Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1111978. 	[Title] Consistency of Posterior Distributions for Neural Networks [Abstract] In this paper we show that the posterior distribution for feedforward neural networks is asymptotically consistent. This paper extends earlier results on universal approximation properties of neural networks to the Bayesian setting. The proof of consistency embeds the problem in a density estimation problem, then uses bounds on the bracketing entropy to show that the posterior is consistent over Hellinger neighborhoods. It then relates this result back to the regression setting. We show consistency in both the setting of the number of hidden nodes growing with the sample size, and in the case where the number of hidden nodes is treated as a parameter. Thus we provide a theoretical justification for using neural networks for nonparametric regression in a Bayesian framework. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #576257. 	[Title] Genetic Programming of Minimal Neural Nets Using Occam's Razor [Abstract] A genetic programming method is investigated for optimizing both the architecture and the connection weights of multilayer feedforward neural networks. The genotype of each network is represented as a tree whose depth and width are dynamically adapted to the particular application by specifically defined genetic operators. The weights are trained by a next-ascent hillclimb-ing search. A new fitness function is proposed that quantifies the principle of Occam's razor. It makes an optimal trade-off between the error fitting ability and the parsimony of the network. We discuss the results for two problems of differing complexity and study the convergence and scaling properties of the algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #253762. 	[Title] Bayesian Mixture Modeling by Monte Carlo Simulation [Abstract] It is shown that Bayesian inference from data modeled by a mixture distribution can feasibly be performed via Monte Carlo simulation. This method exhibits the true Bayesian predictive distribution, implicitly integrating over the entire underlying parameter space. An infinite number of mixture components can be accommodated without difficulty, using a prior distribution for mixing proportions that selects a reasonable subset of components to explain any finite training set. The need to decide on a "correct" number of components is thereby avoided. The feasibility of the method is shown empirically for a simple classification task. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #41666. 	[Title] Separating Formal Bounds from Practical Performance in Learning Systems [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #65212. 	[Title] Bayesian Training of Backpropagation Networks by the Hybrid Monte Carlo Method [Abstract] It is shown that Bayesian training of backpropagation neural networks can feasibly be performed by the "Hybrid Monte Carlo" method. This approach allows the true predictive distribution for a test case given a set of training cases to be approximated arbitrarily closely, in contrast to previous approaches which approximate the posterior weight distribution by a Gaussian. In this work, the Hybrid Monte Carlo method is implemented in conjunction with simulated annealing, in order to speed relaxation to a good region of parameter space. The method has been applied to a test problem, demonstrating that it can produce good predictions, as well as an indication of the uncertainty of these predictions. Appropriate weight scaling factors are found automatically. By applying known techniques for calculation of "free energy" differences, it should also be possible to compare the merits of different network architectures. The work described here should also be applicable to a wide variety of statistical models other than neural networks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #210309. 	[Title] Metric Entropy and Minimax Risk in Classification [Abstract] We apply recent results on the minimax risk in density estimation to the related problem of pattern classification. The notion of loss we seek to minimize is an information theoretic measure of how well we can predict the classification of future examples, given the classification of previously seen examples. We give an asymptotic characterization of the minimax risk in terms of the metric entropy properties of the class of distributions that might be generating the examples. We then use these results to characterize the minimax risk in the special case of noisy two-valued classification problems in terms of the Assouad density and the Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #15429. 	[Title] A General Lower Bound on the Number of Examples Needed for Learning [Abstract] We prove a lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ) on the number of random examples required for distribution-free learning of a concept class C, where VCdim(C) is the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension and * and ffi are the accuracy and confidence parameters. This improves the previous best lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C)), and comes close to the known general upper bound of O( 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ln 1 * ) for consistent algorithms. We show that for many interesting concept classes, including kCNF and kDNF, our bound is actually tight to within a constant factor. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #24966. 	