a probabilistic summary for each class; this summary contains the conditional probability of each attribute value given the class, as well as the probability (or base rate) of the class. This data structure approximates the representational power of a perceptron; it describes a single decision boundary through the instance space. When the algorithm encounters a new instance, it updates the probabilities stored with the specified class. Neither the order of training instances nor the occurrence of classification errors have any effect on this process. When given a test instance, the classifier uses an evaluation function (which we describe in detail later) to rank the alter Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131137. 	[Title] Mining and Model Simplicity: A Case Study in Diagnosis [Abstract] Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 1996. The official version of this paper has been published by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (http://www.aaai.org) c fl 1996, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. Abstract We describe the results of performing data mining on a challenging medical diagnosis domain, acute abdominal pain. This domain is well known to be difficult, yielding little more than 60% predictive accuracy for most human and machine diagnosticians. Moreover, many researchers argue that one of the simplest approaches, the naive Bayesian classifier, is optimal. By comparing the performance of the naive Bayesian classifier to its more general cousin, the Bayesian network classifier, and to selective Bayesian classifiers with just 10% of the total attributes, we show that the simplest models perform at least as well as the more complex models. We argue that simple models like the selective naive Bayesian classifier will perform as well as more complicated models for similarly complex domains with relatively small data sets, thereby calling into question the extra expense necessary to induce more complex models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110531. 	[Title] Computational Learning in Humans and Machines [Abstract] In this paper we review research on machine learning and its relation to computational models of human learning. We focus initially on concept induction, examining five main approaches to this problem, then consider the more complex issue of learning sequential behaviors. After this, we compare the rhetoric that sometimes appears in the machine learning and psychological literature with the growing evidence that different theoretical paradigms typically produce similar results. In response, we suggest that concrete computational models, which currently dominate the field, may be less useful than simulations that operate at a more abstract level. We illustrate this point with an abstract simulation that explains a challenging phenomenon in the area of category learning, and we conclude with some general observations about such abstract models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #346243. 	[Title] Inductive Bias in Case-Based Reasoning Systems [Abstract] In order to learn more about the behaviour of case-based reasoners as learning systems, we form-alise a simple case-based learner as a PAC learning algorithm, using the case-based representation hCB; i. We first consider a `naive' case-based learning algorithm CB1( H ) which learns by collecting all available cases into the case-base and which calculates similarity by counting the number of features on which two problem descriptions agree. We present results concerning the consistency of this learning algorithm and give some partial results regarding its sample complexity. We are able to characterise CB1( H ) as a `weak but general' learning algorithm. We then consider how the sample complexity of case-based learning can be reduced for specific classes of target concept by the application of inductive bias, or prior knowledge of the class of target concepts. Following recent work demonstrating how case-based learning can be improved by choosing a similarity measure appropriate to the concept being learnt, we define a second case-based learning `algorithm' CB2 which learns using the best possible similarity measure that might be inferred for the chosen target concept. While CB2 is not an executable learning strategy (since the chosen similarity measure is defined in terms of a priori knowledge of the actual target concept) it allows us to assess in the limit the maximum possible contribution of this approach to case-based learning. Also, in addition to illustrating the role of inductive bias, the definition of CB2 simplifies the general problem of establishing which functions might be represented in the form hCB; i. Reasoning about the case-based representation in this special case has therefore been a little more straight-forward than in the general case of CB1( H ), allowing more substantial results regarding representable functions and sample complexity to be presented for CB2. In assessing these results, we are forced to conclude that case-based learning is not the best approach to learning the chosen concept space (the space of monomial functions). We discuss, however, how our study has demonstrated, in the context of case-based learning, the operation of concepts well known in machine learning such as inductive bias and the trade-off between computational complexity and sample complexity. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #36620. 	