Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1999. 	[Title] WRAPPERS FOR PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AND OBLIVIOUS DECISION GRAPHS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1107067. 	[Title] On the Greediness of Feature Selection Algorithms [Abstract] Based on our analysis and experiments using real-world datasets, we find that the greediness of forward feature selection algorithms does not severely corrupt the accuracy of function approximation using the selected input features, but improves the efficiency significantly. Hence, we propose three greedier algorithms in order to further enhance the efficiency of the feature selection processing. We provide empirical results for linear regression, locally weighted regression and k-nearest-neighbor models. We also propose to use these algorithms to develop an offline Chinese and Japanese handwriting recognition system with auto matically configured, local models. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #24974. 	[Title] EVALUATION OF GAUSSIAN PROCESSES AND OTHER METHODS FOR NON-LINEAR REGRESSION [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3231. 	[Title] Irrelevant Features and the Subset Selection Problem [Abstract] We address the problem of finding a subset of features that allows a supervised induction algorithm to induce small high-accuracy concepts. We examine notions of relevance and irrelevance, and show that the definitions used in the machine learning literature do not adequately partition the features into useful categories of relevance. We present definitions for irrelevance and for two degrees of relevance. These definitions improve our understanding of the behavior of previous subset selection algorithms, and help define the subset of features that should be sought. The features selected should depend not only on the features and the target concept, but also on the induction algorithm. We describe a method for feature subset selection using cross-validation that is applicable to any induction algorithm, and discuss experiments conducted with ID3 and C4.5 on artificial and real datasets. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #3232. 	[Title] The Power of Decision Tables [Abstract] We evaluate the power of decision tables as a hypothesis space for supervised learning algorithms. Decision tables are one of the simplest hypothesis spaces possible, and usually they are easy to understand. Experimental results show that on artificial and real-world domains containing only discrete features, IDTM, an algorithm inducing decision tables, can sometimes outperform state-of-the-art algorithms such as C4.5. Surprisingly, performance is quite good on some datasets with continuous features, indicating that many datasets used in machine learning either do not require these features, or that these features have few values. We also describe an incremental method for performing cross-validation that is applicable to incremental learning algorithms including IDTM. Using incremental cross-validation, it is possible to cross-validate a given dataset and IDTM in time that is linear in the number of instances, the number of features, and the number of label values. The time for incremental cross-validation is independent of the number of folds chosen, hence leave-one-out cross-validation and ten-fold cross-validation take the same time. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #22563. 	[Title] A Comparative Study of ID3 and Backpropagation for English Text-to-Speech Mapping [Abstract] The performance of the error backpropagation (BP) and ID3 learning algorithms was compared on the task of mapping English text to phonemes and stresses. Under the distributed output code developed by Sejnowski and Rosenberg, it is shown that BP consistently out-performs ID3 on this task by several percentage points. Three hypotheses explaining this difference were explored: (a) ID3 is overfitting the training data, (b) BP is able to share hidden units across several output units and hence can learn the output units better, and (c) BP captures statistical information that ID3 does not. We conclude that only hypothesis (c) is correct. By augmenting ID3 with a simple statistical learning procedure, the performance of BP can be approached but not matched. More complex statistical procedures can improve the performance of both BP and ID3 substantially. A study of the residual errors suggests that there is still substantial room for improvement in learning methods for text-to-speech mapping. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #88356. 	[Title] Learning Limited Dependence Bayesian Classifiers [Abstract] We present a framework for characterizing Bayesian classification methods. This framework can be thought of as a spectrum of allowable dependence in a given probabilistic model with the Naive Bayes algorithm at the most restrictive end and the learning of full Bayesian networks at the most general extreme. While much work has been carried out along the two ends of this spectrum, there has been surprising little done along the middle. We analyze the assumptions made as one moves along this spectrum and show the tradeoffs between model accuracy and learning speed which become critical to consider in a variety of data mining domains. We then present a general induction algorithm that allows for traversal of this spectrum depending on the available computational power for carrying out induction and show its application in a number of domains with different properties. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #10169. 	[Title] Learning Boolean Concepts in the Presence of Many Irrelevant Features [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #89547. 	