Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #75693. 	[Title] REINFORCEMENT LEARNING WITH SELF-MODIFYING POLICIES [Abstract] A learner's modifiable components are called its policy. An algorithm that modifies the policy is a learning algorithm. If the learning algorithm has modifiable components represented as part of the policy, then we speak of a self-modifying policy (SMP). SMPs can modify the way they modify themselves etc. They are of interest in situations where the initial learning algorithm itself can be improved by experience | this is what we call "learning to learn". How can we force some (stochastic) SMP to trigger better and better self-modifications? The success-story algorithm (SSA) addresses this question in a lifelong reinforcement learning context. During the learner's life-time, SSA is occasionally called at times computed according to SMP itself. SSA uses backtracking to undo those SMP-generated SMP-modifications that have not been empirically observed to trigger lifelong reward accelerations (measured up until the current SSA call | this evaluates the long-term effects of SMP-modifications setting the stage for later SMP-modifications). SMP-modifications that survive SSA represent a lifelong success history. Until the next SSA call, they build the basis for additional SMP-modifications. Solely by self-modifications our SMP/SSA-based learners solve a complex task in a partially observable environment (POE) whose state space is far bigger than most reported in the POE literature. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #214472. 	[Title] A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything [Abstract] Is the universe computable? If so, it may be much cheaper in terms of information requirements to compute all computable universes instead of just ours. I apply basic concepts of Kolmogorov complexity theory to the set of possible universes, and chat about perceived and true randomness, life, generalization, and learning in a given universe. Assumptions. A long time ago, the Great Programmer wrote a program that runs all possible universes on His Big Computer. "Possible" means "computable": (1) Each universe evolves on a discrete time scale. (2) Any universe's state at a given time is describable by a finite number of bits. One of the many universes is ours, despite some who evolved in it and claim it is incomputable. Computable universes. Let T M denote an arbitrary universal Turing machine with unidirectional output tape. T M 's input and output symbols are "0", "1", and "," (comma). T M 's possible input programs can be ordered alphabetically: "" (empty program), "0", "1", ",", "00", "01", "0,", "10", "11", "1,", ",0", ",1", ",,", "000", etc. Let A k denote T M 's k-th program in this list. Its output will be a finite or infinite string over the alphabet f "0","1",","g. This sequence of bitstrings separated by commas will be interpreted as the evolution E k of universe U k . If E k includes at least one comma, then let U l k represents U k 's state at the l-th time step of E k (k; l 2 f1; 2; : : : ; g). E k is represented by the sequence U 1 k corresponds to U k 's big bang. Different algorithms may compute the same universe. Some universes are finite (those whose programs cease producing outputs at some point), others are not. I don't know about ours. TM not important. The choice of the Turing machine is not important. This is due to the compiler theorem: for each universal Turing machine C there exists a constant prefix C 2 f "0","1",","g fl such that for all possible programs p, C's output in response to program C p is identical to T M 's output in response to p. The prefix C is the compiler that compiles programs for T M into equivalent programs for C. k denote the l-th (possibly empty) bitstring before the l-th comma. U l Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #13212. 	[Title] DISCOVERING NEURAL NETS WITH LOW KOLMOGOROV COMPLEXITY AND HIGH GENERALIZATION CAPABILITY Neural Networks 10(5):857-873, 1997 [Abstract] Many neural net learning algorithms aim at finding "simple" nets to explain training data. The expectation is: the "simpler" the networks, the better the generalization on test data (! Occam's razor). Previous implementations, however, use measures for "simplicity" that lack the power, universality and elegance of those based on Kolmogorov complexity and Solomonoff's algorithmic probability. Likewise, most previous approaches (especially those of the "Bayesian" kind) suffer from the problem of choosing appropriate priors. This paper addresses both issues. It first reviews some basic concepts of algorithmic complexity theory relevant to machine learning, and how the Solomonoff-Levin distribution (or universal prior) deals with the prior problem. The universal prior leads to a probabilistic method for finding "algorithmically simple" problem solutions with high generalization capability. The method is based on Levin complexity (a time-bounded generalization of Kolmogorov complexity) and inspired by Levin's optimal universal search algorithm. For a given problem, solution candidates are computed by efficient "self-sizing" programs that influence their own runtime and storage size. The probabilistic search algorithm finds the "good" programs (the ones quickly computing algorithmically probable solutions fitting the training data). Simulations focus on the task of discovering "algorithmically simple" neural networks with low Kolmogorov complexity and high generalization capability. It is demonstrated that the method, at least with certain toy problems where it is computationally feasible, can lead to generalization results unmatchable by previous neural net algorithms. Much remains do be done, however, to make large scale applications and "incremental learning" feasible. