Skip to main content

Editorial

Lazy Learning

  • Chapter
Lazy Learning

Abstract

Lazy learning algorithms exhibit three characteristics that distinguish them from other learning algorithms (i.e., algorithms that lead to performance improvement over time). First, they defer processing of their inputs until they receive requests for information; they simply store their inputs for future use. Next, they reply to information requests by combining their stored (e.g., training) data. Finally, they discard the constructed answer and any intermediate results. In contrast, eager learning algorithms greedily compile their inputs into an intensional concept description (e.g., represented by a rule set, decision tree, or neural network), and in this process discard the inputs. They reply to information requests using this a priori induced description, and retain it for future requests. This lazy/eager distinction exhibits many interesting tradeoffs. For example, while lazy algorithms have lower computational costs than eager algorithms during training, they typically have greater storage requirements and often have higher computational costs when answering requests. For the first time, this distinction, and its implications, are the focus of a (quintuple) special issue; AI Review has brought together 14 articles that review and/or investigate state-of-the-art learning algorithms that display lazy behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7, 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aha, D. W., Kibler, D., & Albert, M. K. (1991). Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning 6, 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, H. (1992). Eliminating redundancy in explanation-based learning. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 38–42). Aberdeen, Scotland: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottou, L., & Vapnik, V. (1992). Localleaming algorithms. Neural Computation 4, 888–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P., & Holte, R. (1992). Lazy partial evaluation: An integration of explanation-based generalisation and partial evaluation. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 82–91). Aberdeen, Scotland: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creecy, R. H., Masand, B. M., Smith, S. J., & Waltz, D. L. (1992). Trading MIPS and memory for knowledge engineering. Communications of the ACM 35, 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasarathy, B. V. (Ed.). (1991). Nearest neighbor(NN) norms: NN pattern classification techniques. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietterich, T. G., Wettschereck, D., Atkeson, C. G., & Moore, A. W. (1994). Memory-based methods for regression and classification. In J. Cowan, G. Tesauro, & J. Alspector (Eds.), Neural Information Processing Systems 6. Denver, CO: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J. H. (1994). Flexible metric nearest neighbor classification. Unpublished manuscript available by anonymous FfP from playfair.stanford.edu (see pub/friedman/README).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabbour, K., Riveros, J. F. V., Landsbergen, D., & Meyer W. (1987). ALFA: Automated load forecasting assistant. In Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting. San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T., Czerwinsksi, M., & Lee, D. (1993). COMPAQ QuickSource: Providing the consumer with the power of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference on Innovative AppLications of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 142–150). Washington, DC: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental PsychoLogy: General 15 , 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadepalli, P. (1989). Lazy explanation-based learning: A solution to the intractable theory problem. In Proceedings of the Eleventh InternationaL Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 649–700). Detroit, MI: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aha, D.W. (1997). Editorial. In: Aha, D.W. (eds) Lazy Learning. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2053-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2053-3_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4860-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2053-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics