Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1104258. 	[Title] Regression with Input-dependent Noise: A Gaussian Process Treatment [Abstract] Technical Report NCRG/98/002, available from http://www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/ To appear in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 10 eds. M. I. Jordan, M. J. Kearns and S. A. Solla. Lawrence Erlbaum (1998). Abstract Gaussian processes provide natural non-parametric prior distributions over regression functions. In this paper we consider regression problems where there is noise on the output, and the variance of the noise depends on the inputs. If we assume that the noise is a smooth function of the inputs, then it is natural to model the noise variance using a second Gaussian process, in addition to the Gaussian process governing the noise-free output value. We show that prior uncertainty about the parameters controlling both processes can be handled and that the posterior distribution of the noise rate can be sampled from using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Our results on a synthetic data set give a posterior noise variance that well-approximates the true variance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #131042. 	[Title] Efficient Implementation of Gaussian Processes [Abstract] Neural networks and Bayesian inference provide a useful framework within which to solve regression problems. However their parameterization means that the Bayesian analysis of neural networks can be difficult. In this paper, we investigate a method for regression using Gaussian process priors which allows exact Bayesian analysis using matrix manipulations. We discuss the workings of the method in detail. We will also detail a range of mathematical and numerical techniques that are useful in applying Gaussian processes to general problems including efficient approximate matrix inversion methods developed by Skilling. 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 #34315. 	[Title] Gaussian Processes for Bayesian Classification via Hybrid Monte Carlo [Abstract] The full Bayesian method for applying neural networks to a prediction problem is to set up the prior/hyperprior structure for the net and then perform the necessary integrals. However, these integrals are not tractable analytically, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are slow, especially if the parameter space is high-dimensional. Using Gaussian processes we can approximate the weight space integral analytically, so that only a small number of hyperparameters need be integrated over by MCMC methods. We have applied this idea to classification problems, obtaining ex cellent results on the real-world problems investigated so far. 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 #24974. 	[Title] EVALUATION OF GAUSSIAN PROCESSES AND OTHER METHODS FOR NON-LINEAR REGRESSION [Abstract]  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 #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.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1112723. 	[Title] Interpolation Models with Multiple [Abstract] A traditional interpolation model is characterized by the choice of reg-ularizer applied to the interpolant, and the choice of noise model. Typically, the regularizer has a single regularization constant ff, and the noise model has a single parameter fi. The ratio ff=fi alone is responsible for determining globally all these attributes of the interpolant: its `complexity', `flexibility', `smoothness', `characteristic scale length', and `characteristic amplitude'. We suggest that interpolation models should be able to capture more than just one flavour of simplicity and complexity. We describe Bayesian models in which the interpolant has a smoothness that varies spatially. We emphasize the importance, in practical implementation, of the concept of `conditional convexity' when designing models with many hyperparameters. We apply the new models to the interpolation of neuronal spike data and demonstrate a substantial improvement in generalization error. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6771. 	[Title] Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms [Abstract] This paper reviews five statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms another on a particular learning task. These tests are compared experimentally to determine their probability of incorrectly detecting a difference when no difference exists (type 1 error). Two widely-used statistical tests are shown to have high probability of Type I error in certain situations and should never be used. These tests are (a) a test for the difference of two proportions and (b) a paired-differences t test based on taking several random train/test splits. A third test, a paired-differences t test based on 10-fold cross-validation, exhibits somewhat elevated probability of Type I error. A fourth test, McNemar's test, is shown to have low Type I error. The fifth test is a new test, 5x2cv, based on 5 iterations of 2-fold cross-validation. Experiments show that this test also has good Type I error. The paper also measures the power (ability to detect algorithm differences when they do exist) of these tests. The 5x2cv test is shown to be slightly more powerful than McNemar's test. The choice of the best test is determined by the computational cost of running the learning algorithm. For algorithms that can be executed only once, McNemar's test is the only test with acceptable Type I error. For algorithms that can be executed ten times, the 5x2cv test is recommended, because it is slightly more powerful and because it directly measures variation due to the choice of training set. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #145176. 	[Title] Bayesian Non-linear Modelling for the Prediction Competition [Abstract] The 1993 energy prediction competition involved the prediction of a series of building energy loads from a series of environmental input variables. Non-linear regression using `neural networks' is a popular technique for such modeling tasks. Since it is not obvious how large a time-window of inputs is appropriate, or what preprocessing of inputs is best, this can be viewed as a regression problem in which there are many possible input variables, some of which may actually be irrelevant to the prediction of the output variable. Because a finite data set will show random correlations between the irrelevant inputs and the output, any conventional neural network (even with reg-ularisation or `weight decay') will not set the coefficients for these junk inputs to zero. Thus the irrelevant variables will hurt the model's performance. The Automatic Relevance Determination (ARD) model puts a prior over the regression parameters which embodies the concept of relevance. This is done in a simple and `soft' way by introducing multiple regularisation constants, one associated with each input. Using Bayesian methods, the regularisation constants for junk inputs are automatically inferred to be large, preventing those inputs from causing significant overfitting. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #141596. 	[Title] Variational Gaussian Process Classifiers [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #40125. 	[Title] Monte Carlo Implementation of Gaussian Process Models for Bayesian Regression and Classification [Abstract] Technical Report No. 9702, Department of Statistics, University of Toronto Abstract. Gaussian processes are a natural way of defining prior distributions over functions of one or more input variables. In a simple nonparametric regression problem, where such a function gives the mean of a Gaussian distribution for an observed response, a Gaussian process model can easily be implemented using matrix computations that are feasible for datasets of up to about a thousand cases. Hyperparameters that define the covariance function of the Gaussian process can be sampled using Markov chain methods. Regression models where the noise has a t distribution and logistic or probit models for classification applications can be implemented by sampling as well for latent values underlying the observations. Software is now available that implements these methods using covariance functions with hierarchical parameterizations. Models defined in this way can discover high-level properties of the data, such as which inputs are relevant to predicting the response. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1104258 has the title `Regression with Input-dependent Noise: A Gaussian Process Treatment  
` and the abstract `Technical Report NCRG/98/002, available from http://www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/ To appear in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 10 eds. M. I. Jordan, M. J. Kearns and S. A. Solla. Lawrence Erlbaum (1998). Abstract Gaussian processes provide natural non-parametric prior distributions over regression functions. In this paper we consider regression problems where there is noise on the output, and the variance of the noise depends on the inputs. If we assume that the noise is a smooth function of the inputs, then it is natural to model the noise variance using a second Gaussian process, in addition to the Gaussian process governing the noise-free output value. We show that prior uncertainty about the parameters controlling both processes can be handled and that the posterior distribution of the noise rate can be sampled from using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Our results on a synthetic data set give a posterior noise variance that well-approximates the true variance.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1104258 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1104258 has the title `Regression with Input-dependent Noise: A Gaussian Process Treatment  
` and the abstract `Technical Report NCRG/98/002, available from http://www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/ To appear in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 10 eds. M. I. Jordan, M. J. Kearns and S. A. Solla. Lawrence Erlbaum (1998). Abstract Gaussian processes provide natural non-parametric prior distributions over regression functions. In this paper we consider regression problems where there is noise on the output, and the variance of the noise depends on the inputs. If we assume that the noise is a smooth function of the inputs, then it is natural to model the noise variance using a second Gaussian process, in addition to the Gaussian process governing the noise-free output value. We show that prior uncertainty about the parameters controlling both processes can be handled and that the posterior distribution of the noise rate can be sampled from using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Our results on a synthetic data set give a posterior noise variance that well-approximates the true variance.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1104258 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: Neural_Networks