Inductive policy: The pragmatics of bias selection

• Almuallim, H., & Dietterich, T. (1991). Learning with many irrelevant features.Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 547–552), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., & Stone, C. (1984).Classification and regression trees, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth International Group.

  Google Scholar 

• Brodley, C.E. (1993). Addressing the selective superiority problem: automatic algorithm/model class selection.Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 17–24), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Brodley, C.E. (this volume). Recursive automatic bias selection for classifier construction.

• Buchanan, B., Johnson, C., Mitchell, T., & Smith, R. (1978). Models of learning systems, in J. Beltzer (Ed.),Encyclopedia of computer science and technology (pp. 24–51).

• Buntine, W. (1991).A theory of learning classification rules, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Technology, Sidney.

  Google Scholar 

• Catlett, J. (1992). Peepholing: choosing attributes efficiently for megainduction, in D. Sleeman & P. Edwards (Eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 49–54), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Chan, P., & Stolfo, S. (1993). Toward parallel and distributed learning by meta-learning.Proceedings of the AAAI-93 Workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Databases.

• Clearwater, S., Cheng, T., Hirsh, H., & Buchanan, B. (1989). Incremental batch learning.Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 366–370), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Clearwater, S., & Provost, F. (1990). RL4: a tool for knowledge-based induction.Proceedings of the Second International IEEE Conference on Tools for Artificial Intelligence (pp. 24–30), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE C.S. Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Cohen, D., Kulikowski, C., & Berman, H. (1993). Knowledge-based generation of machine learning experiments: learning with DNA crystallography data.Proceedings of the First International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Danyluk, A.P., & Provost, F.J. (1993). Small disjuncts in action: learning to diagnose errors in the telephone network local loop.Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ML-93) (pp. 81–88), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• DeJong, G., & Mooney, R. (1986). Explanation-based learning: an alternative view,Machine Learning, 1:287–316.

  Google Scholar 

• desJardins, M. (1991). Probabilistic evaluation of bias for learning systems.Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 495–499). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• desJardins, M. (1992).PAGODA: a model for autonomous learning in probabilistic domains, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley (available as Technical Report UCB/CSD 92/678).

• Devijver, P.A., & Kittler, J. (1982).Pattern recognition: a statistical approach, Prentice Hall.

• Dietterich, T. (1991). Machine learning: issues, answers, and quandaries, Keynote Lecture, AAAI-91.

• Dietterich, T., & Michalski, R. (1983). A comparative review of selected methods for learning from examples, in R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, & T. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach (pp. 41–81), Palo Alto, CA: Tioga.

  Google Scholar 

• Gordon, D. (1990).Active bias adjustment for incremental, supervised concept learning, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland.

• Grosof, B., & Russell, S. (1990). Shift of bias as non-monotonic reasoning, in Brazdil & Konolige (Eds.),Machine Learning, meta-reasoning, and logics, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• Haussler, D. (1988). Quantifying inductive bias: AI learning algorithms and Valiant's learning framework,Artificial Intelligence, 36:177–221.

  Google Scholar 

• Holder, L. (1990). The general utility problem in machine learning,Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 402–410). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Holte, R.C. (1993). Very simple classification rules perform well on most commonly used datasets.Machine Learning, 11(1):63–90.

  Google Scholar 

• Kira, K., & Rendell, L. (1992). The feature selection problem: traditional methods and a new algorithm,Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 129–134), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Korf, R.E. (1985). Depth-first iterative deepening: an optimal admissible tree search,Artificial Intelligence, 27:97–109.

  Google Scholar 

• Lifschitz, V. (1987). Circumscriptive theories: a logic-based framework for knowledge.Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 364–368), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Littlestone, N. (1988). Learning quickly when irrelevant attributes abound: a new linear-threshold algorithm,Machine Learning, 2(4):284–318.

  Google Scholar 

• Matheus, C. (1989).Feature construction: an analytic framework and an application to decision trees, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning,Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39.

  Google Scholar 

• Michalski, R., & Mozetic, I., Hong, J., & Lavrac, N. (1986). The multi-purpose incremental learning system AQ15 and its testing application to three medical domains.Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artifical Intelligence (pp. 1041–1045), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Michalski, R.S. (1993). Special issue on multistrategy learning,Machine Learning, 11(2/3).

• Mitchell, T. (1978).Version spaces: an approach to concept learning, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.

• Mitchell, T. (1980).The need for biases in learning generalizations (Technical Report CBM-TR-117), Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University.

• Mitchell, T., Keller, R., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1986). Explanation-based generalization: a unifying view,Machine Learning, 1:47–80.

  Google Scholar 

• Mitchell, T., Utgoff, P., & Banerji, R. (1983). Learning by experimentation: acquiring and refining problem-sloving heuristics, in R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, & T. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach (pp. 163–190), Palo Alto, CA: Tioga.