[Title] Towards a Better Understanding of Memory-Based Reasoning Systems [Abstract] We quantify both experimentally and analytically the performance of memory-based reasoning (MBR) algorithms. To start gaining insight into the capabilities of MBR algorithms, we compare an MBR algorithm using a value difference metric to a popular Bayesian classifier. These two approaches are similar in that they both make certain independence assumptions about the data. However, whereas MBR uses specific cases to perform classification, Bayesian methods summarize the data probabilistically. We demonstrate that a particular MBR system called Pebls works comparatively well on a wide range of domains using both real and artificial data. With respect to the artificial data, we consider distributions where the concept classes are separated by functional discriminants, as well as time-series data generated by Markov models of varying complexity. Finally, we show formally that Pebls can learn (in the limit) natural concept classes that the Bayesian classifier cannot learn, and that it will attain perfect accuracy whenever 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 #3220. 	[Title] A Weighted Nearest Neighbor Algorithm for Learning with Symbolic Features [Abstract] In the past, nearest neighbor algorithms for learning from examples have worked best in domains in which all features had numeric values. In such domains, the examples can be treated as points and distance metrics can use standard definitions. In symbolic domains, a more sophisticated treatment of the feature space is required. We introduce a nearest neighbor algorithm for learning in domains with symbolic features. Our algorithm calculates distance tables that allow it to produce real-valued distances between instances, and attaches weights to the instances to further modify the structure of feature space. We show that this technique produces excellent classification accuracy on three problems that have been studied by machine learning researchers: predicting protein secondary structure, identifying DNA promoter sequences, and pronouncing English text. Direct experimental comparisons with the other learning algorithms show that our nearest neighbor algorithm is comparable or superior in all three domains. In addition, our algorithm has advantages in training speed, simplicity, and perspicuity. We conclude that experimental evidence favors the use and continued development of nearest neighbor algorithms for domains such as the ones studied here. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #13717. 	[Title] Learning Semantic Grammars with Constructive Inductive Logic Programming [Abstract] Automating the construction of semantic grammars is a difficult and interesting problem for machine learning. This paper shows how the semantic-grammar acquisition problem can be viewed as the learning of search-control heuristics in a logic program. Appropriate control rules are learned using a new first-order induction algorithm that automatically invents useful syntactic and semantic categories. Empirical results show that the learned parsers generalize well to novel sentences and out-perform previous approaches based on connectionist techniques. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3222. 	[Title] Beyond Independence: Conditions for the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier [Abstract] The simple Bayesian classifier (SBC) is commonly thought to assume that attributes are independent given the class, but this is apparently contradicted by the surprisingly good performance it exhibits in many domains that contain clear attribute dependences. No explanation for this has been proposed so far. In this paper we show that the SBC does not in fact assume attribute independence, and can be optimal even when this assumption is violated by a wide margin. The key to this finding lies in the distinction between classification and probability estimation: correct classification can be achieved even when the probability estimates used contain large errors. We show that the previously-assumed region of optimality of the SBC is a second-order infinitesimal fraction of the actual one. This is followed by the derivation of several necessary and several sufficient conditions for the optimality of the SBC. For example, the SBC is optimal for learning arbitrary conjunctions and disjunctions, even though they violate the independence assumption. The paper also reports empirical evidence of the SBC's competitive performance in domains containing substantial degrees of attribute dependence. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #964248. 	[Title] Issues in the Integration of Data Mining and Data Visualization Visualizing the Simple Bayesian Classifier [Abstract] The simple Bayesian classifier (SBC), sometimes called Naive-Bayes, is built based on a conditional independence model of each attribute given the class. The model was previously shown to be surprisingly robust to obvious violations of this independence assumption, yielding accurate classification models even when there are clear conditional dependencies. The SBC can serve as an excellent tool for initial exploratory data analysis when coupled with a visualizer that makes its structure comprehensible. We describe such a visual representation of the SBC model that has been successfully implemented. We describe the requirements we had for such a visualization and the design decisions we made to satisfy them. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #976284. 	[Title] Algorithmic Stability and Sanity-Check Bounds for Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation [Abstract] In this paper we prove sanity-check bounds for the error of the leave-one-out cross-validation estimate of the generalization error: that is, bounds showing that the worst-case error of this estimate is not much worse than that of the training error estimate. The name sanity-check refers to the fact that although we often expect the leave-one-out estimate to perform considerably better than the training error estimate, we are here only seeking assurance that its performance will not be considerably worse. Perhaps surprisingly, such assurance has been given only for rather limited cases in the prior literature on cross-validation. Any nontrivial bound on the error of leave-one-out must rely on some notion of algorithmic stability. Previous bounds relied on the rather strong notion of hypothesis stability, whose application was primarily limited to nearest-neighbor and other local algorithms. Here we introduce the new and weaker notion of error stability, and apply it to obtain sanity-check bounds for leave-one-out for other classes of learning algorithms, including training error minimization procedures and Bayesian algorithms. We also provide lower bounds demonstrating the necessity of error stability for proving bounds on the error of the leave-one-out estimate, and the fact that for training error minimization algorithms, in the worst case such bounds must still depend on the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension of the hypothesis class. 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 #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 #66594. 	[Title] Automatic Parameter Selection by Minimizing Estimated Error [Abstract] We address the problem of finding the parameter settings that will result in optimal performance of a given learning algorithm using a particular dataset as training data. We describe a "wrapper" method, considering determination of the best parameters as a discrete function optimization problem. The method uses best-first search and cross-validation to wrap around the basic induction algorithm: the search explores the space of parameter values, running the basic algorithm many times on training and holdout sets produced by cross-validation to get an estimate of the expected error of each parameter setting. Thus, the final selected parameter settings are tuned for the specific induction algorithm and dataset being studied. We report experiments with this method on 33 datasets selected from the UCI and StatLog collections using C4.5 as the basic induction algorithm. At a 90% confidence level, our method improves the performance of C4.5 on nine domains, degrades performance on one, and is statistically indistinguishable from C4.5 on the rest. On the sample of datasets used for comparison, our method yields an average 13% relative decrease in error rate. We expect to see similar performance improvements when using our method with other machine learning al gorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10531. 	[Title] Using Dirichlet Mixture Priors to Derive Hidden Markov Models for Protein Families [Abstract] A Bayesian method for estimating the amino acid distributions in the states of a hidden Markov model (HMM) for a protein family or the columns of a multiple alignment of that family is introduced. This method uses Dirichlet mixture densities as priors over amino acid distributions. These mixture densities are determined from examination of previously constructed HMMs or multiple alignments. It is shown that this Bayesian method can improve the quality of HMMs produced from small training sets. Specific experiments on the EF-hand motif are reported, for which these priors are shown to produce HMMs with higher likelihood on unseen data, and fewer false positives and false negatives in a database search task. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #521252. 	[Title] Similarity Metrics: A Formal Unification of Cardinal and Non-Cardinal Similarity Measures [Abstract] In [9] we introduced a formal framework for constructing ordinal similarity measures, and suggested how this might also be applied to cardinal measures. In this paper we will place this approach in a more general framework, called similarity metrics. In this framework, ordinal similarity metrics (where comparison returns a boolean value) can be combined with cardinal metrics (returning a numeric value) and, indeed, with metrics returning values of other types, to produce new metrics. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3236. 	[Title] MLC A Machine Learning Library in C [Abstract] We present MLC ++ , a library of C ++ classes and tools for supervised Machine Learning. While MLC ++ provides general learning algorithms that can be used by end users, the main objective is to provide researchers and experts with a wide variety of tools that can accelerate algorithm development, increase software reliability, provide comparison tools, and display information visually. More than just a collection of existing algorithms, MLC ++ is an attempt to extract commonalities of algorithms and decompose them for a unified view that is simple, coherent, and extensible. In this paper we discuss the problems MLC ++ aims to solve, the design of MLC ++ , and the current functionality. