Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #34979. 	[Title] Apple Tasting and Nearly One-Sided Learning [Abstract] In the standard on-line model the learning algorithm tries to minimize the total number of mistakes made in a series of trials. On each trial the learner sees an instance, either accepts or rejects that instance, and then is told the appropriate response. We define a natural variant of this model ("apple tasting") where the learner gets feedback only when the instance is accepted. We use two transformations to relate the apple tasting model to an enhanced standard model where false acceptances are counted separately from false rejections. We present a strategy for trading between false acceptances and false rejections in the standard model. From one perspective this strategy is exactly optimal, including constants. We apply our results to obtain a good general purpose apple tasting algorithm as well as nearly optimal apple tasting algorithms for a variety of standard classes, such as conjunctions and disjunctions of n boolean variables. We also present and analyze a simpler transformation useful when the instances are drawn at random rather than selected by an adversary. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #27203. 	[Title] The Power of Self-Directed Learning [Abstract] This paper studies self-directed learning, a variant of the on-line learning model in which the learner selects the presentation order for the instances. We give tight bounds on the complexity of self-directed learning for the concept classes of monomials, k-term DNF formulas, and orthogonal rectangles in f0; 1; ; n1g d . These results demonstrate that the number of mistakes under self-directed learning can be surprisingly small. We then prove that the model of self-directed learning is more powerful than all other commonly used on-line and query learning models. Next we explore the relationship between the complexity of self-directed learning and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. Finally, we explore a relationship between Mitchell's version space algorithm and the existence of self-directed learning algorithms that make few mistakes. fl Supported in part by a GE Foundation Junior Faculty Grant and NSF Grant CCR-9110108. Part of this research was conducted while the author was at the M.I.T. Laboratory for Computer Science and supported by NSF grant DCR-8607494 and a grant from the Siemens Corporation. Net address: sg@cs.wustl.edu. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #15429. 	[Title] A General Lower Bound on the Number of Examples Needed for Learning [Abstract] We prove a lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ) on the number of random examples required for distribution-free learning of a concept class C, where VCdim(C) is the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension and * and ffi are the accuracy and confidence parameters. This improves the previous best lower bound of ( 1 * ln 1 ffi + VCdim(C)), and comes close to the known general upper bound of O( 1 ffi + VCdim(C) * ln 1 * ) for consistent algorithms. We show that for many interesting concept classes, including kCNF and kDNF, our bound is actually tight to within a constant factor. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1104007. 	[Title] Sequential PAC Learning [Abstract] We consider the use of "on-line" stopping rules to reduce the number of training examples needed to pac-learn. Rather than collect a large training sample that can be proved sufficient to eliminate all bad hypotheses a priori, the idea is instead to observe training examples one-at-a-time and decide "on-line" whether to stop and return a hypothesis, or continue training. The primary benefit of this approach is that we can detect when a hypothesizer has actually "converged," and halt training before the standard fixed-sample-size bounds. This paper presents a series of such sequential learning procedures for: distribution-free pac-learning, "mistake-bounded to pac" conversion, and distribution-specific pac-learning, respectively. We analyze the worst case expected training sample size of these procedures, and show that this is often smaller than existing fixed sample size bounds | while providing the exact same worst case pac-guarantees. We also provide lower bounds that show these reductions can at best involve constant (and possibly log) factors. However, empirical studies show that these sequential learning procedures actually use many times fewer training examples in prac tice. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1106418. 	[Title] Online Learning versus O*ine Learning [Abstract] We present an off-line variant of the mistake-bound model of learning. Just like in the well studied on-line model, a learner in the offline model has to learn an unknown concept from a sequence of elements of the instance space on which he makes "guess and test" trials. In both models, the aim of the learner is to make as few mistakes as possible. The difference between the models is that, while in the on-line model only the set of possible elements is known, in the off-line model the sequence of elements (i.e., the identity of the elements as well as the order in which they are to be presented) is known to the learner in advance. We give a combinatorial characterization of the number of mistakes in the off-line model. We apply this characterization to solve several natural questions that arise for the new model. First, we compare the mistake bounds of an off-line learner to those of a learner learning the same concept classes in the on-line scenario. We show that the number of mistakes in the on-line learning is at most a log n factor more than the off-line learning, where n is the length of the sequence. In addition, we show that if there is an off-line algorithm that does not make more than a constant number of mistakes for each sequence then there is an online algorithm that also does not make more than a constant number of mistakes. The second issue we address is the effect of the ordering of the elements on the number of mistakes of an off-line learner. It turns out that there are sequences on which an off-line learner can guarantee at most one mistake, yet a permutation of the same sequence forces him to err on many elements. We prove, however, that the gap, between the off-line mistake bounds on permutations of the same sequence of n-many elements, cannot be larger than a multiplicative factor of log n, and we present examples that obtain such a gap. