Cognitive bias approach to feature selection and weighting for case-based learners

Machine Learning

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 85-116

  Cardie, Claire ^a  

^a Department of Computer Science and School of Operations Research and Information Engineering   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; DATA STRUCTURES; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

CASE BASED LEARNING; COGNITIVE BIAS INTERACTION; COGNITIVE BIAS SELECTION; FEATURE SET SELECTION; HUMAN INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTANCE BASED LEARNING;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 0034300725     PISSN: 08856125     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1007665204628     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aha, D. W. (1992). Tolerating noisy, irrelevant, and novel attributes in instance-based learning algorithms. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 267-287.
2. Aha, D. W. & Goldstone, R. L. (1992). Concept learning and flexible weighting. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 534-539). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Aha, D. W., Kibler, D., & Albert, M. (1991). Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning, 6(1), 37-66.
4. Atkeson, C. G., Moore, A. W., & Schaal, S. (1997). Locally weighted learning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 11, 11-73.
5. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
6. Cain, T., Pazzani, M., & Silverstein, G. (1991). Using domain knowledge to influence similarity judgement. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop (pp. 191-199). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
7. Cardie, C. (1993). Using decision trees to improve case-based learning. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 25-32). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
8. Cardie, C. (1997). Empirical methods in information extraction. AI Magazine, 18(4), 65-79.
9. Cardie, C. (1999). Integrating case-based learning and cognitive biases for machine learning of natural language. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 11, 297-337
10. Cardie, C. & Howe, N. (1997). Improving minority class prediction using case-specific feature weights. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 57-65). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
11. Carreiras, M., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Villa, V. (1995). The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 124-129.
12. Caruana, R. & Freitag, D. (1994). Greedy attribute selection. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 28-36). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
13. Cover, T. & Hart, P. (1967). Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13, 21-27.
14. Creecy, R., Masand, B., Smith, S., & Waltz, D. (1992). Trading mips and memory for knowledge engineering. Communications of the ACM, 35, 48-64.
15. Cuetos, F. & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73-105.
16. Daelemans, W. (Ed.). (1999). Special issue on case-based learning of natural language. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 11.
17. Daelemans, W., van den Bosch, A., & Zavrel, J. (1999). Forgetting exceptions is harmful in language learning. Machine Learning, 34(1-3), 11-43.
18. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
19. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 561-584.
20. Domingos, P. (1997). Context-sensitive feature selection for lazy learners. Artificial Intelligence Review, 11, 227-253.
21. Elman, J. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
22. Fisher, D. (1987). Knowledge acquisition via incremental conceptual clustering. Machine Learning, 2, 139-172.
23. Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
24. Friedman, J. H. (1994). Flexible metric nearest neighbor classification. Unpublished manuscript available at playfair.stanford.eduvia/pub/friedman/README.
25. Gernsbacher, M. A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 735-755.
26. Gibson, E. (1990). Recency preferences and garden-path effects. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 72-79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1993). Cross-linguistic attachment preferences: Evidence from English and Spanish. In Sixth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
28. Gordon, D. & desJardins, M. (1995). Evaluation and selection of biases in machine learning. Machine Learning, 20(1-2), 5-22.
29. Hastie, T. J. & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). Discriminant adaptive nearest neighbor classification. Unpublished manuscript available at playfair.stanford.edu as /pub/hastie/dann.ps.Z.
30. Howe, N. & Cardie, C. (1997). Examining locally varying weights for nearest neighbor algorithms. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (pp. 455-466). Berlin: Springer.
31. John, G., Kohavi, R., & Pfleger, K. (1994). Irrelevant features and the subset selection problem. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 121-129). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
32. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
33. King, J. & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
34. Langley, P. (1996). Elements of machine learning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
35. Lehnert, W. (1990). Symbolic/subsymbolic sentence analysis: Exploiting the best of two worlds. In J. Barnden & J. Pollack (Eds.), Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishers.
36. Lehnert, W., Cardie, C., Fisher, D., Riloff, E., & Williams, R. (1991). University of Massachusetts: Description of the CIRCUS system as used in MUC-3. In Proceedings of the Third Message Understanding Conference (MUC-3) (pp. 223-233). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
37. Littlestone, N. (1988). Learning quickly when irrelevant attributes abound: A new linear-threshold algorithm. Machine Learning, 2, 285-318.
38. Maron, O. & Moore, A. (1997). The racing algorithm: Model selection for lazy learners. Artificial Intelligence Review, 11(1-5), 193-225.
39. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(1), 81-97.
40. Mitchell, T. (1997). Machine learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
41. MUC-3 (1991). Proceedings of the Third Message Understanding Conference (MUC-3). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
42. MUC-5 (1994). Proceedings of the Fifth Message Understanding Conference (MUC- 5). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
43. Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11-28.
44. Nicol, J. (1988). Coreference processing during sentence comprehension. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
45. Provost, F. & Buchanan, B. (1995). Inductive policy: The pragmatics of bias selection. Machine Learning, 20(1-2), 35-62.
46. Quinlan, J. R. (1993). C4.5: Programs for machine learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
47. Schaffer, C. (1993). Overfitting avoidance as bias. Machine Learning, 10(2), 153-178.
48. Skalak, D. (1992). Representing cases as knowledge sources that apply local similarity metrics. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 325-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49. Skalak, D. (1994). Prototype and feature selection by sampling and random mutation hill climbing algorithms. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 293- 301). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
50. Stanfill, C. & Waltz, D. (1986). Toward memory-based reasoning. Communications of the ACM, 29, 1213-1228.
51. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-660.
52. Wettschereck, D., Aha, D. W., & Mohri, T. (1997). A review and empirical evaluation of feature- weighting methods for a class of lazy learning algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review, 11, 273-314.
53. Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. (Eds.). (1999). The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Xu, L., Yan, P., & Chang, T. (1989). Best first strategy for feature selection. In Ninth International Conference on Pattern Recognition (pp. 706-708). IEEE Computer Society Press.