Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27243. 	[Title] An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants [Abstract] Methods for voting classification algorithms, such as Bagging and AdaBoost, have been shown to be very successful in improving the accuracy of certain classifiers for artificial and real-world datasets. We review these algorithms and describe a large empirical study comparing several variants in conjunction with a decision tree inducer (three variants) and a Naive-Bayes inducer. The purpose of the study is to improve our understanding of why and when these algorithms, which use perturbation, reweighting, and combination techniques, affect classification error. We provide a bias and variance decomposition of the error to show how different methods and variants influence these two terms. This allowed us to determine that Bagging reduced variance of unstable methods, while boosting methods (AdaBoost and Arc-x4) reduced both the bias and variance of unstable methods but increased the variance for Naive-Bayes, which was very stable. We observed that Arc-x4 behaves differently than AdaBoost if reweighting is used instead of resampling, indicating a fundamental difference. Voting variants, some of which are introduced in this paper, include: pruning versus no pruning, use of probabilistic estimates, weight perturbations (Wagging), and backfitting of data. We found that Bagging improves when probabilistic estimates in conjunction with no-pruning are used, as well as when the data was backfit. We measure tree sizes and show an interesting positive correlation between the increase in the average tree size in AdaBoost trials and its success in reducing the error. We compare the mean-squared error of voting methods to non-voting methods and show that the voting methods lead to large and significant reductions in the mean-squared errors. Practical problems that arise in implementing boosting algorithms are explored, including numerical instabilities and underflows. We use scatterplots that graphically show how AdaBoost reweights instances, emphasizing not only "hard" areas but also outliers and noise. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #59045. 	[Title] PREDICTION GAMES AND ARCING ALGORITHMS [Abstract] Technical Report 504 December 19, 1997 Statistics Department University of California Berkeley, CA. (4720 Abstract The theory behind the success of adaptive reweighting and combining algorithms (arcing) such as Adaboost (Freund and Schapire [1995].[1996]) and others in reducing generalization error has not been well understood. By formulating prediction, both classification and regression, as a game where one player makes a selection from instances in the training set and the other a convex linear combination of predictors from a finite set, existing arcing algorithms are shown to be algorithms for finding good game strategies. An optimal game strategy finds a combined predictor that minimizes the maximum of the error over the training set. A bound on the generalization error for the combined predictors in terms of their maximum error is proven that is sharper than bounds to date. Arcing algorithms are described that converge to the optimal strategy. Schapire et.al. [1997] offered an explanation of why Adaboost works in terms of its ability to reduce the margin. Comparing Adaboost to our optimal arcing algorithm shows that their explanation is not valid and that the answer lies elsewhere. In this situation the VC-type bounds are misleading. Some empirical results are given to explore the situation. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1121867. 	[Title] MAJORITY VOTE CLASSIFIERS: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #52784. 	[Title] An Empirical Evaluation of Bagging and Boosting [Abstract] An ensemble consists of a set of independently trained classifiers (such as neural networks or decision trees) whose predictions are combined when classifying novel instances. Previous research has shown that an ensemble as a whole is often more accurate than any of the single classifiers in the ensemble. Bagging (Breiman 1996a) and Boosting (Freund & Schapire 1996) are two relatively new but popular methods for producing ensembles. In this paper we evaluate these methods using both neural networks and decision trees as our classification algorithms. Our results clearly show two important facts. The first is that even though Bagging almost always produces a better classifier than any of its individual component classifiers and is relatively impervious to overfitting, it does not generalize any better than a baseline neural-network ensemble method. The second is that Boosting is a powerful technique that can usually produce better ensembles than Bagging; however, it is more susceptible to noise and can quickly overfit a data set. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1104851. 	[Title] Improving Bagging Performance by Increasing Decision Tree Diversity [Abstract] Ensembles of decision trees often exhibit greater predictive accuracy than single trees alone. Bagging and boosting are two standard ways of generating and combining multiple trees. Boosting has been empirically determined to be the more effective of the two, and it has recently been proposed that this may be because it produces more diverse trees than bagging. This paper reports empirical findings that strongly support this hypothesis. We enforce greater decision tree diversity in bagging by a simple modification of the underlying decision tree learner that utilizes randomly-generated decision stumps of predefined depth as the starting point for tree induction. The modified procedure yields very competitive results while still retaining one of the attractive properties of bagging: all iterations are independent. Additionally, we also investigate a possible integration of bagging and boosting. All these ensemble-generating procedures are compared empirically on various domains. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #2653. 	[Title] A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting how the weight-update rule [Abstract] We consider the problem of dynamically apportioning resources among a set of options in a worst-case on-line framework. The model we study can be interpreted as a broad, abstract extension of the well-studied on-line prediction model to a general decision-theoretic setting. We show that the multiplicative weight-update rule of Littlestone and Warmuth [10] can be adapted to this model yielding bounds that are slightly weaker in some cases, but applicable to a considerably more general class of learning problems. We show how the resulting learning algorithm can be applied to a variety of problems, including gambling, multiple-outcome prediction, repeated games and prediction of points in R n Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #2654. 	