  Google Scholar 

• Musick, R., Catlett, J., & Russell, S. (1993). Decision theoretic subsampling for induction on large databases.Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 212–219), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Pagallo, G. (1989). Learning DNF by decision trees.Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 639–644), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Provost, F.J. (1992a). ClimBS: searching the bias space.Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (pp. 146–153), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Provost, F.J. (1992b).Policies for the selection of bias in inductive machine learning, Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Pittsburgh.

• Provost, F.J. (1993). Iterative weakening: optimal and near-optimal policies for the selection of search bias.Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 749–755), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Provost, F.J. (1994). Goal-directed inductive learning: trading off accuracy for reduced error cost.Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Goal-Directed Learning.

• Provost, F.J., & Aronis, J. (in press).Scaling up inductive learning with massive parallelism, Machine Learning.

• Provost, F.J., & Hennessy, D. (1994). Distributed machine learning: scaling up with coarse-grained parallelism.Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Provost, F., & Buchanan, B. (1992a). Inductive policy.Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 255–261), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Provost, F., & Buchanan, B. (1992b). Inductive strengthening: the effects of a simple heuristic for restricting hypothesis space search, in K.P. Jantke (Ed.),Analogical and inductive inference (Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Analogical and Inductive Inference), New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

  Google Scholar 

• Provost, F.J., Buchanan, B.G., Clearwater, S.H., & Lee, Y. (1993).Machine learning in the service of exploratory science and engineering: a case study of the RL induction program (Technical Report ISL-93-6), Intelligent Systems Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh.

• Quinlan, J. (1986a). Induction of decision trees,Machine Learning, 1:81–106.

  Google Scholar 

• Quinlan, J. (1986b). Inductive knowledge acquisition: a case study, in J. Quinlan (Ed.),Applications of expert systems (pp. 157–173).

• Quinlan, J. (1987). Generating production rules from decision trees.Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 304–307), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Quinlan, R. (1993). Presentation of new results on selecting from multiple learning algorithms at the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning.

• Rabinowitz, H., Flamholz, J., Wolin, E., & Euchner, J. (1991). NYNEX MAX: a telephone trouble screening expert.Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 3 (pp. 213–230), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Rendell, L. (1986). A general framework for induction and a study of selective induction,Machine Learning, 1:177–226.

  Google Scholar 

• Rendell, L., Seshu, R., & Tcheng, D. (1987). Layered concept-learning and dynamically-variable bias management.Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 308–314), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Riddle, P. (1989).Automating shifts of representation, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University.

• Ruff, R. (1990).An empirical study into learning through experimentation, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Oregon State University.

• Russell, S. (1986). Preliminary steps toward the automation of induction.Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 477–484), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Russell, S., & Grosof, B. (1990). Declarative bias: an overview, in D.P. Benjamin (Ed.),Change of representation and inductive bias (pp. 267–308), Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• Rymon, R. (1993). An SE-tree based characterization of the induction problem.Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 268–275), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Samuel, A. (1963). Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers, in E. Feigenbaum & J. Feldman (Eds.),Computers and Thought (pp. 71–105), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

  Google Scholar 

• Schaffer, C. (1993). Selecting a classification method by cross-validation,Machine Learning, 13(1):135–143.

  Google Scholar 

• Schlimmer, J. (1987).Concept acquisition through representational adjustment, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California at Irvine.

• Simon, H.A., & Kadane, J.B. (1975). Optimal problem-solving search: all-or-none solutions,Artificial Intelligence, 6:235–247.

  Google Scholar 

• Simon, H.A., & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: a unified view, in L.W. Gregg (Ed.),Knowledge and cognition (pp. 105–128), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Slagle, J.R. (1964). An efficient algorithm for finding certain minimum-cost procedures for making binary decisions,Journal of the ACM, 11(3):253–264.

  Google Scholar 

• Spears, W., & Gordon, D. (1991). Adaptive strategy selection for concept learning.Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Multistrategy Learning (pp. 231–246) Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

  Google Scholar 

• Subramanian, D. (1989).Toward a theory of justified reformulations, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.

• Tcheng, D., Lambert, B., Lu, S., & Rendell, L. (1989). Building robust learning systems by combining induction and optimization.Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 806–812), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Uhr, L., & Vossler, C. (1963). A pattern-recognition program that generates, evaluates, and adjusts its own operators, in E. Feigenbaum & J. Feldman (Eds.),Computers and thought (pp. 251–268), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

  Google Scholar 

• Utgoff, P. (1984).Shift of bias for inductive concept learning, Ph.D. Thesis, Rutgers University.

• Utgoff, P. (1986). Shift of bias for inductive concept learning, in R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, & T. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning, an artificial intelligence approach (pp. 107–148), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

• Utgoff, P.E. (1989). Incremental induction of decision trees,Machine Learning, 4(2):161–186.

  Google Scholar 

• Weiss, S., & Indurkhya, N. (1991). Reduced complexity rule induction.Proceedings of IJCAI-91 (pp. 678–684).

• Wirth, J., & Catlett, J. (1988). Experiments on the costs and benefits of windowing in ID3.Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 87–99), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  Google Scholar 

Download references