[Title] Rigorous Learning Curve Bounds from Statistical Mechanics [Abstract] In this paper we introduce and investigate a mathematically rigorous theory of learning curves that is based on ideas from statistical mechanics. The advantage of our theory over the well-established Vapnik-Chervonenkis theory is that our bounds can be considerably tighter in many cases, and are also more reflective of the true behavior (functional form) of learning curves. This behavior can often exhibit dramatic properties such as phase transitions, as well as power law asymptotics not explained by the VC theory. The disadvantages of our theory are that its application requires knowledge of the input distribution, and it is limited so far to finite cardinality function classes. We illustrate our results with many concrete examples of learning curve bounds derived from our theory. 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 #1131471. 	[Title] Search-based Class Discretization [Abstract] We present a methodology that enables the use of classification algorithms on regression tasks. We implement this method in system RECLA that transforms a regression problem into a classification one and then uses an existent classification system to solve this new problem. The transformation consists of mapping a continuous variable into an ordinal variable by grouping its values into an appropriate set of intervals. We use misclassification costs as a means to reflect the implicit ordering among the ordinal values of the new variable. We describe a set of alternative discretization methods and, based on our experimental results, justify the need for a search-based approach to choose the best method. Our experimental results confirm the validity of our search-based approach to class discretization, and reveal the accuracy benefits of adding misclassification costs. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #32083. 	[Title] Back Propagation is Sensitive to Initial Conditions [Abstract] This paper explores the effect of initial weight selection on feed-forward networks learning simple functions with the back-propagation technique. We first demonstrate, through the use of Monte Carlo techniques, that the magnitude of the initial condition vector (in weight space) is a very significant parameter in convergence time variability. In order to further understand this result, additional deterministic experiments were performed. The results of these experiments demonstrate the extreme sensitivity of back propagation to initial weight configuration. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39126. 	[Title] Toward Optimal Feature Selection [Abstract] In this paper, we examine a method for feature subset selection based on Information Theory. Initially, a framework for defining the theoretically optimal, but computation-ally intractable, method for feature subset selection is presented. We show that our goal should be to eliminate a feature if it gives us little or no additional information beyond that subsumed by the remaining features. In particular, this will be the case for both irrelevant and redundant features. We then give an efficient algorithm for feature selection which computes an approximation to the optimal feature selection criterion. The conditions under which the approximate algorithm is successful are examined. Empirical results are given on a number of data sets, showing that the algorithm effectively han dles datasets with large numbers of features. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1102442. 	[Title] Unbiased Assessment of Learning Algorithms [Abstract] In order to rank the performance of machine learning algorithms, many researchers conduct experiments on benchmark data sets. Since most learning algorithms have domain-specific parameters, it is a popular custom to adapt these parameters to obtain a minimal error rate on the test set. The same rate is then used to rank the algorithm, which causes an optimistic bias. We quantify this bias, showing, in particular, that an algorithm with more parameters will probably be ranked higher than an equally good algorithm with fewer parameters. We demonstrate this result, showing the number of parameters and trials required in order to pretend to outperform C4.5 or FOIL, respectively, for various benchmark problems. We then describe out how unbiased ranking experiments should be conducted. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #31083. 	[Title] Data Mining using MLC A Machine Learning Library in C http://www.sgi.com/Technology/mlc [Abstract] Data mining algorithms including machine learning, statistical analysis, and pattern recognition techniques can greatly improve our understanding of data warehouses that are now becoming more widespread. In this paper, we focus on classification algorithms and review the need for multiple classification algorithms. We describe a system called MLC ++ , which was designed to help choose the appropriate classification algorithm for a given dataset by making it easy to compare the utility of different algorithms on a specific dataset of interest. MLC ++ not only provides a workbench for such comparisons, but also provides a library of C ++ classes to aid in the development of new algorithms, especially hybrid algorithms and multi-strategy algorithms. Such algorithms are generally hard to code from scratch. We discuss design issues, interfaces to other programs, and visualization of the resulting classifiers. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #52847. 	[Title] Rule-based Machine Learning Methods for Functional Prediction [Abstract] We describe a machine learning method for predicting the value of a real-valued function, given the values of multiple input variables. The method induces solutions from samples in the form of ordered disjunctive normal form (DNF) decision rules. A central objective of the method and representation is the induction of compact, easily interpretable solutions. This rule-based decision model can be extended to search efficiently for similar cases prior to approximating function values. Experimental results on real-world data demonstrate that the new techniques are competitive with existing machine learning and statistical methods and can sometimes yield superior regression performance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6771. 	