Tech. rep. NU-CCS-93-14, College of Computer Science, Northeastern University.

We present here an interesting experiment in'quick modeling' by humans, performed independently on small samples, in several languages and two continents, over the last three years. Comparisons to decision tree procedures and neural net processing are given. From these, we conjecture that human reasoning is better represented by the latter, but substantially different from both. Implications for the'strong convergence hypothesis' between neural networks and machine learning are discussed, now expanded to include human reasoning comparisons. 1 INTRODUCTION Until recently the fields of symbolic and connectionist learning evolved separately. Suddenly in the last two years a significant number of papers comparing the two methodologies have appeared. A beginning synthesis of these two fields was forged at the NIPS '90 Workshop #5 last year (Pratt and Norton, 1990), where one may find a good bibliography of the recent work of Atlas, Dietterich, Omohundro, Sanger, Shavlik, Tsoi, Utgoff and others. It was at that NIPS '90 Workshop that we learned of these studies, most of which concentrate on performance comparisons of decision tree algorithms (such as ID3, CART) and neural net algorithms (such as Perceptrons, Backpropagation). Independently three years ago we had looked at Quinlan's ID3 scheme (Quinlan, 1984) and intuitively and rather instantly not agreeing with the generalization he obtains by ID3 from a sample of 8 items generalized to 12 items, we subjected this example to a variety of human experiments. We report our findings, as compared to the performance of ID3 and also to various neural net computations.

We present here an interesting experiment in'quick modeling' by humans, performed independently on small samples, in several languages and two continents, over the last three years. Comparisons to decision tree procedures and neural net processing are given. From these, we conjecture that human reasoning is better represented by the latter, but substantially different from both. Implications for the'strong convergence hypothesis' between neural networks and machine learning are discussed, now expanded to include human reasoning comparisons. 1 INTRODUCTION Until recently the fields of symbolic and connectionist learning evolved separately. Suddenly in the last two years a significant number of papers comparing the two methodologies have appeared. A beginning synthesis of these two fields was forged at the NIPS '90 Workshop #5 last year (Pratt and Norton, 1990), where one may find a good bibliography of the recent work of Atlas, Dietterich, Omohundro, Sanger, Shavlik, Tsoi, Utgoff and others. It was at that NIPS '90 Workshop that we learned of these studies, most of which concentrate on performance comparisons of decision tree algorithms (such as ID3, CART) and neural net algorithms (such as Perceptrons, Backpropagation). Independently three years ago we had looked at Quinlan's ID3 scheme (Quinlan, 1984) and intuitively and rather instantly not agreeing with the generalization he obtains by ID3 from a sample of 8 items generalized to 12 items, we subjected this example to a variety of human experiments. We report our findings, as compared to the performance of ID3 and also to various neural net computations.

We present here an interesting experiment in'quick modeling' by humans, performed independently on small samples, in several languages and two continents, over the last three years. Comparisons to decision tree procedures andneural net processing are given. From these, we conjecture that human reasoning is better represented by the latter, but substantially different fromboth. Implications for the'strong convergence hypothesis' between neuralnetworks and machine learning are discussed, now expanded to include human reasoning comparisons. 1 INTRODUCTION Until recently the fields of symbolic and connectionist learning evolved separately. Suddenly in the last two years a significant number of papers comparing the two methodologies have appeared. A beginning synthesis of these two fields was forged at the NIPS '90 Workshop #5 last year (Pratt and Norton, 1990), where one may find a good bibliography of the recent work of Atlas, Dietterich, Omohundro, Sanger, Shavlik, Tsoi, Utgoff and others. It was at that NIPS '90 Workshop that we learned of these studies, most of which concentrate on performance comparisons of decision tree algorithms (such as ID3, CART) and neural net algorithms (such as Perceptrons, Backpropagation). Independently threeyears ago we had looked at Quinlan's ID3 scheme (Quinlan, 1984) and intuitively and rather instantly not agreeing with the generalization he obtains by ID3 from a sample of 8 items generalized to 12 items, we subjected this example to a variety of human experiments. We report our findings, as compared to the performance of ID3 and also to various neural net computations.

