Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28249. 	[Title] Truncating Temporal Differences: On the Efficient Implementation of TD() for Reinforcement Learning [Abstract] Temporal difference (TD) methods constitute a class of methods for learning predictions in multi-step prediction problems, parameterized by a recency factor . Currently the most important application of these methods is to temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning. Well known reinforcement learning algorithms, such as AHC or Q-learning, may be viewed as instances of TD learning. This paper examines the issues of the efficient and general implementation of TD() for arbitrary , for use with reinforcement learning algorithms optimizing the discounted sum of rewards. The traditional approach, based on eligibility traces, is argued to suffer from both inefficiency and lack of generality. The TTD (Truncated Temporal Differences) procedure is proposed as an alternative, that indeed only approximates TD(), but requires very little computation per action and can be used with arbitrary function representation methods. The idea from which it is derived is fairly simple and not new, but probably unexplored so far. Encouraging experimental results are presented, suggesting that using &gt; 0 with the TTD procedure allows one to obtain a significant learning speedup at essentially the same cost as usual TD(0) learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6213. 	[Title] Machine Learning Learning to Predict by the Methods of Temporal Differences Keywords: Incremental learning, prediction, [Abstract] This article introduces a class of incremental learning procedures specialized for prediction|that is, for using past experience with an incompletely known system to predict its future behavior. Whereas conventional prediction-learning methods assign credit by means of the difference between predicted and actual outcomes, the new methods assign credit by means of the difference between temporally successive predictions. Although such temporal-difference methods have been used in Samuel's checker player, Holland's bucket brigade, and the author's Adaptive Heuristic Critic, they have remained poorly understood. Here we prove their convergence and optimality for special cases and relate them to supervised-learning methods. For most real-world prediction problems, temporal-difference methods require less memory and less peak computation than conventional methods; and they produce more accurate predictions. We argue that most problems to which supervised learning is currently applied are really prediction problems of the sort to which temporal-difference methods can be applied to advantage. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1129096. 	[Title] AVERAGED REWARD REINFORCEMENT LEARNING APPLIED TO FUZZY RULE TUNING [Abstract] Fuzzy rules for control can be effectively tuned via reinforcement learning. Reinforcement learning is a weak learning method, which only requires information on the success or failure of the control application. The tuning process allows people to generate fuzzy rules which are unable to accurately perform control and have them tuned to be rules which provide smooth control. This paper explores a new simplified method of using reinforcement learning for the tuning of fuzzy control rules. It is shown that the learned fuzzy rules provide smoother control in the pole balancing domain than another approach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4584. 	[Title] References elements that can solve difficult learning control problems. on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pages [Abstract] Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2):81-97. Schmidhuber, J. (1990b). Towards compositional learning with dynamic neural networks. Technical Report FKI-129-90, Technische Universitat Munchen, Institut fu Informatik. Servan-Schreiber, D., Cleermans, A., and McClelland, J. (1988). Encoding sequential structure in simple recurrent networks. Technical Report CMU-CS-88-183, Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science Department. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6216. 	[Title] Generalization in Reinforcement Learning: Successful Examples Using Sparse Coarse Coding [Abstract] On large problems, reinforcement learning systems must use parameterized function approximators such as neural networks in order to generalize between similar situations and actions. In these cases there are no strong theoretical results on the accuracy of convergence, and computational results have been mixed. In particular, Boyan and Moore reported at last year's meeting a series of negative results in attempting to apply dynamic programming together with function approximation to simple control problems with continuous state spaces. In this paper, we present positive results for all the control tasks they attempted, and for one that is significantly larger. The most important differences are that we used sparse-coarse-coded function approximators (CMACs) whereas they used mostly global function approximators, and that we learned online whereas they learned o*ine. Boyan and Moore and others have suggested that the problems they encountered could be solved by using actual outcomes ("rollouts"), as in classical Monte Carlo methods, and as in the TD() algorithm when = 1. However, in our experiments this always resulted in substantially poorer performance. We conclude that reinforcement learning can work robustly in conjunction with function approximators, and that there is little justification at present for avoiding the case of general . Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1116347. 	[Title] Fast Online Q() [Abstract] Q()-learning uses TD()-methods to accelerate Q-learning. The update complexity of previous online Q() implementations based on lookup-tables is bounded by the size of the state/action space. Our faster algorithm's update complexity is bounded by the number of actions. The method is based on the observation that Q-value updates may be postponed until they are needed. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1365. 	