Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #32260. 	[Title] On-Line Portfolio Selection Using Multiplicative Updates [Abstract] We present an on-line investment algorithm which achieves almost the same wealth as the best constant-rebalanced portfolio determined in hindsight from the actual market outcomes. The algorithm employs a multiplicative update rule derived using a framework introduced by Kivinen and Warmuth. Our algorithm is very simple to implement and requires only constant storage and computing time per stock in each trading period. We tested the performance of our algorithm on real stock data from the New York Stock Exchange accumulated during a 22-year period. On this data, our algorithm clearly outperforms the best single stock as well as Cover's universal portfolio selection algorithm. We also present results for the situation in which the investor has access to additional "side information." Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #62274. 	[Title] A Comparison of New and Old Algorithms for A Mixture Estimation Problem [Abstract] We investigate the problem of estimating the proportion vector which maximizes the likelihood of a given sample for a mixture of given densities. We adapt a framework developed for supervised learning and give simple derivations for many of the standard iterative algorithms like gradient projection and EM. In this framework, the distance between the new and old proportion vectors is used as a penalty term. The square distance leads to the gradient projection update, and the relative entropy to a new update which we call the exponentiated gradient update (EG ). Curiously, when a second order Taylor expansion of the relative entropy is used, we arrive at an update EM which, for = 1, gives the usual EM update. Experimentally, both the EM -update and the EG -update for &gt; 1 outperform the EM algorithm and its variants. We also prove a polynomial bound on the rate of convergence of the EG algorithm. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #50381. 	[Title] Training Algorithms for Hidden Markov Models Using Entropy Based Distance Functions [Abstract] We present new algorithms for parameter estimation of HMMs. By adapting a framework used for supervised learning, we construct iterative algorithms that maximize the likelihood of the observations while also attempting to stay close to the current estimated parameters. We use a bound on the relative entropy between the two HMMs as a distance measure between them. The result is new iterative training algorithms which are similar to the EM (Baum-Welch) algorithm for training HMMs. The proposed algorithms are composed of a step similar to the expectation step of Baum-Welch and a new update of the parameters which replaces the maximization (re-estimation) step. The algorithm takes only negligibly more time per iteration and an approximated version uses the same expectation step as Baum-Welch. We evaluate experimentally the new algorithms on synthetic and natural speech pronunciation data. For sparse models, i.e. models with relatively small number of non-zero parameters, the proposed algorithms require significantly fewer iterations. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #94713. 	[Title] Update rules for parameter estimation in Bayesian networks [Abstract] This paper re-examines the problem of parameter estimation in Bayesian networks with missing values and hidden variables from the perspective of recent work in on-line learning [12]. We provide a unified framework for parameter estimation that encompasses both on-line learning, where the model is continuously adapted to new data cases as they arrive, and the more traditional batch learning, where a pre-accumulated set of samples is used in a one-time model selection process. In the batch case, our framework encompasses both the gradient projection algorithm [2, 3] and the EM algorithm [14] for Bayesian networks. The framework also leads to new on-line and batch parameter update schemes, including a parameterized version of EM. We provide both empirical and theoretical results indicating that parameterized EM allows faster convergence to the maximum likelihood parame ters than does standard EM. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4335. 	[Title] A VIEW OF THE EM ALGORITHM THAT JUSTIFIES INCREMENTAL, SPARSE, AND OTHER VARIANTS [Abstract] The EM algorithm performs maximum likelihood estimation for data in which some variables are unobserved. We present a function that resembles negative free energy and show that the M step maximizes this function with respect to the model parameters and the E step maximizes it with respect to the distribution over the unobserved variables. From this perspective, it is easy to justify an incremental variant of the EM algorithm in which the distribution for only one of the unobserved variables is recalculated in each E step. This variant is shown empirically to give faster convergence in a mixture estimation problem. A variant of the algorithm that exploits sparse conditional distributions is also described, and a wide range of other variant algorithms are also seen to be possible. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #12182. 	