Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #35070. 	[Title] The RISE System: Conquering Without Separating [Abstract] Current rule induction systems (e.g. CN2) typically rely on a "separate and conquer" strategy, learning each rule only from still-uncovered examples. This results in a dwindling number of examples being available for learning successive rules, adversely affecting the system's accuracy. An alternative is to learn all rules simultaneously, using the entire training set for each. This approach is implemented in the Rise 1.0 system. Empirical comparison of Rise with CN2 suggests that "conquering without separating" performs similarly to its counterpart in simple domains, but achieves increasingly substantial gains in accuracy as the domain difficulty grows. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #277263. 	[Title] Induction of decision trees and Bayesian classification applied to diagnosis of sport injuries [Abstract] Machine learning techniques can be used to extract knowledge from data stored in medical databases. In our application, various machine learning algorithms were used to extract diagnostic knowledge to support the diagnosis of sport injuries. The applied methods include variants of the Assistant algorithm for top-down induction of decision trees, and variants of the Bayesian classifier. The available dataset was insufficent for reliable diagnosis of all sport injuries considered by the system. Consequently, expert-defined diagnostic rules were added and used as pre-classifiers or as generators of additional training instances for injuries with few training examples. Experimental results show that the classification accuracy and the explanation capability of the naive Bayesian classifier with the fuzzy discretization of numerical attributes was superior to other methods and was estimated as the most appro priate for practical use. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3218. 	[Title] Rule Induction with CN2: Some Recent Improvements [Abstract] The CN2 algorithm induces an ordered list of classification rules from examples using entropy as its search heuristic. In this short paper, we describe two improvements to this algorithm. Firstly, we present the use of the Laplacian error estimate as an alternative evaluation function and secondly, we show how unordered as well as ordered rules can be generated. We experimentally demonstrate significantly improved performances resulting from these changes, thus enhancing the usefulness of CN2 as an inductive tool. Comparisons with Quinlan's C4.5 are also made. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110426. 	[Title] Incremental Reduced Error Pruning [Abstract] This paper outlines some problems that may occur with Reduced Error Pruning in relational learning algorithms, most notably efficiency. Thereafter a new method, Incremental Reduced Error Pruning, is proposed that attempts to address all of these problems. Experiments show that in many noisy domains this method is much more efficient than alternative algorithms, along with a slight gain in accuracy. However, the experiments show as well that the use of the algorithm cannot be recommended for domains which require a very specific concept description. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6941. 	[Title] Multi-class problems and discretization in ICL Extended abstract [Abstract] Handling multi-class problems and real numbers is important in practical applications of machine learning to KDD problems. While attribute-value learners address these problems as a rule, very few ILP systems do so. The few ILP systems that handle real numbers mostly do so by trying out all real values that are applicable, thus running into efficiency or overfitting problems. This paper discusses some recent extensions of ICL that address these problems. ICL, which stands for Inductive Constraint Logic, is an ILP system that learns first order logic formulae from positive and negative examples. The main charateristic of ICL is its view on examples. These are seen as interpretations which are true or false for the clausal target theory (in CNF). We first argue that ICL can be used for learning a theory in a disjunctive normal form (DNF). With this in mind, a possible solution for handling more than two classes is given (based on some ideas from CN2). Finally, we show how to tackle problems with continuous values by adapting discretization techniques from attribute value learners. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1152290. 	[Title] Unsupervised Constructive Learning [Abstract] In constructive induction (CI), the learner's problem representation is modified as a normal part of the learning process. This is useful when the initial representation is inadequate or inappropriate. In this paper, I argue that the distinction between constructive and non-constructive methods is unclear. I propose a theoretical model which allows (a) a clean distinction to be made and (b) the process of CI to be properly motivated. I also show that although constructive induction has been used almost exclusively in the context of supervised learning, there is no reason why it cannot form a part of an unsupervised regime. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1120169. 	[Title] What do Constructive Learners Really Learn? [Abstract] In constructive induction (CI), the learner's problem representation is modified as a normal part of the learning process. This may be necessary if the initial representation is inadequate or inappropriate. However, the distinction between constructive and non-constructive methods appears to be highly ambiguous. Several conventional definitions of the process of constructive induction appear to include all conceivable learning processes. In this paper I argue that the process of constructive learning should be identified with that of relational learning (i.e., I suggest that Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #217139. 	