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 #124296. 	[Title] Investigating the Value of a Good Input Representation [Abstract] This paper is reprinted from Computational Learning Theory and Natural Learning Systems, vol. 3, T. Petsche, S. Judd, and S. Hanson, (eds.), forthcoming 1995. Copyrighted 1995 by MIT Press Abstract The ability of an inductive learning system to find a good solution to a given problem is dependent upon the representation used for the features of the problem. A number of factors, including training-set size and the ability of the learning algorithm to perform constructive induction, can mediate the effect of an input representation on the accuracy of a learned concept description. We present experiments that evaluate the effect of input representation on generalization performance for the real-world problem of finding genes in DNA. Our experiments that demonstrate that: (1) two different input representations for this task result in significantly different generalization performance for both neural networks and decision trees; and (2) both neural and symbolic methods for constructive induction fail to bridge the gap between these two representations. We believe that this real-world domain provides an interesting challenge problem for the machine learning subfield of constructive induction because the relationship between the two representations is well known, and because conceptually, the representational shift involved in constructing the better representation should not be too imposing. 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 #46491. 	[Title] ID2-of-3: Constructive Induction of M of-N Concepts for Discriminators in Decision Trees [Abstract] We discuss an approach to constructing composite features during the induction of decision trees. The composite features correspond to m-of-n concepts. There are three goals of this research. First, we explore a family of greedy methods for building m-of-n concepts (one of which, GS, is described in this paper). Second, we show how these concepts can be formed as internal nodes of decision trees, serving as a bias to the learner. Finally, we evaluate the method on several artificially generated and naturally occurring data sets to determine the effects of this bias. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #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 #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 #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 #1105505. 	[Title] A Divide-and-Conquer Approach to Learning from Prior Knowledge [Abstract] This paper introduces a new machine learning task|model calibration|and presents a method for solving a particularly difficult model calibration task that arose as part of a global climate change research project. The model calibration task is the problem of training the free parameters of a scientific model in order to optimize the accuracy of the model for making future predictions. It is a form of supervised learning from examples in the presence of prior knowledge. An obvious approach to solving calibration problems is to formulate them as global optimization problems in which the goal is to find values for the free parameters that minimize the error of the model on training data. Unfortunately, this global optimization approach becomes computationally infeasible when the model is highly nonlinear. This paper presents a new divide-and-conquer method that analyzes the model to identify a series of smaller optimization problems whose sequential solution solves the global calibration problem. This paper argues that methods of this kind|rather than global optimization techniques|will be required in order for agents with large amounts of prior knowledge to learn efficiently. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #66794. 	[Title] Automated Decomposition of Model-based Learning Problems [Abstract] A new generation of sensor rich, massively distributed autonomous systems is being developed that has the potential for unprecedented performance, such as smart buildings, reconfigurable factories, adaptive traffic systems and remote earth ecosystem monitoring. To achieve high performance these massive systems will need to accurately model themselves and their environment from sensor information. Accomplishing this on a grand scale requires automating the art of large-scale modeling. This paper presents a formalization of decompositional, model-based learning (DML), a method developed by observing a modeler's expertise at decomposing large scale model estimation tasks. The method exploits a striking analogy between learning and consistency-based diagnosis. Moriarty, an implementation of DML, has been applied to thermal modeling of a smart building, demonstrating a significant improvement in learning rate. 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 #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 #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 #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 #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.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #51834. 	[Title] Rerepresenting and Restructuring Domain Theories: A Constructive Induction Approach [Abstract] Theory revision integrates inductive learning and background knowledge by combining training examples with a coarse domain theory to produce a more accurate theory. There are two challenges that theory revision and other theory-guided systems face. First, a representation language appropriate for the initial theory may be inappropriate for an improved theory. While the original representation may concisely express the initial theory, a more accurate theory forced to use that same representation may be bulky, cumbersome, and difficult to reach. Second, a theory structure suitable for a coarse domain theory may be insufficient for a fine-tuned theory. Systems that produce only small, local changes to a theory have limited value for accomplishing complex structural alterations that may be required. Consequently, advanced theory-guided learning systems require flexible representation and flexible structure. An analysis of various theory revision systems and theory-guided learning systems reveals specific strengths and weaknesses in terms of these two desired properties. Designed to capture the underlying qualities of each system, a new system uses theory-guided constructive induction. Experiments in three domains show improvement over previous theory-guided systems. This leads to a study of the behavior, limitations, and potential of theory-guided constructive induction. Please summarise all the given information.

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.

Paper #66782 has the title `Using Qualitative Models to Guide Inductive Learning  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #66782 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #66782 has the title `Using Qualitative Models to Guide Inductive Learning  
` and the 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.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #66782 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Rule_Learning