[Title] Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm [Abstract] In an earlier paper, we introduced a new boosting algorithm called AdaBoost which, theoretically, can be used to significantly reduce the error of any learning algorithm that consistently generates classifiers whose performance is a little better than random guessing. We also introduced the related notion of a pseudo-loss which is a method for forcing a learning algorithm of multi-label concepts to concentrate on the labels that are hardest to discriminate. In this paper, we describe experiments we carried out to assess how well AdaBoost with and without pseudo-loss, performs on real learning problems. We performed two sets of experiments. The first set compared boosting to Breiman's bagging method when used to aggregate various classifiers (including decision trees and single attribute-value tests). We compared the performance of the two methods on a collection of machine-learning benchmarks. In the second set of experiments, we studied in more detail the performance of boosting using a nearest-neighbor classifier on an OCR problem. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #5055. 	[Title] Boosting the Margin: A New Explanation for the Effectiveness of Voting Methods [Abstract] One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this phenomenon is related to the distribution of margins of the training examples with respect to the generated voting classification rule, where the margin of an example is simply the difference between the number of correct votes and the maximum number of votes received by any incorrect label. We show that techniques used in the analysis of Vapnik's support vector classifiers and of neural networks with small weights can be applied to voting methods to relate the margin distribution to the test error. We also show theoretically and experimentally that boosting is especially effective at increasing the margins of the training examples. Finally, we compare our explanation to those based on the bias-variance decomposition. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #27243 has the title `An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants  
` and the abstract `Methods for voting classification algorithms, such as Bagging and AdaBoost, have been shown to be very successful in improving the accuracy of certain classifiers for artificial and real-world datasets. We review these algorithms and describe a large empirical study comparing several variants in conjunction with a decision tree inducer (three variants) and a Naive-Bayes inducer. The purpose of the study is to improve our understanding of why and when these algorithms, which use perturbation, reweighting, and combination techniques, affect classification error. We provide a bias and variance decomposition of the error to show how different methods and variants influence these two terms. This allowed us to determine that Bagging reduced variance of unstable methods, while boosting methods (AdaBoost and Arc-x4) reduced both the bias and variance of unstable methods but increased the variance for Naive-Bayes, which was very stable. We observed that Arc-x4 behaves differently than AdaBoost if reweighting is used instead of resampling, indicating a fundamental difference. Voting variants, some of which are introduced in this paper, include: pruning versus no pruning, use of probabilistic estimates, weight perturbations (Wagging), and backfitting of data. We found that Bagging improves when probabilistic estimates in conjunction with no-pruning are used, as well as when the data was backfit. We measure tree sizes and show an interesting positive correlation between the increase in the average tree size in AdaBoost trials and its success in reducing the error. We compare the mean-squared error of voting methods to non-voting methods and show that the voting methods lead to large and significant reductions in the mean-squared errors. Practical problems that arise in implementing boosting algorithms are explored, including numerical instabilities and underflows. We use scatterplots that graphically show how AdaBoost reweights instances, emphasizing not only "hard" areas but also outliers and noise. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #27243 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #27243 has the title `An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants  
` and the abstract `Methods for voting classification algorithms, such as Bagging and AdaBoost, have been shown to be very successful in improving the accuracy of certain classifiers for artificial and real-world datasets. We review these algorithms and describe a large empirical study comparing several variants in conjunction with a decision tree inducer (three variants) and a Naive-Bayes inducer. The purpose of the study is to improve our understanding of why and when these algorithms, which use perturbation, reweighting, and combination techniques, affect classification error. We provide a bias and variance decomposition of the error to show how different methods and variants influence these two terms. This allowed us to determine that Bagging reduced variance of unstable methods, while boosting methods (AdaBoost and Arc-x4) reduced both the bias and variance of unstable methods but increased the variance for Naive-Bayes, which was very stable. We observed that Arc-x4 behaves differently than AdaBoost if reweighting is used instead of resampling, indicating a fundamental difference. Voting variants, some of which are introduced in this paper, include: pruning versus no pruning, use of probabilistic estimates, weight perturbations (Wagging), and backfitting of data. We found that Bagging improves when probabilistic estimates in conjunction with no-pruning are used, as well as when the data was backfit. We measure tree sizes and show an interesting positive correlation between the increase in the average tree size in AdaBoost trials and its success in reducing the error. We compare the mean-squared error of voting methods to non-voting methods and show that the voting methods lead to large and significant reductions in the mean-squared errors. Practical problems that arise in implementing boosting algorithms are explored, including numerical instabilities and underflows. We use scatterplots that graphically show how AdaBoost reweights instances, emphasizing not only "hard" areas but also outliers and noise. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #27243 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