Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1103610. 	[Title] A hierarchical ensemble of decision trees applied to classifying data from a psychological experiment [Abstract] Classifying by hand complex data coming from psychology experiments can be a long and difficult task, because of the quantity of data to classify and the amount of training it may require. One way to alleviate this problem is to use machine learning techniques. We built a classifier based on decision trees that reproduces the classifying process used by two humans on a sample of data and that learns how to classify unseen data. The automatic classifier proved to be more accurate, more constant and much faster than classification by hand. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8961. 	[Title] Machine Learning Research: Four Current Directions [Abstract] Machine Learning research has been making great progress is many directions. This article summarizes four of these directions and discusses some current open problems. The four directions are (a) improving classification accuracy by learning ensembles of classifiers, (b) methods for scaling up supervised learning algorithms, (c) reinforcement learning, and (d) learning complex stochastic models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #854434. 	[Title] Predicting Lifetimes in Dynamically Allocated Memory [Abstract] Predictions of lifetimes of dynamically allocated objects can be used to improve time and space efficiency of dynamic memory management in computer programs. Barrett and Zorn [1993] used a simple lifetime predictor and demonstrated this improvement on a variety of computer programs. In this paper, we use decision trees to do lifetime prediction on the same programs and show significantly better prediction. Our method also has the advantage that during training we can use a large number of features and let the decision tree automatically choose the relevant subset. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110947. 	[Title] Lazy Induction Triggered by CBR [Abstract] In recent years, case-based reasoning has been demonstrated to be highly useful for problem solving in complex domains. Also, mixed paradigm approaches emerged for combining CBR and induction techniques aiming at verifying the knowledge and/or building an efficient case memory. However, in complex domains induction over the whole problem space is often not possible or too time consuming. In this paper, an approach is presented which (owing to a close interaction with the CBR part) attempts to induce rules only for a particular context, i.e. for a problem just being solved by a CBR-oriented system. These rules may then be used for indexing purposes or similarity assessment in order to support the CBR process in the future. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #350362. 	[Title] Improving Regressors using Boosting Techniques [Abstract] In the regression context, boosting and bagging are techniques to build a committee of regressors that may be superior to a single regressor. We use regression trees as fundamental building blocks in bagging committee machines and boosting committee machines. Performance is analyzed on three non-linear functions and the Boston housing database. In all cases, boosting is at least equivalent, and in most cases better than bagging in terms of prediction error. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #307336. 	[Title] A Support Vector Machine Approach to Decision Trees [Abstract] Key ideas from statistical learning theory and support vector machines are generalized to decision trees. A support vector machine is used for each decision in the tree. The "optimal" decision tree is characterized, and both a primal and dual space formulation for constructing the tree are proposed. The result is a method for generating logically simple decision trees with multivariate linear or nonlinear decisions. The preliminary results indicate that the method produces simple trees that generalize well with respect to other decision tree algorithms and single support vector machines. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1113739. 	[Title] Decision Tree Function Approximation in Reinforcement Learning [Abstract] We present a decision tree based approach to function approximation in reinforcement learning. We compare our approach with table lookup and a neural network function approximator on three problems: the well known mountain car and pole balance problems as well as a simulated automobile race car. We find that the decision tree can provide better learning performance than the neural network function approximation and can solve large problems that are infeasible using table lookup. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3243. 	[Title] A System for Induction of Oblique Decision Trees [Abstract] This article describes a new system for induction of oblique decision trees. This system, OC1, combines deterministic hill-climbing with two forms of randomization to find a good oblique split (in the form of a hyperplane) at each node of a decision tree. Oblique decision tree methods are tuned especially for domains in which the attributes are numeric, although they can be adapted to symbolic or mixed symbolic/numeric attributes. We present extensive empirical studies, using both real and artificial data, that analyze OC1's ability to construct oblique trees that are smaller and more accurate than their axis-parallel counterparts. We also examine the benefits of randomization for the construction of oblique decision trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1133390. 	[Title] Decision Trees: Equivalence and Propositional Operations [Abstract] For the well-known concept of decision trees as it is used for inductive inference we study the natural concept of equivalence: two decision trees are equivalent if and only if they represent the same hypothesis. We present a simple efficient algorithm to establish whether two decision trees are equivalent or not. The complexity of this algorithm is bounded by the product of the sizes of both decision trees. The hypothesis represented by a decision tree is essentially a boolean function, just like a proposition. Although every boolean function can be represented in this way, we show that disjunctions and conjunctions of decision trees can not efficiently be represented as decision trees, and simply shaped propositions may require exponential size for representation as de cision trees. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #30895. 	[Title] Induction of Oblique Decision Trees [Abstract] This paper introduces a randomized technique for partitioning examples using oblique hyperplanes. Standard decision tree techniques, such as ID3 and its descendants, partition a set of points with axis-parallel hyper-planes. Our method, by contrast, attempts to find hyperplanes at any orientation. The purpose of this more general technique is to find smaller but equally accurate decision trees than those created by other methods. We have tested our algorithm on both real and simulated data, and found that in some cases it produces surprisingly small trees without losing predictive accuracy. Small trees allow us, in turn, to obtain simple qualitative descriptions of each problem domain. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #368431. 	[Title] Decision Tree Induction: How Effective is the Greedy Heuristic? [Abstract] Most existing decision tree systems use a greedy approach to induce trees | locally optimal splits are induced at every node of the tree. Although the greedy approach is suboptimal, it is believed to produce reasonably good trees. In the current work, we attempt to verify this belief. We quantify the goodness of greedy tree induction empirically, using the popular decision tree algorithms, C4.5 and CART. We induce decision trees on thousands of synthetic data sets and compare them to the corresponding optimal trees, which in turn are found using a novel map coloring idea. We measure the effect on greedy induction of variables such as the underlying concept complexity, training set size, noise and dimensionality. Our experiments show, among other things, that the expected classification cost of a greedily induced tree is consistently very close to that of the optimal tree. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #96335. 	[Title] Geometry in Learning [Abstract] One of the fundamental problems in learning is identifying members of two different classes. For example, to diagnose cancer, one must learn to discriminate between benign and malignant tumors. Through examination of tumors with previously determined diagnosis, one learns some function for distinguishing the benign and malignant tumors. Then the acquired knowledge is used to diagnose new tumors. The perceptron is a simple biologically inspired model for this two-class learning problem. The perceptron is trained or constructed using examples from the two classes. Then the perceptron is used to classify new examples. We describe geometrically what a perceptron is capable of learning. Using duality, we develop a framework for investigating different methods of training a perceptron. Depending on how we define the "best" perceptron, different minimization problems are developed for training the perceptron. The effectiveness of these methods is evaluated empirically on four practical applications: breast cancer diagnosis, detection of heart disease, political voting habits, and sonar recognition. This paper does not assume prior knowledge of machine learning or pattern recognition. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #30901. 	[Title] Lookahead and Pathology in Decision Tree Induction [Abstract] The standard approach to decision tree induction is a top-down, greedy algorithm that makes locally optimal, irrevocable decisions at each node of a tree. In this paper, we empirically study an alternative approach, in which the algorithms use one-level lookahead to decide what test to use at a node. We systematically compare, using a very large number of real and artificial data sets, the quality of decision trees induced by the greedy approach to that of trees induced using lookahead. The main observations from our experiments are: (i) the greedy approach consistently produced trees that were just as accurate as trees produced with the much more expensive lookahead step; and (ii) we observed many instances of pathology, i.e., lookahead produced trees that were both larger and less accurate than trees produced without it. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1104055. 	[Title] LEARNING BY USING DYNAMIC FEATURE COMBINATION AND SELECTION [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31932. 	[Title] A Decision Tree System for Finding Genes in DNA [Abstract] MORGAN is an integrated system for finding genes in vertebrate DNA sequences. MORGAN uses a variety of techniques to accomplish this task, the most distinctive of which is a decision tree classifier. The decision tree system is combined with new methods for identifying start codons, donor sites, and acceptor sites, and these are brought together in a frame-sensitive dynamic programming algorithm that finds the optimal segmentation of a DNA sequence into coding and noncoding regions (exons and introns). The optimal segmentation is dependent on a separate scoring function that takes a subsequence and assigns to it a score reflecting the probability that the sequence is an exon. The scoring functions in MORGAN are sets of decision trees that are combined to give a probability estimate. Experimental results on a database of 570 vertebrate DNA sequences show that MORGAN has excellent performance by many different measures. On a separate test set, it achieves an overall accuracy of 95%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.78 and a sensitivity and specificity for coding bases of 83% and 79%. In addition, MORGAN identifies 58% of coding exons exactly; i.e., both the beginning and end of the coding regions are predicted correctly. This paper describes the MORGAN system, including its decision tree routines and the algorithms for site recognition, and its performance on a benchmark database of vertebrate DNA. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1103610 has the title `A hierarchical ensemble of decision trees applied to classifying data from a psychological experiment  
` and the abstract `Classifying by hand complex data coming from psychology experiments can be a long and difficult task, because of the quantity of data to classify and the amount of training it may require. One way to alleviate this problem is to use machine learning techniques. We built a classifier based on decision trees that reproduces the classifying process used by two humans on a sample of data and that learns how to classify unseen data. The automatic classifier proved to be more accurate, more constant and much faster than classification by hand. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1103610 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1103610 has the title `A hierarchical ensemble of decision trees applied to classifying data from a psychological experiment  
` and the abstract `Classifying by hand complex data coming from psychology experiments can be a long and difficult task, because of the quantity of data to classify and the amount of training it may require. One way to alleviate this problem is to use machine learning techniques. We built a classifier based on decision trees that reproduces the classifying process used by two humans on a sample of data and that learns how to classify unseen data. The automatic classifier proved to be more accurate, more constant and much faster than classification by hand. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1103610 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