This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Learning to Predict: INC2.5
January-February 1997 (vol. 9 no. 1)
pp. 168-173

Abstract—This paper discusses INC2.5, an incremental concept formation system. The goal of INC2.5 is to form a hierarchy of concept descriptions based on previously seen instances which will be used to predict the classification of a new instance description. Each subtree of the hierarchy consists of instances which are similar to each other. The further from the root, the greater the similarity is between the instances within the same groupings. The ability to classify instances based on their description has many applications. For example, in the medical field doctors are required daily to diagnose patients; in other words, classify patients according to their symptoms. INC2.5 has been successfully applied to several domains, including breast cancer, general trauma, congressional voting records, and the monk's problems.

[1] D.H. Fisher, “Knowledge Acquisition via Incremental Conceptual Clustering,” Machine Learning, no. 2, pp. 139-172, 1987.
[2] J.H. Gennari, P. Langley, and D.H. Fisher, "Models of Incremental Concept Formation," Artificial intelligence, vol. 40, nos. 1-3, pp. 11-59, 1989.
[3] M.A. Gluck and J.E. Corter, "Information, Uncertainty, and the Utility of Categories," Proc. Seventh Ann. Conf. Cognitive Science Soc., pp. 283-287.Irvine, Calif.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1985.
[4] M. Hadzikadic, "Automated Design of Diagnostic Systems," Artificial Intelligence in Medicine J., vol. 4, pp. 329-342, 1992.
[5] M. Hadzikadic, "Prediction Performance as a Function of the Representation Language in Concept Formation Systems," Proc. 14th Ann. Conf. Cognitive Science Soc., pp. 850-854,Bloomington, Ind., July 29- Aug.1, 1992.
[6] M. Hadzikadic, "Context-Sensitive, Distributed, Variable-Representation Category Formation," Proc. 13th Ann. Meeting of the Cognitive Science Soc., pp. 269-274,Chicago, Aug.7-10, 1991.
[7] M. Hadzikadic and D.Y.Y. Yun, "Concept Formation by Incremental Conceptual Clustering," Proc. 11th Int'l Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 831-836,Detroit, Aug.20-25, 1989.
[8] S.J. Hanson and M. Bauer, “Conceptual Clustering, Categorization, and Polymorphy,” Machine Learning, no. 3, pp. 343-372, 1989.
[9] P. Langley, "Machine Learning and Concept Formation," Machine Learning, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 99-102, 1987.
[10] M. Lebowitz, “Experiments with Incremental Concept Formation: UNIMEM,” Machine Learning, vol. 2, pp. 103-138, 1987.
[11] R.S. Michalski and R.E. Stepp, "Learning From Observation: Conceptual Clustering," Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell, eds. Los Altos, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann, 1983.
[12] K. Thompson and K. McKusick, "COBWEB/3 A Portable Implementation," Technical Report FIA-90-6-18-2, June20, 1990.
[13] S.B. Thrun, "The MONK's Problem—A Performance Comparison of Different Learning Algorithms," CMU-CS-91-197, Dec. 1991.
[14] A. Tversky, "Features of Similarity," Psychological Review, vol. 84, pp. 327-352, 1977.

Index Terms:
Concept formation, diagnosis, database mining, knowledge acquisition, similarity-based learning.
Mirsad Hadzikadic, Benjamin F. Bohren, "Learning to Predict: INC2.5," IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 168-173, Jan.-Feb. 1997, doi:10.1109/69.567059
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.