We report on a series of experiments in which all decision trees consistent with the training data are constructed. These experiments were run to gain an understanding of the properties of the set of consistent decision trees and the factors that affect the accuracy of individual trees. In particular, we investigated the relationship between the size of a decision tree consistent with some training data and the accuracy of the tree on test data. The experiments were performed on a massively parallel Maspar computer. The results of the experiments on several artificial and two real world problems indicate that, for many of the problems investigated, smaller consistent decision trees are on average less accurate than the average accuracy of slightly larger trees.

Learning the past tense of English verbs - a seemingly minor aspect of language acquisition - has generated heated debates since 1986, and has become a landmark task for testing the adequacy of cognitive modeling. Several artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been implemented, and a challenge for better symbolic models has been posed. In this paper, we present a general-purpose Symbolic Pattern Associator (SPA) based upon the decision-tree learning algorithm ID3. We conduct extensive head-to-head comparisons on the generalization ability between ANN models and the SPA under different representations. We conclude that the SPA generalizes the past tense of unseen verbs better than ANN models by a wide margin, and we offer insights as to why this should be the case. We also discuss a new default strategy for decision-tree learning algorithms.

To support the goal of allowing users to record and retrieve information, this paper describes an interactive note-taking system for pen-based computers with two distinctive features. First, it actively predicts what the user is going to write. Second, it automatically constructs a custom, button-box user interface on request. The system is an example of a learning-apprentice software- agent. A machine learning component characterizes the syntax and semantics of the user's information. A performance system uses this learned information to generate completion strings and construct a user interface. Description of Online Appendix: People like to record information. Doing this on paper is initially efficient, but lacks flexibility. Recording information on a computer is less efficient but more powerful. In our new note taking softwre, the user records information directly on a computer. Behind the interface, an agent acts for the user. To help, it provides defaults and constructs a custom user interface. The demonstration is a QuickTime movie of the note taking agent in action. The file is a binhexed self-extracting archive. Macintosh utilities for binhex are available from mac.archive.umich.edu. QuickTime is available from ftp.apple.com in the dts/mac/sys.soft/quicktime.

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 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