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3237. 	[Title] Feature Subset Selection Using the Wrapper Method: Overfitting and Dynamic Search Space Topology [Abstract] In the wrapper approach to feature subset selection, a search for an optimal set of features is made using the induction algorithm as a black box. The estimated future performance of the algorithm is the heuristic guiding the search. Statistical methods for feature subset selection including forward selection, backward elimination, and their stepwise variants can be viewed as simple hill-climbing techniques in the space of feature subsets. We utilize best-first search to find a good feature subset and discuss overfitting problems that may be associated with searching too many feature subsets. We introduce compound operators that dynamically change the topology of the search space to better utilize the information available from the evaluation of feature subsets. We show that compound operators unify previous approaches that deal with relevant and irrelevant features. The improved feature subset selection yields significant improvements for real-world datasets when using the ID3 and the Naive-Bayes induction algorithms. 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 #189620. 	[Title] Logarithmic-Time Updates and Queries in Probabilistic Networks [Abstract] Traditional databases commonly support efficient query and update procedures that operate in time which is sublinear in the size of the database. Our goal in this paper is to take a first step toward dynamic reasoning in probabilistic databases with comparable efficiency. We propose a dynamic data structure that supports efficient algorithms for updating and querying singly connected Bayesian networks. In the conventional algorithm, new evidence is absorbed in time O(1) and queries are processed in time O(N ), where N is the size of the network. We propose an algorithm which, after a preprocessing phase, allows us to answer queries in time O(log N ) at the expense of O(log N ) time per evidence absorption. The usefulness of sub-linear processing time manifests itself in applications requiring (near) real-time response over large probabilistic databases. We briefly discuss a potential application of dynamic probabilistic reasoning in computational biology. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #509379. 	[Title] Model selection using measure functions [Abstract] The concept of measure functions for generalization performance is suggested. This concept provides an alternative way of selecting and evaluating learned models (classifiers). In addition, it makes it possible to state a learning problem as a computational problem. The the known prior (meta-)knowledge about the problem domain is captured in a measure function that, to each possible combination of a training set and a classifier, assigns a value describing how good the classifier is. The computational problem is then to find a classifier maximizing the measure function. We argue that measure functions are of great value for practical applications. Besides of being a tool for model selection, they: (i) force us to make explicit the relevant prior knowledge about the learning problem at hand, (ii) provide a deeper understanding of existing algorithms, and (iii) help us in the construction of problem-specific algorithms. We illustrate the last point by suggesting a novel algorithm based on incremental search for a classifier that optimizes a given measure function. 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 #272720. 	[Title] A New Metric-Based Approach to Model Selection [Abstract] We introduce a new approach to model selection that performs better than the standard complexity-penalization and hold-out error estimation techniques in many cases. The basic idea is to exploit the intrinsic metric structure of a hypothesis space, as determined by the natural distribution of unlabeled training patterns, and use this metric as a reference to detect whether the empirical error estimates derived from a small (labeled) training sample can be trusted in the region around an empirically optimal hypothesis. Using simple metric intuitions we develop new geometric strategies for detecting overfitting and performing robust yet responsive model selection in spaces of candidate functions. These new metric-based strategies dramatically outperform previous approaches in experimental studies of classical polynomial curve fitting. Moreover, the technique is simple, efficient, and can be applied to most function learning tasks. The only requirement is access to an auxiliary collection of unlabeled training data. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #192850. 	[Title] Characterizing the generalization performance of model selection strategies [Abstract] We investigate the structure of model selection problems via the bias/variance decomposition. In particular, we characterize the essential aspects of a model selection task by the bias and variance profiles it generates over the sequence of hypothesis classes. With this view, we develop a new understanding of complexity-penalization methods: First, the penalty terms can be interpreted as postulating a particular profile for the variances as a function of model complexityif the postulated and true profiles do not match, then systematic under-fitting or over-fitting results, depending on whether the penalty terms are too large or too small. Second, we observe that it is generally best to penalize according to the true variances of the task, and therefore no fixed penalization strategy is optimal across all problems. We then use this characterization to introduce the notion of easy versus hard model selection problems. Here we show that if the variance profile grows too rapidly in relation to the biases, then standard model selection techniques become prone to significant errors. This can happen, for example, in regression problems where the independent variables are drawn from wide-tailed distributions. To counter this, we discuss a new model selection strategy that dramatically outperforms standard complexity-penalization and hold-out meth ods on these hard tasks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39130. 	