[Title] Unifying Empirical and Explanation-Based Learning by Modeling the Utility of Learned Knowledge [Abstract] The overfit problem in empirical learning and the utility problem in explanation-based learning describe a similar phenomenon: the degradation of performance due to an increase in the amount of learned knowledge. Plotting the performance of learned knowledge during the course of learning (the performance response) reveals a common trend for several learning methods. Modeling this trend allows a control system to constrain the amount of learned knowledge to achieve peak performance and avoid the general utility problem. Experiments evaluate a particular empirical model of the trend, and analysis of the learners derive several formal models. If, as evidence suggests, the general utility problem can be modeled using the same mechanisms for different learning paradigms, then the model serves to unify the paradigms into one framework capable of comparing and selecting different learning methods based on predicted achievable performance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #49843. 	[Title] Fossil: A Robust Relational Learner [Abstract] The research reported in this paper describes Fossil, an ILP system that uses a search heuristic based on statistical correlation. This algorithm implements a new method for learning useful concepts in the presence of noise. In contrast to Foil's stopping criterion, which allows theories to grow in complexity as the size of the training sets increases, we propose a new stopping criterion that is independent of the number of training examples. Instead, Fossil's stopping criterion depends on a search heuristic that estimates the utility of literals on a uniform scale. In addition we outline how this feature can be used for top-down pruning and present some preliminary results. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106492. 	[Title] Stochastically Guided Disjunctive Version Space Learning [Abstract] This paper presents an incremental concept learning approach to identiflcation of concepts with high overall accuracy. The main idea is to address the concept overlap as a central problem when learning multiple descriptions. Many traditional inductive algorithms, as those from the disjunctive version space family considered here, face this problem. The approach focuses on combinations of confldent, possibly overlapping, concepts with an original stochastic complexity formula. The focusing is e-cient because it is organized as a simulated annealing-based beam search. The experiments show that the approach is especially suitable for developing incremental learning algorithms with the following advantages: flrst, it generates highly accurate concepts; second, it overcomes to a certain degree the sensitivity to the order of examples; and third, it handles noisy examples. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11325. 	[Title] On Learning Multiple Descriptions of a Concept [Abstract] In sparse data environments, greater classification accuracy can be achieved by learning several concept descriptions of the data and combining their classifications. Stochastic search is a general tool which can be used to generate many good concept descriptions (rule sets) for each class in the data. Bayesian probability theory offers an optimal strategy for combining classifications of the individual concept descriptions, and here we use an approximation of that theory. This strategy is most useful when additional data is difficult to obtain and every increase in classification accuracy is important. The primary result of this paper is that multiple concept descriptions are particularly helpful in "flat" hypothesis spaces in which there are many equally good ways to grow a rule, each having similar gain. Another result is experimental evidence that learning multiple rule sets yields more accurate classifications than learning multiple rules for some domains. To demonstrate these behaviors, we learn multiple concept descriptions by adapting HYDRA, a noise-tolerant relational learning algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #11335. 	[Title] Concept Learning and the Problem of Small [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #187354. 	[Title] Applying ILP to Diterpene Structure Elucidation from 13 C NMR Spectra [Abstract] We present a novel application of ILP to the problem of diterpene structure elucidation from 13 C NMR spectra. Diterpenes are organic compounds of low molecular weight that are based on a skeleton of 20 carbon atoms. They are of significant chemical and commercial interest because of their use as lead compounds in the search for new pharmaceutical effectors. The structure elucidation of diterpenes based on 13 C NMR spectra is usually done manually by human experts with specialized background knowledge on peak patterns and chemical structures. In the process, each of the 20 skeletal atoms is assigned an atom number that corresponds to its proper place in the skeleton and the diterpene is classified into one of the possible skeleton types. We address the problem of learning classification rules from a database of peak patterns for diterpenes with known structure. Recently, propositional learning was successfully applied to learn classification rules from spectra with assigned atom numbers. As the assignment of atom numbers is a difficult process in itself (and possibly indistinguishable from the classification process), we apply ILP, i.e., relational learning, to the problem of classifying spectra without assigned atom numbers. