We get the science fiction we need at the time we need it. When "Star Trek" premiered on Sept. 8, 1966, the United States was escalating its involvement in the Vietnam War while also reckoning with the civil rights movement -- not to mention waging a cold war with the Soviet Union that seemed always on the verge of heating up. Right along with that tumult was the beacon of scientific hope that was NASA's space program, which in turn stoked the passion of an America obsessed with tomorrow. World's fairs were in the business of showing us the cars, kitchens and cities of tomorrow. Writer-producer Gene Roddenberry channeled those twin poles of the human condition -- strife and hope -- into "Star Trek," the show he pitched to NBC as " 'Wagon Train' to the stars."

For example, it is trivial to record hours of heartbeats from hundreds of patients. However, it is expensive to hire cardiologists to label each of the recorded beats. One response to the expense of class labels is to squeeze the most information possible out of each labeled example. Regularization and cross-validation both have this goal. A second response is to start with a small set of labeled examples and request labels of only those currently unlabeled examples that are expected to provide a significant improvement in the behavior of the classifier (Lewis & Catlett, 1994; Freund et al., 1993). A third response is to tap into a largely ignored potential source of information; namely, unlabeled examples. This response is supported by the theoretical work of Castelli and Cover (1995) which suggests that unlabeled examples have value in learning classification problems.

For example, it is trivial to record hours of heartbeats from hundreds of patients. However, it is expensive to hire cardiologists to label each of the recorded beats. One response to the expense of class labels is to squeeze the most information possible out of each labeled example. Regularization and cross-validation both have this goal. A second response is to start with a small set of labeled examples and request labels of only those currently unlabeled examples that are expected to provide a significant improvement in the behavior of the classifier (Lewis & Catlett, 1994; Freund et al., 1993). A third response is to tap into a largely ignored potential source of information; namely, unlabeled examples. This response is supported by the theoretical work of Castelli and Cover (1995) which suggests that unlabeled examples have value in learning classification problems.

Geoffrey Towell Siemens Corporate Research 755 College Road East Princeton, NJ 08540 Abstract Many classification problems have the property that the only costly part of obtaining examples is the class label. This paper suggests a simple method for using distribution information contained in unlabeled examples to augment labeled examples in a supervised training framework. Empirical tests show that the technique described inthis paper can significantly improve the accuracy of a supervised learner when the learner is well below its asymptotic accuracy level. 1 INTRODUCTION Supervised learning problems often have the following property: unlabeled examples have little or no cost while class labels have a high cost. For example, it is trivial to record hours of heartbeats from hundreds of patients. However, it is expensive to hire cardiologists to label each of the recorded beats.