[Title] Average-Case Analysis of a Nearest Neighbor Algorithm [Abstract] In this paper we present an average-case analysis of the nearest neighbor algorithm, a simple induction method that has been studied by many researchers. Our analysis assumes a conjunctive target concept, noise-free Boolean attributes, and a uniform distribution over the instance space. We calculate the probability that the algorithm will encounter a test instance that is distance d from the prototype of the concept, along with the probability that the nearest stored training case is distance e from this test instance. From this we compute the probability of correct classification as a function of the number of observed training cases, the number of relevant attributes, and the number of irrelevant attributes. We also explore the behavioral implications of the analysis by presenting predicted learning curves for artificial domains, and give experimental results on these domains as a check on our reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

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

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1125467. 	[Title] Bayesian Network Classification with Continuous Attributes: Getting the Best of Both Discretization and Parametric Fitting [Abstract] In a recent paper, Friedman, Geiger, and Goldszmidt [8] introduced a classifier based on Bayesian networks, called Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), that outperforms naive Bayes and performs competitively with C4.5 and other state-of-the-art methods. This classifier has several advantages including robustness and polynomial computational complexity. One limitation of the TAN classifier is that it applies only to discrete attributes, and thus, continuous attributes must be prediscretized. In this paper, we extend TAN to deal with continuous attributes directly via parametric (e.g., Gaussians) and semiparametric (e.g., mixture of Gaussians) conditional probabilities. The result is a classifier that can represent and combine both discrete and continuous attributes. In addition, we propose a new method that takes advantage of the modeling language of Bayesian networks in order to represent attributes both in discrete and continuous form simultaneously, and use both versions in the classification. This automates the process of deciding which form of the attribute is most relevant to the classification task. It also avoids the commitment to either a discretized or a (semi)parametric form, since different attributes may correlate better with one version or the other. Our empirical results show that this latter method usually achieves classification performance that is as good as or better than either the purely discrete or the purely continuous TAN models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #63835. 	[Title] A Heuristic Approach to the Discovery of Macro-operators. Machine Learning, 3, 285-317. L e a [Abstract] The negative effect is naturally more significant in the more complex domain. The graph for the simple domain crosses the 0 line earlier than the complex domain. That means that learning starts to be useful with weight greater than 0.6 for the simple domain and 0.7 for the complex domain. As we relax the optimality requirement more s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( w i t h a W = 0.8), macro usage in the more complex domain becomes more advantageous. The purpose of the research described in this paper is to identify the parameters that effects deductive learning and to perform experiments systematically in order to understand the nature of those effects. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the methodology of performing parametric experimental study of deductive learning. The example here include the study of two parameters: the point on the satisficing-optimizing scale that is used during the search carried out during problem solving time and during learning time. We showed that A*, which looks for optimal solutions, cannot benefit from macro learning but as the strategy comes closer to best-first (satisficing search), the utility of macros increases. We also demonstrated that deductive learners that learn offline by solving training problems are sensitive to the type of search used during the learning. We showed that in general optimizing search is best for learning. It generates macros that increase the quality solutions regardless of the search method used during problem solving. It also improves the efficiency for problem solvers that require a high level of optimality. The only drawback in using optimizing search is the increase in learning resources spent. We are aware of the fact that the results described here are not very surprising. The goal of the parametric study is not necessarily to find exciting results, but to obtain results, sometimes even previously known, in a controlled experimental environment. The work described here is only part of our research plan. We are currently in the process of extensive experimentation with all the parameters described here and also with others. We also intend to test the validity of the conclusions reached during the study by repeating some of the tests in several of the commonly known search problems. We hope that such systematic experimentation will help the research community to better understand the process of deductive learning and will serve as a demonstration of the experimental methodology that should be used in machine learning research. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #97377. 	[Title] Induction of One-Level Decision Trees [Abstract] In recent years, researchers have made considerable progress on the worst-case analysis of inductive learning tasks, but for theoretical results to have impact on practice, they must deal with the average case. In this paper we present an average-case analysis of a simple algorithm that induces one-level decision trees for concepts defined by a single relevant attribute. Given knowledge about the number of training instances, the number of irrelevant attributes, the amount of class and attribute noise, and the class and attribute distributions, we derive the expected classification accuracy over the entire instance space. We then examine the predictions of this analysis for different settings of these domain parameters, comparing them to exper imental results to check our reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #120039. 	[Title] EXPLORING A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTANCE BASED LEARNING AND NAIVE BAYESIAN CLASSIFIERS [Abstract] The relative performance of different methods for classifier learning varies across domains. Some recent Instance Based Learning (IBL) methods, such as IB1-MVDM* 10 , use similarity measures based on conditional class probabilities. These probabilities are a key component of Naive Bayes methods. Given this commonality of approach, it is of interest to consider how the differences between the two methods are linked to their relative performance in different domains. Here we interpret Naive Bayes in an IBL like framework, identifying differences between Naive Bayes and IB1-MVDM* in this framework. Experiments on variants of IB1-MVDM* that lie between it and Naive Bayes in the framework are conducted on sixteen domains. The results strongly suggest that the relative performance of Naive Bayes and IB1-MVDM* is linked to the extent to which each class can be satisfactorily represented by a single instance in the IBL framework. However, this is not the only factor that appears significant. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #211432. 	[Title] In Defense of C4.5: Notes on Learning One-Level Decision Trees [Abstract] We discuss the implications of Holte's recently-published article, which demonstrated that on the most commonly used data very simple classification rules are almost as accurate as decision trees produced by Quinlan's C4.5. We consider, in particular, what is the significance of Holte's results for the future of top-down induction of decision trees. To an extent, Holte questioned the sense of further research on multilevel decision tree learning. We go in detail through all the parts of Holte's study. We try to put the results into perspective. We argue that the (in absolute terms) small difference in accuracy between 1R and C4.5 that was witnessed by Holte is still significant. We claim that C4.5 possesses additional accuracy-related advantages over 1R. In addition we discuss the representativeness of the databases used by Holte. We compare empirically the optimal accuracies of multilevel and one-level decision trees and observe some significant differences. We point out several deficien cies of limited-complexity classifiers. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1114222. 	[Title] Lazy Bayesian Trees [Abstract] The naive Bayesian classifier is simple and effective, but its attribute independence assumption is often violated in the real world. A number of approaches have been developed that seek to alleviate this problem. A Bayesian tree learning algorithm builds a decision tree, and generates a local Bayesian classifier at each leaf instead of predicting a single class. However, Bayesian tree learning still suffers from the replication and fragmentation problems of tree learning. While inferred Bayesian trees demonstrate low average prediction error rates, there is reason to believe that error rates will be higher for those leaves with few training examples. This paper proposes a novel lazy Bayesian tree learning algorithm. For each test example, it conceptually builds a most appropriate Bayesian tree. In practice, only one path with a local Bayesian classifier at its leaf is created. Experiments with a wide variety of real-world and artificial domains show that this new algorithm has significantly lower overall prediction error rates than a naive Bayesian classifier, C4.5, and a Bayesian tree learning algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1128430. 	[Title] On Reasoning from Data [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1103737. 	