Function approximation on high-dimensional spaces is often thwarted by a lack of sufficient data to adequately "fill" the space, or lack of sufficient computational resources. The technique of local variable selection provides a partial solution to these problems by attempting to approximate functions locally using fewer than the complete set of input dimensions.

In this paper, after some introductory remarks into the classification problem as considered in various research communities, and some discussions concerning some of the reasons for ascertaining the performances of the three chosen algorithms, viz., CART (Classification and Regression Tree), C4.5 (one of the more recent versions of a popular induction tree technique known as ID3), and a multi-layer perceptron (MLP), it is proposed to compare the performances of these algorithms under two criteria: classification and generalisation. It is found that, in general, the MLP has better classification and generalisation accuracies compared with the other two algorithms. 1 Introduction Classification of data into categories has been pursued by a number of research communities, viz., applied statistics, knowledge acquisition, neural networks. In applied statistics, there are a number of techniques, e.g., clustering algorithms (see e.g., Hartigan), CART (Classification and Regression Trees, see e.g., Breiman et al). Clustering algorithms are used when the underlying data naturally fall into a number of groups, the distance among groups are measured by various metrics [Hartigan]. CART [Breiman, et all has been very popular among applied statisticians. It assumes that the underlying data can be separated into categories, the decision boundaries can either be parallel to the axis or they can be a linear combination of these axes!. Under certain assumptions on the input data and their associated lIn CART, and C4.5, the axes are the same as the input features

In this paper, after some introductory remarks into the classification problem asconsidered in various research communities, and some discussions concerning some of the reasons for ascertaining the performances of the three chosen algorithms, viz., CART (Classification and Regression Tree), C4.5 (one of the more recent versions of a popular induction tree technique knownas ID3), and a multi-layer perceptron (MLP), it is proposed to compare the performances of these algorithms under two criteria: classification andgeneralisation. It is found that, in general, the MLP has better classification and generalisation accuracies compared with the other two algorithms. 1 Introduction Classification of data into categories has been pursued by a number of research communities, viz., applied statistics, knowledge acquisition, neural networks. In applied statistics, there are a number of techniques, e.g., clustering algorithms (see e.g., Hartigan), CART (Classification and Regression Trees, see e.g., Breiman et al). Clustering algorithms are used when the underlying data naturally fall into a number of groups, the distance among groups are measured by various metrics [Hartigan]. CART[Breiman, et all has been very popular among applied statisticians.

Function approximation on high-dimensional spaces is often thwarted by a lack of sufficient data to adequately "fill" the space, or lack of sufficient computational resources. The technique of local variable selection provides a partial solution to these problems by attempting to approximate functions locally using fewer than the complete set of input dimensions.

Full text available for a fee. This book is a practical guide to classification learning systems and their applications. These computer programs learn from sample data and make predictions for new cases, sometimes exceeding the performance of humans. Practical learning systems from statistical pattern recognition, neural networks, and machine learning are presented. The authors examine prominent methods from each area, using an engineering approach and taking the practitioner's viewpoint. Intuitive explanations with a minimum of mathematics make the material accessible to anyone--regardless of experience or special interests. The underlying concepts of the learning methods are discussed with fully worked-out examples: their strengths and weaknesses, and the estimation of their future performance on specific applications. Throughout, the authors offer their own recommendations for selecting and applying learning methods such as linear discriminants, back-propagation neural networks, or decision trees. Learning systems are then contrasted with their rule-based counterparts from expert systems.Morgan Kaufmann, 1990

The technology for building knowledge-based systems by inductive inference from examples hasbeen demonstrated successfully in several practical applications. This paper summarizes an approach to synthesizing decision trees that has been used in a variety of systems, and it describes one such system, ID3, in detail. Results from recent studies show ways in which the methodology can be modified to deal with information that is noisy and/or incomplete. A reported shortcoming of the basic algorithm is discussed and two means of overcoming it are compared. The paper concludes with illustrations of current research directionsMachine Learning, 1, p. 81-106