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #75694. 	[Title] Machine Learning,  Shifting Inductive Bias with Success-Story Algorithm, Adaptive Levin Search, and Incremental Self-Improvement [Abstract] We study task sequences that allow for speeding up the learner's average reward intake through appropriate shifts of inductive bias (changes of the learner's policy). To evaluate long-term effects of bias shifts setting the stage for later bias shifts we use the "success-story algorithm" (SSA). SSA is occasionally called at times that may depend on the policy itself. It uses backtracking to undo those bias shifts that have not been empirically observed to trigger long-term reward accelerations (measured up until the current SSA call). Bias shifts that survive SSA represent a lifelong success history. Until the next SSA call, they are considered useful and build the basis for additional bias shifts. SSA allows for plugging in a wide variety of learning algorithms. We plug in (1) a novel, adaptive extension of Levin search and (2) a method for embedding the learner's policy modification strategy within the policy itself (incremental self-improvement). Our inductive transfer case studies involve complex, partially observable environments where traditional reinforcement learning fails. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #75693 has the title `REINFORCEMENT LEARNING WITH SELF-MODIFYING POLICIES  
` and the abstract `A learner's modifiable components are called its policy. An algorithm that modifies the policy is a learning algorithm. If the learning algorithm has modifiable components represented as part of the policy, then we speak of a self-modifying policy (SMP). SMPs can modify the way they modify themselves etc. They are of interest in situations where the initial learning algorithm itself can be improved by experience | this is what we call "learning to learn". How can we force some (stochastic) SMP to trigger better and better self-modifications? The success-story algorithm (SSA) addresses this question in a lifelong reinforcement learning context. During the learner's life-time, SSA is occasionally called at times computed according to SMP itself. SSA uses backtracking to undo those SMP-generated SMP-modifications that have not been empirically observed to trigger lifelong reward accelerations (measured up until the current SSA call | this evaluates the long-term effects of SMP-modifications setting the stage for later SMP-modifications). SMP-modifications that survive SSA represent a lifelong success history. Until the next SSA call, they build the basis for additional SMP-modifications. Solely by self-modifications our SMP/SSA-based learners solve a complex task in a partially observable environment (POE) whose state space is far bigger than most reported in the POE literature. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #75693 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #75693 has the title `REINFORCEMENT LEARNING WITH SELF-MODIFYING POLICIES  
` and the abstract `A learner's modifiable components are called its policy. An algorithm that modifies the policy is a learning algorithm. If the learning algorithm has modifiable components represented as part of the policy, then we speak of a self-modifying policy (SMP). SMPs can modify the way they modify themselves etc. They are of interest in situations where the initial learning algorithm itself can be improved by experience | this is what we call "learning to learn". How can we force some (stochastic) SMP to trigger better and better self-modifications? The success-story algorithm (SSA) addresses this question in a lifelong reinforcement learning context. During the learner's life-time, SSA is occasionally called at times computed according to SMP itself. SSA uses backtracking to undo those SMP-generated SMP-modifications that have not been empirically observed to trigger lifelong reward accelerations (measured up until the current SSA call | this evaluates the long-term effects of SMP-modifications setting the stage for later SMP-modifications). SMP-modifications that survive SSA represent a lifelong success history. Until the next SSA call, they build the basis for additional SMP-modifications. Solely by self-modifications our SMP/SSA-based learners solve a complex task in a partially observable environment (POE) whose state space is far bigger than most reported in the POE literature. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #75693 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: Reinforcement_Learning