[Title] Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms [Abstract] This paper reviews five statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task. These tests are compared experimentally to determine their probability of incorrectly detecting a difference when no difference exists (type 1 error). Two widely-used statistical tests are shown to have high probability of Type I error in certain situations and should never be used. These tests are (a) a test for the difference of two proportions and (b) a paired-differences t test based on taking several random train/test splits. A third test, a paired-differences t test based on 10-fold cross-validation, exhibits somewhat elevated probability of Type I error. A fourth test, McNemar's test, is shown to have low Type I error. The fifth test is a new test, 5x2cv, based on 5 iterations of 2-fold cross-validation. Experiments show that this test also has good Type I error. The paper also measures the power (ability to detect algorithm differences when they do exist) of these tests. The 5x2cv test is shown to be slightly more powerful than McNemar's test. The choice of the best test is determined by the computational cost of running the learning algorithm. For algorithms that can be executed only once, McNemar's test is the only test with acceptable Type I error. For algorithms that can be executed ten times, the 5x2cv test is recommended, because it is slightly more powerful and because it directly measures variation due to the choice of training set. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #65653. 	[Title] Pessimistic decision tree pruning based on tree size [Abstract] In this work we develop a new criteria to perform pessimistic decision tree pruning. Our method is theoretically sound and is based on theoretical concepts such as uniform convergence and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. We show that our criteria is very well motivated, from the theory side, and performs very well in practice. The accuracy of the new criteria is comparable to that of the current method used in C4.5. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #167670. 	[Title] Error-Based and Entropy-Based Discretization of Continuous Features [Abstract] We present a comparison of error-based and entropy-based methods for discretization of continuous features. Our study includes both an extensive empirical comparison as well as an analysis of scenarios where error minimization may be an inappropriate discretization criterion. We present a discretization method based on the C4.5 decision tree algorithm and compare it to an existing entropy-based discretization algorithm, which employs the Minimum Description Length Principle, and a recently proposed error-based technique. We evaluate these discretization methods with respect to C4.5 and Naive-Bayesian classifiers on datasets from the UCI repository and analyze the computational complexity of each method. Our results indicate that the entropy-based MDL heuristic outperforms error minimization on average. We then analyze the shortcomings of error-based approaches in comparison to entropy-based methods. 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 #1123068. 	[Title] Targeting Business Users with Decision Table Classifiers [Abstract] Business users and analysts commonly use spreadsheets and 2D plots to analyze and understand their data. On-line Analytical Processing (OLAP) provides these users with added flexibility in pivoting data around different attributes and drilling up and down the multi-dimensional cube of aggregations. Machine learning researchers, however, have concentrated on hypothesis spaces that are foreign to most users: hyper-planes (Perceptrons), neural networks, Bayesian networks, decision trees, nearest neighbors, etc. In this paper we advocate the use of decision table classifiers that are easy for line-of-business users to understand. We describe several variants of algorithms for learning decision tables, compare their performance, and describe a visualization mechanism that we have implemented in MineSet. The performance of decision tables is comparable to other known algorithms, such as C4.5/C5.0, yet the resulting classifiers use fewer attributes and are more comprehensible. 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.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6782. 	[Title] Oblivious Decision Trees, Graphs, and Top-Down Pruning [Abstract] We describe a supervised learning algorithm, EODG, that uses mutual information to build an oblivious decision tree. The tree is then converted to an Oblivious read-Once Decision Graph (OODG) by merging nodes at the same level of the tree. For domains that are appropriate for both decision trees and OODGs, performance is approximately the same as that of C4.5, but the number of nodes in the OODG is much smaller. The merging phase that converts the oblivious decision tree to an OODG provides a new way of dealing with the replication problem and a new pruning mechanism that works top down starting from the root. The pruning mechanism is well suited for finding symmetries and aids in recovering from splits on irrelevant features that may happen during the tree construction. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1999 has the title `WRAPPERS FOR PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AND OBLIVIOUS DECISION GRAPHS  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1999 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1999 has the title `WRAPPERS FOR PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AND OBLIVIOUS DECISION GRAPHS  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1999 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