mirror of
https://github.com/Doctorado-ML/Stree_datasets.git
synced 2025-08-17 16:36:02 +00:00
131 lines
6.3 KiB
Plaintext
Executable File
131 lines
6.3 KiB
Plaintext
Executable File
1. Title: Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth (1977) Database
|
|
|
|
2. Source Information:
|
|
(a) Creators: Barbara and Frederick Hayes-Roth
|
|
(b) Donor: David W. Aha (aha@ics.uci.edu) (714) 856-8779
|
|
(c) Date: March, 1989
|
|
|
|
3. Past Usage:
|
|
1. Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1977). Concept learning and the
|
|
recognition and classification of exemplars. Journal of Verbal Learning
|
|
and Verbal Behavior, 16, 321-338.
|
|
-- Results:
|
|
-- Human subjects classification and recognition performance:
|
|
1. decreases with distance from the prototype,
|
|
2. is better on unseen prototypes than old instances, and
|
|
3. improves with presentation frequency during learning.
|
|
2. Anderson, J.R., & Kline, P.J. (1979). A learning system and its
|
|
psychological implications. In Proceedings of the Sixth International
|
|
Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 16-21). Tokyo, Japan:
|
|
Morgan Kaufmann.
|
|
-- Partitioned the results into 4 classes:
|
|
1. prototypes
|
|
2. near-prototypes with high presentation frequency during learning
|
|
3. near-prototypes with low presentation frequency during learning
|
|
4. instances that are far from protoypes
|
|
-- Described evidence that ACT's classification confidence and
|
|
recognition behaviors closely simulated human subjects' behaviors.
|
|
3. Aha, D.W. (1989). Incremental learning of independent, overlapping, and
|
|
graded concept descriptions with an instance-based process framework.
|
|
Manuscript submitted for publication.
|
|
-- Used same partition as Anderson & Kline
|
|
-- Described evidence that Bloom's classification confidence behavior
|
|
is similar to the human subjects' behavior. Bloom fitted the data
|
|
more closely than did ACT.
|
|
|
|
4. Relevant Information:
|
|
This database contains 5 numeric-valued attributes. Only a subset of
|
|
3 are used during testing (the latter 3). Furthermore, only 2 of the
|
|
3 concepts are "used" during testing (i.e., those with the prototypes
|
|
000 and 111). I've mapped all values to their zero-indexing equivalents.
|
|
|
|
Some instances could be placed in either category 0 or 1. I've followed
|
|
the authors' suggestion, placing them in each category with equal
|
|
probability.
|
|
|
|
I've replaced the actual values of the attributes (i.e., hobby has values
|
|
chess, sports and stamps) with numeric values. I think this is how
|
|
the authors' did this when testing the categorization models described
|
|
in the paper. I find this unfair. While the subjects were able to bring
|
|
background knowledge to bear on the attribute values and their
|
|
relationships, the algorithms were provided with no such knowledge. I'm
|
|
uncertain whether the 2 distractor attributes (name and hobby) are
|
|
presented to the authors' algorithms during testing. However, it is clear
|
|
that only the age, educational status, and marital status attributes are
|
|
given during the human subjects' transfer tests.
|
|
|
|
5. Number of Instances: 132 training instances, 28 test instances
|
|
|
|
6. Number of Attributes: 5 plus the class membership attribute. 3 concepts.
|
|
|
|
7. Attribute Information:
|
|
-- 1. name: distinct for each instance and represented numerically
|
|
-- 2. hobby: nominal values ranging between 1 and 3
|
|
-- 3. age: nominal values ranging between 1 and 4
|
|
-- 4. educational level: nominal values ranging between 1 and 4
|
|
-- 5. marital status: nominal values ranging between 1 and 4
|
|
-- 6. class: nominal value between 1 and 3
|
|
|
|
9. Missing Attribute Values: none
|
|
|
|
10. Class Distribution: see below
|
|
|
|
11. Detailed description of the experiment:
|
|
1. 3 categories (1, 2, and neither -- which I call 3)
|
|
-- some of the instances could be classified in either class 1 or 2, and
|
|
they have been evenly distributed between the two classes
|
|
2. 5 Attributes
|
|
-- A. name (a randomly-generated number between 1 and 132)
|
|
-- B. hobby (a randomly-generated number between 1 and 3)
|
|
-- C. age (a number between 1 and 4)
|
|
-- D. education level (a number between 1 and 4)
|
|
-- E. marital status (a number between 1 and 4)
|
|
3. Classification:
|
|
-- only attributes C-E are diagnostic; values for A and B are ignored
|
|
-- Class Neither: if a 4 occurs for any attribute C-E
|
|
-- Class 1: Otherwise, if (# of 1's)>(# of 2's) for attributes C-E
|
|
-- Class 2: Otherwise, if (# of 2's)>(# of 1's) for attributes C-E
|
|
-- Either 1 or 2: Otherwise, if (# of 2's)=(# of 1's) for attributes C-E
|
|
4. Prototypes:
|
|
-- Class 1: 111
|
|
-- Class 2: 222
|
|
-- Class Either: 333
|
|
-- Class Neither: 444
|
|
5. Number of training instances: 132
|
|
-- Each instance presented 0, 1, or 10 times
|
|
-- None of the prototypes seen during training
|
|
-- 3 instances from each of categories 1, 2, and either are repeated
|
|
10 times each
|
|
-- 3 additional instances from the Either category are shown during
|
|
learning
|
|
5. Number of test instances: 28
|
|
-- All 9 class 1
|
|
-- All 9 class 2
|
|
-- All 6 class Either
|
|
-- All 4 prototypes
|
|
--------------------
|
|
-- 28 total
|
|
|
|
Observations of interest:
|
|
1. Relative classification confidence of
|
|
-- prototypes for classes 1 and 2 (2 instances)
|
|
(Anderson calls these Class 1 instances)
|
|
-- instances of class 1 with frequency 10 during training and
|
|
instances of class 2 with frequency 10 during training that
|
|
are 1 value away from their respective prototypes (6 instances)
|
|
(Anderson calls these Class 2 instances)
|
|
-- instances of class 1 with frequency 1 during training and
|
|
instances of class 2 with frequency 1 during training that
|
|
are 1 value away from their respective prototypes (6 instances)
|
|
(Anderson calls these Class 3 instances)
|
|
-- instances of class 1 with frequency 1 during training and
|
|
instances of class 2 with frequency 1 during training that
|
|
are 2 values away from their respective prototypes (6 instances)
|
|
(Anderson calls these Class 4 instances)
|
|
2. Relative classification recognition of them also
|
|
|
|
Some Expected results:
|
|
Both frequency and distance from prototype will effect the classification
|
|
accuracy of instances. Greater the frequency, higher the classification
|
|
confidence. Closer to prototype, higher the classification confidence.
|