[Title] A Practical Bayesian Framework for Backprop Networks [Abstract] A quantitative and practical Bayesian framework is described for learning of mappings in feedforward networks. The framework makes possible: (1) objective comparisons between solutions using alternative network architectures; (2) objective stopping rules for network pruning or growing procedures; (3) objective choice of magnitude and type of weight decay terms or additive regularisers (for penalising large weights, etc.); (4) a measure of the effective number of well-determined parameters in a model; (5) quantified estimates of the error bars on network parameters and on network output; (6) objective comparisons with alternative learning and interpolation models such as splines and radial basis functions. The Bayesian `evidence' automatically embodies `Occam's razor,' penalising over-flexible and over-complex models. The Bayesian approach helps detect poor underlying assumptions in learning models. For learning models well matched to a problem, a good correlation between generalisation ability and the Bayesian evidence is obtained. This paper makes use of the Bayesian framework for regularisation and model comparison described in the companion paper `Bayesian interpolation' (MacKay, 1991a). This framework is due to Gull and Skilling (Gull, 1989a). Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27627. 	[Title] Information-based objective functions for active data selection [Abstract] Learning can be made more efficient if we can actively select particularly salient data points. Within a Bayesian learning framework, objective functions are discussed which measure the expected informativeness of candidate measurements. Three alternative specifications of what we want to gain information about lead to three different criteria for data selection. All these criteria depend on the assumption that the hypothesis space is correct, which may prove to be their main weakness. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #23116. 	[Title] Bayesian Methods for Adaptive Models [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1105433. 	[Title] Priors for Infinite Networks [Abstract] Technical Report CRG-TR-94-1 Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 10 King's College Road Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 Abstract Bayesian inference begins with a prior distribution for model parameters that is meant to capture prior beliefs about the relationship being modeled. For multilayer perceptron networks, where the parameters are the connection weights, the prior lacks any direct meaning | what matters is the prior over functions computed by the network that is implied by this prior over weights. In this paper, I show that priors over weights can be defined in such a way that the corresponding priors over functions reach reasonable limits as the number of hidden units in the network goes to infinity. When using such priors, there is thus no need to limit the size of the network in order to avoid "overfitting". The infinite network limit also provides insight into the properties of different priors. A Gaussian prior for hidden-to-output weights results in a Gaussian process prior for functions, which can be smooth, Brownian, or fractional Brownian, depending on the hidden unit activation function and the prior for input-to-hidden weights. Quite different effects can be obtained using priors based on non-Gaussian stable distributions. In networks with more than one hidden layer, a combination of Gaussian and non-Gaussian priors appears most interesting. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #40124. 	[Title] Probabilistic Networks: New Models and New Methods [Abstract] In this paper I describe the implementation of a probabilistic regression model in BUGS. BUGS is a program that carries out Bayesian inference on statistical problems using a simulation technique known as Gibbs sampling. It is possible to implement surprisingly complex regression models in this environment. I demonstrate the simultaneous inference of an interpolant and an input-dependent noise level. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1111978 has the title `Consistency of Posterior Distributions for Neural Networks  
` and the abstract `In this paper we show that the posterior distribution for feedforward neural networks is asymptotically consistent. This paper extends earlier results on universal approximation properties of neural networks to the Bayesian setting. The proof of consistency embeds the problem in a density estimation problem, then uses bounds on the bracketing entropy to show that the posterior is consistent over Hellinger neighborhoods. It then relates this result back to the regression setting. We show consistency in both the setting of the number of hidden nodes growing with the sample size, and in the case where the number of hidden nodes is treated as a parameter. Thus we provide a theoretical justification for using neural networks for nonparametric regression in a Bayesian framework. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1111978 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1111978 has the title `Consistency of Posterior Distributions for Neural Networks  
` and the abstract `In this paper we show that the posterior distribution for feedforward neural networks is asymptotically consistent. This paper extends earlier results on universal approximation properties of neural networks to the Bayesian setting. The proof of consistency embeds the problem in a density estimation problem, then uses bounds on the bracketing entropy to show that the posterior is consistent over Hellinger neighborhoods. It then relates this result back to the regression setting. We show consistency in both the setting of the number of hidden nodes growing with the sample size, and in the case where the number of hidden nodes is treated as a parameter. Thus we provide a theoretical justification for using neural networks for nonparametric regression in a Bayesian framework. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1111978 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Probabilistic_Methods