[Title] On learning hierarchical classifications [Abstract] Many significant real-world classification tasks involve a large number of categories which are arranged in a hierarchical structure; for example, classifying documents into subject categories under the library of congress scheme, or classifying world-wide-web documents into topic hierarchies. We investigate the potential benefits of using a given hierarchy over base classes to learn accurate multi-category classifiers for these domains. First, we consider the possibility of exploiting a class hierarchy as prior knowledge that can help one learn a more accurate classifier. We explore the benefits of learning category-discriminants in a hard top-down fashion and compare this to a soft approach which shares training data among sibling categories. In doing so, we verify that hierarchies have the potential to improve prediction accuracy. But we argue that the reasons for this can be subtle. Sometimes, the improvement is only because using a hierarchy happens to constrain the expressiveness of a hypothesis class in an appropriate manner. However, various controlled experiments show that in other cases the performance advantage associated with using a hierarchy really does seem to be due to the prior knowledge it encodes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31483. 	[Title] A Comparison of Induction Algorithms for Selective and non-Selective Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper we present a novel induction algorithm for Bayesian networks. This selective Bayesian network classifier selects a subset of attributes that maximizes predictive accuracy prior to the network learning phase, thereby learning Bayesian networks with a bias for small, high-predictive-accuracy networks. We compare the performance of this classifier with selective and non-selective naive Bayesian classifiers. We show that the selective Bayesian network classifier performs significantly better than both versions of the naive Bayesian classifier on almost all databases analyzed, and hence is an enhancement of the naive Bayesian classifier. Relative to the non-selective Bayesian network classifier, our selective Bayesian network classifier generates networks that are computationally simpler to evaluate and that display predictive accuracy comparable to that of Bayesian networks which model all features. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39165. 	[Title] Efficient Learning of Selective Bayesian Network Classifiers [Abstract] In this paper, we present a computation-ally efficient method for inducing selective Bayesian network classifiers. Our approach is to use information-theoretic metrics to efficiently select a subset of attributes from which to learn the classifier. We explore three conditional, information-theoretic met-rics that are extensions of metrics used extensively in decision tree learning, namely Quin-lan's gain and gain ratio metrics and Man-taras's distance metric. We experimentally show that the algorithms based on gain ratio and distance metric learn selective Bayesian networks that have predictive accuracies as good as or better than those learned by existing selective Bayesian network induction approaches (K2-AS), but at a significantly lower computational cost. We prove that the subset-selection phase of these information-based algorithms has polynomial complexity, as compared to the worst-case exponential time complexity of the corresponding phase in K2-AS. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #3240 has the title `An Analysis of Bayesian Classifiers (1988), involves the formulation of average-case models for specific algorithms
` and the abstract `In this paper we present an average-case analysis of the Bayesian classifier, a simple induction algorithm that fares remarkably well on many learning tasks. Our analysis assumes a monotone conjunctive target concept, and independent, noise-free Boolean attributes. We calculate the probability that the algorithm will induce an arbitrary pair of concept descriptions and then use this to compute the probability of correct classification over the instance space. The analysis takes into account the number of training instances, the number of attributes, the distribution of these attributes, and the level of class noise. We also explore the behavioral implications of the analysis by presenting predicted learning curves for artificial domains, and give experimental results on these domains as a check on our reasoning. One goal of research in machine learning is to discover principles that relate algorithms and domain characteristics to behavior. To this end, many researchers have carried out systematic experimentation with natural and artificial domains in search of empirical regularities (e.g., Kibler & Langley, 1988). Others have focused on theoretical analyses, often within the paradigm of probably approximately correct learning (e.g., Haus-sler, 1990). However, most experimental studies are based only on informal analyses of the learning task, whereas most formal analyses address the worst case, and thus bear little relation to empirical results. ber of attributes, and the class and attribute frequencies, they obtain predictions about the behavior of induction algorithms and used experiments to check their analyses. 1 However, their research does not focus on algorithms typically used by the experimental and practical sides of machine learning, and it is important that average-case analyses be extended to such methods. Recently, there has been growing interest in probabilistic approaches to inductive learning. For example, Fisher (1987) has described Cobweb, an incremental algorithm for conceptual clustering that draws heavily on Bayesian ideas, and the literature reports a number of systems that build on this work (e.g., Allen & Lang-ley, 1990; Iba & Gennari, 1991; Thompson & Langley, 1991). Cheeseman et al. (1988) have outlined Auto-Class, a nonincremental system that uses Bayesian methods to cluster instances into groups, and other researchers have focused on the induction of Bayesian inference networks (e.g., Cooper & Kerskovits, 1991). These recent Bayesian learning algorithms are complex and not easily amenable to analysis, but they share a common ancestor that is simpler and more tractable. This supervised algorithm, which we refer to simply as a Bayesian classifier, comes originally from work in pattern recognition (Duda & Hart, 1973). The method stores a probabilistic summary for each class; this summary contains the conditional probability of each attribute value given the class, as well as the probability (or base rate) of the class. This data structure approximates the representational power of a perceptron; it describes a single decision boundary through the instance space. When the algorithm encounters a new instance, it updates the probabilities stored with the specified class. Neither the order of training instances nor the occurrence of classification errors have any effect on this process. When given a test instance, the classifier uses an evaluation function (which we describe in detail later) to rank the alter 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #3240 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #3240 has the title `An Analysis of Bayesian Classifiers (1988), involves the formulation of average-case models for specific algorithms
` and the abstract `In this paper we present an average-case analysis of the Bayesian classifier, a simple induction algorithm that fares remarkably well on many learning tasks. Our analysis assumes a monotone conjunctive target concept, and independent, noise-free Boolean attributes. We calculate the probability that the algorithm will induce an arbitrary pair of concept descriptions and then use this to compute the probability of correct classification over the instance space. The analysis takes into account the number of training instances, the number of attributes, the distribution of these attributes, and the level of class noise. We also explore the behavioral implications of the analysis by presenting predicted learning curves for artificial domains, and give experimental results on these domains as a check on our reasoning. One goal of research in machine learning is to discover principles that relate algorithms and domain characteristics to behavior. To this end, many researchers have carried out systematic experimentation with natural and artificial domains in search of empirical regularities (e.g., Kibler & Langley, 1988). Others have focused on theoretical analyses, often within the paradigm of probably approximately correct learning (e.g., Haus-sler, 1990). However, most experimental studies are based only on informal analyses of the learning task, whereas most formal analyses address the worst case, and thus bear little relation to empirical results. ber of attributes, and the class and attribute frequencies, they obtain predictions about the behavior of induction algorithms and used experiments to check their analyses. 1 However, their research does not focus on algorithms typically used by the experimental and practical sides of machine learning, and it is important that average-case analyses be extended to such methods. Recently, there has been growing interest in probabilistic approaches to inductive learning. For example, Fisher (1987) has described Cobweb, an incremental algorithm for conceptual clustering that draws heavily on Bayesian ideas, and the literature reports a number of systems that build on this work (e.g., Allen & Lang-ley, 1990; Iba & Gennari, 1991; Thompson & Langley, 1991). Cheeseman et al. (1988) have outlined Auto-Class, a nonincremental system that uses Bayesian methods to cluster instances into groups, and other researchers have focused on the induction of Bayesian inference networks (e.g., Cooper & Kerskovits, 1991). These recent Bayesian learning algorithms are complex and not easily amenable to analysis, but they share a common ancestor that is simpler and more tractable. This supervised algorithm, which we refer to simply as a Bayesian classifier, comes originally from work in pattern recognition (Duda & Hart, 1973). The method stores a probabilistic summary for each class; this summary contains the conditional probability of each attribute value given the class, as well as the probability (or base rate) of the class. This data structure approximates the representational power of a perceptron; it describes a single decision boundary through the instance space. When the algorithm encounters a new instance, it updates the probabilities stored with the specified class. Neither the order of training instances nor the occurrence of classification errors have any effect on this process. When given a test instance, the classifier uses an evaluation function (which we describe in detail later) to rank the alter 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #3240 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Theory