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #86258. 	[Title] The Weighted Majority Algorithm [Abstract] fl This research was primarily conducted while this author was at the University of Calif. at Santa Cruz with support from ONR grant N00014-86-K-0454, and at Harvard University, supported by ONR grant N00014-85-K-0445 and DARPA grant AFOSR-89-0506. Current address: NEC Research Institute, 4 Independence Way, Princeton, NJ 08540. E-mail address: nickl@research.nj.nec.com. y Supported by ONR grants N00014-86-K-0454 and N00014-91-J-1162. Part of this research was done while this author was on sabbatical at Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard, with partial support from the ONR grants N00014-85-K-0445 and N00014-86-K-0454. Address: Department of Computer Science, University of California at Santa Cruz. E-mail address: manfred@cs.ucsc.edu. 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 #12350. 	[Title] Cryptographic Limitations on Learning Boolean Formulae and Finite Automata [Abstract] In this paper we prove the intractability of learning several classes of Boolean functions in the distribution-free model (also called the Probably Approximately Correct or PAC model) of learning from examples. These results are representation independent, in that they hold regardless of the syntactic form in which the learner chooses to represent its hypotheses. Our methods reduce the problems of cracking a number of well-known public-key cryptosys- tems to the learning problems. We prove that a polynomial-time learning algorithm for Boolean formulae, deterministic finite automata or constant-depth threshold circuits would have dramatic consequences for cryptography and number theory: in particular, such an algorithm could be used to break the RSA cryptosystem, factor Blum integers (composite numbers equivalent to 3 modulo 4), and detect quadratic residues. The results hold even if the learning algorithm is only required to obtain a slight advantage in prediction over random guessing. The techniques used demonstrate an interesting duality between learning and cryptography. We also apply our results to obtain strong intractability results for approximating a gener - alization of graph coloring. fl This research was conducted while the author was at Harvard University and supported by an A.T.& T. Bell Laboratories scholarship. y Supported by grants ONR-N00014-85-K-0445, NSF-DCR-8606366 and NSF-CCR-89-02500, DAAL03-86-K-0171, DARPA AFOSR 89-0506, and by SERC. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1246. 	[Title] DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF EFFICIENT REINFORCEMENT LEARNING ALGORITHMS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #13982. 	[Title] On-line Learning with Linear Loss Constraints [Abstract] We consider a generalization of the mistake-bound model (for learning f0; 1g-valued functions) in which the learner must satisfy a general constraint on the number M + of incorrect 1 predictions and the number M of incorrect 0 predictions. We describe a general-purpose optimal algorithm for our formulation of this problem. We describe several applications of our general results, involving situations in which the learner wishes to satisfy linear inequalities in M + and M . Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #34979 has the title `Apple Tasting and Nearly One-Sided Learning  
` and the abstract `In the standard on-line model the learning algorithm tries to minimize the total number of mistakes made in a series of trials. On each trial the learner sees an instance, either accepts or rejects that instance, and then is told the appropriate response. We define a natural variant of this model ("apple tasting") where the learner gets feedback only when the instance is accepted. We use two transformations to relate the apple tasting model to an enhanced standard model where false acceptances are counted separately from false rejections. We present a strategy for trading between false acceptances and false rejections in the standard model. From one perspective this strategy is exactly optimal, including constants. We apply our results to obtain a good general purpose apple tasting algorithm as well as nearly optimal apple tasting algorithms for a variety of standard classes, such as conjunctions and disjunctions of n boolean variables. We also present and analyze a simpler transformation useful when the instances are drawn at random rather than selected by an adversary. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #34979 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #34979 has the title `Apple Tasting and Nearly One-Sided Learning  
` and the abstract `In the standard on-line model the learning algorithm tries to minimize the total number of mistakes made in a series of trials. On each trial the learner sees an instance, either accepts or rejects that instance, and then is told the appropriate response. We define a natural variant of this model ("apple tasting") where the learner gets feedback only when the instance is accepted. We use two transformations to relate the apple tasting model to an enhanced standard model where false acceptances are counted separately from false rejections. We present a strategy for trading between false acceptances and false rejections in the standard model. From one perspective this strategy is exactly optimal, including constants. We apply our results to obtain a good general purpose apple tasting algorithm as well as nearly optimal apple tasting algorithms for a variety of standard classes, such as conjunctions and disjunctions of n boolean variables. We also present and analyze a simpler transformation useful when the instances are drawn at random rather than selected by an adversary. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #34979 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