[Title] How to Use Expert Advice (Extended Abstract) [Abstract] We analyze algorithms that predict a binary value by combining the predictions of several prediction strategies, called experts. Our analysis is for worst-case situations, i.e., we make no assumptions about the way the sequence of bits to be predicted is generated. We measure the performance of the algorithm by the difference between the expected number of mistakes it makes on the bit sequence and the expected number of mistakes made by the best expert on this sequence, where the expectation is taken with respect to the randomization in the predictions. We show that the minimum achievable difference is on the order of the square root of the number of mistakes of the best expert, and we give efficient algorithms that achieve this. Our upper and lower bounds have matching leading constants in most cases. We give implications of this result on the performance of batch learning algorithms in a PAC setting which improve on the best results currently known in this context. We also extend our analysis to the case in which log loss is used instead of the expected number of mistakes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28632. 	[Title] Universal Portfolios With and Without Transaction Costs [Abstract] A constant rebalanced portfolio is an investment strategy which keeps the same distribution of wealth among a set of stocks from period to period. Recently there has been work on on-line investment strategies that are competitive with the best constant rebalanced portfolio determined in hindsight (Cover, 1991; Helmbold et al., 1996; Cover and Ordentlich, 1996a; Cover and Ordentlich, 1996b; Ordentlich and Cover, 1996; Cover, 1996). For the universal algorithm of Cover (Cover, 1991), we provide a simple analysis which naturally extends to the case of a fixed percentage transaction cost (commission), answering a question raised in (Cover, 1991; Helmbold et al., 1996; Cover and Ordentlich, 1996a; Cover and Ordentlich, 1996b; Ordentlich and Cover, 1996; Cover, 1996). In addition, we present a simple randomized implementation that is significantly faster in practice. We conclude by explaining how these algorithms can be applied to other problems, such as combining the predictions of statistical language models, where the resulting guarantees are more striking. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #18777. 	[Title] A Tutorial on Learning With Bayesian Networks [Abstract] Technical Report MSR-TR-95-06 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28957. 	[Title] Operations for Learning with Graphical Models decomposition techniques and the demonstration that graphical models provide [Abstract] This paper is a multidisciplinary review of empirical, statistical learning from a graphical model perspective. Well-known examples of graphical models include Bayesian networks, directed graphs representing a Markov chain, and undirected networks representing a Markov field. These graphical models are extended to model data analysis and empirical learning using the notation of plates. Graphical operations for simplifying and manipulating a problem are provided including decomposition, differentiation, and the manipulation of probability models from the exponential family. Two standard algorithm schemas for learning are reviewed in a graphical framework: Gibbs sampling and the expectation maximization algorithm. Using these operations and schemas, some popular algorithms can be synthesized from their graphical specification. This includes versions of linear regression, techniques for feed-forward networks, and learning Gaussian and discrete Bayesian networks from data. The paper concludes by sketching some implications for data analysis and summarizing how some popular algorithms fall within the framework presented. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #32260 has the title `On-Line Portfolio Selection Using Multiplicative Updates  
` and the abstract `We present an on-line investment algorithm which achieves almost the same wealth as the best constant-rebalanced portfolio determined in hindsight from the actual market outcomes. The algorithm employs a multiplicative update rule derived using a framework introduced by Kivinen and Warmuth. Our algorithm is very simple to implement and requires only constant storage and computing time per stock in each trading period. We tested the performance of our algorithm on real stock data from the New York Stock Exchange accumulated during a 22-year period. On this data, our algorithm clearly outperforms the best single stock as well as Cover's universal portfolio selection algorithm. We also present results for the situation in which the investor has access to additional "side information." 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #32260 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #32260 has the title `On-Line Portfolio Selection Using Multiplicative Updates  
` and the abstract `We present an on-line investment algorithm which achieves almost the same wealth as the best constant-rebalanced portfolio determined in hindsight from the actual market outcomes. The algorithm employs a multiplicative update rule derived using a framework introduced by Kivinen and Warmuth. Our algorithm is very simple to implement and requires only constant storage and computing time per stock in each trading period. We tested the performance of our algorithm on real stock data from the New York Stock Exchange accumulated during a 22-year period. On this data, our algorithm clearly outperforms the best single stock as well as Cover's universal portfolio selection algorithm. We also present results for the situation in which the investor has access to additional "side information." 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #32260 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: Theory