[Title] Cholinergic suppression of transmission may allow combined associative memory function and self-organization in the neocortex. [Abstract] Selective suppression of transmission at feedback synapses during learning is proposed as a mechanism for combining associative feedback with self-organization of feedforward synapses. Experimental data demonstrates cholinergic suppression of synaptic transmission in layer I (feedback synapses), and a lack of suppression in layer IV (feed-forward synapses). A network with this feature uses local rules to learn mappings which are not linearly separable. During learning, sensory stimuli and desired response are simultaneously presented as input. Feedforward connections form self-organized representations of input, while suppressed feedback connections learn the transpose of feedfor-ward connectivity. During recall, suppression is removed, sensory input activates the self-organized representation, and activity generates the learned response. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #628667. 	[Title] Generalizing in TD() learning [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #628668. 	[Title] Towards a Reactive Critic [Abstract] In this paper we propose a reactive critic, that is able to respond to changing situations. We will explain why this is usefull in reinforcement learning, where the critic is used to improve the control strategy. We take a problem for which we can derive the solution analytically. This enables us to investigate the relation between the parameters and the resulting approximations of the critic. We will also demonstrate how the reactive critic reponds to changing situations. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28350. 	[Title] On the Convergence of Stochastic Iterative Dynamic Programming Algorithms [Abstract] Recent developments in the area of reinforcement learning have yielded a number of new algorithms for the prediction and control of Markovian environments. These algorithms, including the TD() algorithm of Sutton (1988) and the Q-learning algorithm of Watkins (1989), can be motivated heuristically as approximations to dynamic programming (DP). In this paper we provide a rigorous proof of convergence of these DP-based learning algorithms by relating them to the powerful techniques of stochastic approximation theory via a new convergence theorem. The theorem establishes a general class of convergent algorithms to which both TD() and Q-learning belong. This report describes research done at the Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, the Center for Biological and Computational Learning, and the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for CBCL is provided in part by a grant from the NSF (ASC-9217041). Support for the laboratory's artificial intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Dept. of Defense. The authors were supported by a grant from the McDonnell-Pew Foundation, by a grant from ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, by a grant from Siemens Corporation, by by grant IRI-9013991 from the National Science Foundation, by grant N00014-90-J-1942 from the Office of Naval Research, and by NSF grant ECS-9216531 to support an Initiative in Intelligent Control at MIT. Michael I. Jordan is a NSF Presidential Young Investigator. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #28249 has the title `Truncating Temporal Differences: On the Efficient Implementation of TD() for Reinforcement Learning  
` and the abstract `Temporal difference (TD) methods constitute a class of methods for learning predictions in multi-step prediction problems, parameterized by a recency factor . Currently the most important application of these methods is to temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning. Well known reinforcement learning algorithms, such as AHC or Q-learning, may be viewed as instances of TD learning. This paper examines the issues of the efficient and general implementation of TD() for arbitrary , for use with reinforcement learning algorithms optimizing the discounted sum of rewards. The traditional approach, based on eligibility traces, is argued to suffer from both inefficiency and lack of generality. The TTD (Truncated Temporal Differences) procedure is proposed as an alternative, that indeed only approximates TD(), but requires very little computation per action and can be used with arbitrary function representation methods. The idea from which it is derived is fairly simple and not new, but probably unexplored so far. Encouraging experimental results are presented, suggesting that using &gt; 0 with the TTD procedure allows one to obtain a significant learning speedup at essentially the same cost as usual TD(0) learning.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #28249 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #28249 has the title `Truncating Temporal Differences: On the Efficient Implementation of TD() for Reinforcement Learning  
` and the abstract `Temporal difference (TD) methods constitute a class of methods for learning predictions in multi-step prediction problems, parameterized by a recency factor . Currently the most important application of these methods is to temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning. Well known reinforcement learning algorithms, such as AHC or Q-learning, may be viewed as instances of TD learning. This paper examines the issues of the efficient and general implementation of TD() for arbitrary , for use with reinforcement learning algorithms optimizing the discounted sum of rewards. The traditional approach, based on eligibility traces, is argued to suffer from both inefficiency and lack of generality. The TTD (Truncated Temporal Differences) procedure is proposed as an alternative, that indeed only approximates TD(), but requires very little computation per action and can be used with arbitrary function representation methods. The idea from which it is derived is fairly simple and not new, but probably unexplored so far. Encouraging experimental results are presented, suggesting that using &gt; 0 with the TTD procedure allows one to obtain a significant learning speedup at essentially the same cost as usual TD(0) learning.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #28249 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