Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #13213. 	[Title] A GENERAL METHOD FOR INCREMENTAL SELF-IMPROVEMENT AND MULTI-AGENT LEARNING [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #411005. 	[Title] GUESSING CAN OUTPERFORM MANY LONG TIME LAG ALGORITHMS [Abstract] Numerous recent papers focus on standard recurrent nets' problems with long time lags between relevant signals. Some propose rather sophisticated, alternative methods. We show: many problems used to test previous methods can be solved more quickly by random weight guessing. 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 #1152143. 	[Title] Is Transfer Inductive? [Abstract] Work is currently underway to devise learning methods which are better able to transfer knowledge from one task to another. The process of knowledge transfer is usually viewed as logically separate from the inductive procedures of ordinary learning. However, this paper argues that this `seperatist' view leads to a number of conceptual difficulties. It offers a task analysis which situates the transfer process inside a generalised inductive protocol. It argues that transfer should be viewed as a subprocess within induction and not as an independent procedure for transporting knowledge between learning trials. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #19697. 	[Title] Keeping Neural Networks Simple by Minimizing the Description Length of the Weights [Abstract] Supervised neural networks generalize well if there is much less information in the weights than there is in the output vectors of the training cases. So during learning, it is important to keep the weights simple by penalizing the amount of information they contain. The amount of information in a weight can be controlled by adding Gaussian noise and the noise level can be adapted during learning to optimize the trade-off between the expected squared error of the network and the amount of information in the weights. We describe a method of computing the derivatives of the expected squared error and of the amount of information in the noisy weights in a network that contains a layer of non-linear hidden units. Provided the output units are linear, the exact derivatives can be computed efficiently without time-consuming Monte Carlo simulations. The idea of minimizing the amount of information that is required to communicate the weights of a neural network leads to a number of interesting schemes for encoding the weights. 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 #27510. 	[Title] Measuring the Difficulty of Specific Learning Problems [Abstract] Existing complexity measures from contemporary learning theory cannot be conveniently applied to specific learning problems (e.g., training sets). Moreover, they are typically non-generic, i.e., they necessitate making assumptions about the way in which the learner will operate. The lack of a satisfactory, generic complexity measure for learning problems poses difficulties for researchers in various areas; the present paper puts forward an idea which may help to alleviate these. It shows that supervised learning problems fall into two, generic, complexity classes only one of which is associated with computational tractability. By determining which class a particular problem belongs to, we can thus effectively evaluate its degree of generic difficulty. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #131318. 	[Title] FLAT MINIMA Neural Computation 9(1):1-42 (1997) [Abstract] We present a new algorithm for finding low complexity neural networks with high generalization capability. The algorithm searches for a "flat" minimum of the error function. A flat minimum is a large connected region in weight-space where the error remains approximately constant. An MDL-based, Bayesian argument suggests that flat minima correspond to "simple" networks and low expected overfitting. The argument is based on a Gibbs algorithm variant and a novel way of splitting generalization error into underfitting and overfitting error. Unlike many previous approaches, ours does not require Gaussian assumptions and does not depend on a "good" weight prior instead we have a prior over input/output functions, thus taking into account net architecture and training set. Although our algorithm requires the computation of second order derivatives, it has backprop's order of complexity. Automatically, it effectively prunes units, weights, and input lines. Various experiments with feedforward and recurrent nets are described. In an application to stock market prediction, flat minimum search outperforms (1) conventional backprop, (2) weight decay, (3) "optimal brain surgeon" / "optimal brain damage". We also provide pseudo code of the algorithm (omitted from the NC-version). Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #13208. 	[Title] ON LEARNING HOW TO LEARN LEARNING STRATEGIES [Abstract] This paper introduces the "incremental self-improvement paradigm". Unlike previous methods, incremental self-improvement encourages a reinforcement learning system to improve the way it learns, and to improve the way it improves the way it learns ..., without significant theoretical limitations | the system is able to "shift its inductive bias" in a universal way. Its major features are: (1) There is no explicit difference between "learning", "meta-learning", and other kinds of information processing. Using a Turing machine equivalent programming language, the system itself occasionally executes self-delimiting, initially highly random "self-modification programs" which modify the context-dependent probabilities of future action sequences (including future self-modification programs). (2) The system keeps only those probability modifications computed by "useful" self-modification programs: those which bring about more payoff (reward, reinforcement) per time than all previous self-modification programs. (3) The computation of payoff per time takes into account all the computation time required for learning | the entire system life is considered: boundaries between learning trials are ignored (if there are any). A particular implementation based on the novel paradigm is presented. It is designed to exploit what conventional digital machines are good at: fast storage addressing, arithmetic operations etc. Experiments illustrate the system's mode of operation. Keywords: Self-improvement, self-reference, introspection, machine-learning, reinforcement learning. Note: This is the revised and extended version of an earlier report from November 24, 1994. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27514. 	[Title] Statistical Biases in Backpropagation Learning  Keywords: Cognitive Science, Pattern recognition [Abstract] The paper investigates the statistical effects which may need to be exploited in supervised learning. It notes that these effects can be classified according to their conditionality and their order and proposes that learning algorithms will typically have some form of bias towards particular classes of effect. It presents the results of an empirical study of the statistical bias of backpropagation. The study involved applying the algorithm to a wide range of learning problems using a variety of different internal architectures. The results of the study revealed that backpropagation has a very specific bias in the general direction of statistical rather than relational effects. The paper shows how the existence of this bias effectively constitutes a weakness in the algorithm's ability to discount noise. 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.

Paper #13213 has the title `A GENERAL METHOD FOR INCREMENTAL SELF-IMPROVEMENT AND MULTI-AGENT LEARNING  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #13213 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #13213 has the title `A GENERAL METHOD FOR INCREMENTAL SELF-IMPROVEMENT AND MULTI-AGENT LEARNING  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #13213 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