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #66782. 	[Title] Using Qualitative Models to Guide Inductive Learning [Abstract] This paper presents a method for using qualitative models to guide inductive learning. Our objectives are to induce rules which are not only accurate but also explainable with respect to the qualitative model, and to reduce learning time by exploiting domain knowledge in the learning process. Such ex-plainability is essential both for practical application of inductive technology, and for integrating the results of learning back into an existing knowledge-base. We apply this method to two process control problems, a water tank network and an ore grinding process used in the mining industry. Surprisingly, in addition to achieving explainability the classificational accuracy of the induced rules is also increased. We show how the value of the qualitative models can be quantified in terms of their equivalence to additional training examples, and finally discuss possible extensions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #20833. 	[Title] Using Partitioning to Speed Up Specific-to-General Rule Induction [Abstract] RISE (Domingos 1995; in press) is a rule induction algorithm that proceeds by gradually generalizing rules, starting with one rule per example. This has several advantages compared to the more common strategy of gradually specializing initially null rules, and has been shown to lead to significant accuracy gains over algorithms like C4.5RULES and CN2 in a large number of application domains. However, RISE's running time (like that of other rule induction algorithms) is quadratic in the number of examples, making it unsuitable for processing very large databases. This paper studies the use of partitioning to speed up RISE, and compares it with the well-known method of windowing. The use of partitioning in a specific-to-general induction setting creates synergies that would not be possible with a general-to-specific system. Partitioning often reduces running time and improves accuracy at the same time. In noisy conditions, the performance of windowing deteriorates rapidly, while that of partitioning remains stable. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1127657. 	[Title] Pessimistic and Optimistic Induction [Abstract] Learning methods vary in the optimism or pessimism with which they regard the informativeness of learned knowledge. Pessimism is implicit in hypothesis testing, where we wish to draw cautious conclusions from experimental evidence. However, this paper demonstrates that optimism in the utility of derived rules may be the preferred bias for learning systems themselves. We examine the continuum between naive pessimism and naive optimism in the context of a decision tree learner that prunes rules based on stringent (i.e., pessimistic) or weak (i.e., optimistic) tests of their significance. Our experimental results indicate that in most cases optimism is preferred, but particularly in cases of sparse training data and high noise. This work generalizes earlier findings by Fisher and Schlimmer (1988) and Schaffer (1992), and we discuss its relevance to unsupervised learning, small disjuncts, and other issues. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #582511. 	[Title] The Problem with Noise and Small Disjuncts [Abstract] Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. The disjuncts in the concept definition which cover only a few training examples are referred to as small disjuncts. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts, but may be necessary to achieve a high level of predictive accuracy [Holte, Acker, and Porter, 1989]. This paper extends previous work done on the problem of small disjuncts by taking noise into account. It investigates the assertion that it is hard to learn from noisy data because it is difficult to distinguish between noise and true exceptions. In the process of evaluating this assertion, insights are gained into the mechanisms by which noise affects learning. Two domains are investigated. The experimental results in this paper suggest that for both Shapiro's chess endgame domain [Shapiro, 1987] and for the Wisconsin breast cancer domain [Wolberg, 1990], the assertion is true, at least for low levels (5-10%) of class noise. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153264. 	[Title]  [Abstract] Design and Evaluation of the RISE 1.0 Learning System Pedro Domingos pedrod@ics.uci.edu Technical Report 94-34 August 30, 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #545647. 	[Title] Learning with Rare Cases and Small Disjuncts [Abstract] Systems that learn from examples often create a disjunctive concept definition. Small disjuncts are those disjuncts which cover only a few training examples. The problem with small disjuncts is that they are more error prone than large disjuncts. This paper investigates the reasons why small disjuncts are more error prone than large disjuncts. It shows that when there are rare cases within a domain, then factors such as attribute noise, missing attributes, class noise and training set size can result in small disjuncts being more error prone than large disjuncts and in rare cases being more error prone than common cases. This paper also assesses the impact that these error prone small disjuncts and rare cases have on inductive learning (i.e., on error rate). One key conclusion is that when low levels of attribute noise are applied only to the training set (the ability to learn the correct concept is being evaluated), rare cases within a domain are primarily responsible for making learning difficult. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6639. 	[Title] Stochastic search in inductive concept learning [Abstract] Concept learning can be viewed as search of the space of concept descriptions. The hypothesis language determines the search space. In standard inductive learning algorithms, the structure of the search space is determined by generalization/specialization operators. Algorithms perform locally optimal search by using a hill-climbing and/or a beam-search strategy. To overcome this limitation, concept learning can be viewed as stochastic search of the space of concept descriptions. The proposed stochastic search method is based on simulated annealing which is known as a successful means for solving combinatorial optimization problems. The stochastic search method, implemented in a rule learning system ATRIS, is based on a compact and efficient representation of the problem and the appropriate operators for structuring the search space. Furthermore, by heuristic pruning of the search space, the method enables also handling of imperfect data. The paper introduces the stochastic search method, describes the ATRIS learning algorithm and gives results of the experiments. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1119987. 	[Title] Case-Based Sonogram Classification [Abstract] This report replicates and extends results reported by Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) personnel on the automatic classification of sonar images. They used novel case-based reasoning systems in their empirical studies, but did not obtain comparative analyses using standard classification algorithms. Therefore, the quality of the NAWC results were unknown. We replicated the NAWC studies and also tested several other classifiers (i.e., both case-based and otherwise) from the machine learning literature. These comparisons and their ramifications are detailed in this paper. Next, we investigated Fala and Walker's two suggestions for future work (i.e., on combining their similarity functions and on an alternative case representation). Finally, we describe several ways to incorporate additional domain-specific knowledge when applying case-based classifiers to similar tasks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6767. 	[Title] Generalizing from Case Studies: A Case Study [Abstract] Most empirical evaluations of machine learning algorithms are case studies evaluations of multiple algorithms on multiple databases. Authors of case studies implicitly or explicitly hypothesize that the pattern of their results, which often suggests that one algorithm performs significantly better than others, is not limited to the small number of databases investigated, but instead holds for some general class of learning problems. However, these hypotheses are rarely supported with additional evidence, which leaves them suspect. This paper describes an empirical method for generalizing results from case studies and an example application. This method yields rules describing when some algorithms significantly outperform others on some dependent measures. Advantages for generalizing from case studies and limitations of this particular approach are also described. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #417017. 	[Title] Relating Relational Learning Algorithms [Abstract] Relational learning algorithms are of special interest to members of the machine learning community; they offer practical methods for extending the representations used in algorithms that solve supervised learning tasks. Five approaches are currently being explored to address issues involved with using relational representations. This paper surveys algorithms embodying these approaches, summarizes their empirical evaluations, highlights their commonalities, and suggests potential directions for future research. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #35070 has the title `The RISE System: Conquering Without Separating  
` and the abstract `Current rule induction systems (e.g. CN2) typically rely on a "separate and conquer" strategy, learning each rule only from still-uncovered examples. This results in a dwindling number of examples being available for learning successive rules, adversely affecting the system's accuracy. An alternative is to learn all rules simultaneously, using the entire training set for each. This approach is implemented in the Rise 1.0 system. Empirical comparison of Rise with CN2 suggests that "conquering without separating" performs similarly to its counterpart in simple domains, but achieves increasingly substantial gains in accuracy as the domain difficulty grows. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #35070 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #35070 has the title `The RISE System: Conquering Without Separating  
` and the abstract `Current rule induction systems (e.g. CN2) typically rely on a "separate and conquer" strategy, learning each rule only from still-uncovered examples. This results in a dwindling number of examples being available for learning successive rules, adversely affecting the system's accuracy. An alternative is to learn all rules simultaneously, using the entire training set for each. This approach is implemented in the Rise 1.0 system. Empirical comparison of Rise with CN2 suggests that "conquering without separating" performs similarly to its counterpart in simple domains, but achieves increasingly substantial gains in accuracy as the domain difficulty grows. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #35070 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: Case_Based