Many real world patterns have a hierarchical underlying structure in which simple features have a higher order structure among themselves. Because these relationships are often statistical in nature, it is natural to view the process of discovering such structures as a statistical inference problem in which a hierarchical model is fit to data. Hierarchical statistical structure can be conveniently represented with Bayesian belief networks (Pearl, 1988; Lauritzen and Spiegelhalter, 1988; Neal, 1992). These 530 M.S. Lewicki and T. 1. Sejnowski models are powerful, because they can capture complex statistical relationships among the data variables, and also mathematically convenient, because they allow efficient computation of the joint probability for any given set of model parameters. The joint probability density of a network of binary states is given by a product of conditional probabilities (1) where W is the weight matrix that parameterizes the model. Note that the probability ofan individual state Si depends only on its parents.

A modification is described to the use of mean field approximations inthe E step of EM algorithms for analysing data from latent structure models, as described by Ghahramani (1995), among others. Themodification involves second-order Taylor approximations to expectations computed in the E step. The potential benefits of the method are illustrated using very simple latent profile models. 1 Introduction Ghahramani (1995) advocated the use of mean field methods as a means to avoid the heavy computation involved in the E step of the EM algorithm used for estimating parameters within a certain latent structure model, and Ghahramani & Jordan (1995) used the same ideas in a more complex situation. Dunmur & Titterington (1996a) identified Ghahramani's model as a so-called latent profile model, they observed that Zhang (1992,1993) had used mean field methods for a similar purpose, and they showed, in a simulation study based on very simple examples, that the mean field version of the EM algorithm often performed very respectably. By this it is meant that, when data were generated from the model under analysis, the estimators of the underlying parameters were efficient, judging by empirical results, especially in comparison with estimators obtained by employing the'correct' EM algorithm: the examples therefore had to be simple enough that the correct EM algorithm is numerically feasible, although any success reported for the mean field 432 A. P. Dunmur and D. M. Titterington version is, one hopes, an indication that the method will also be adequate in more complex situations in which the correct EM algorithm is not implementable because of computational complexity. In spite of the above positive remarks, there were circumstances in which there was a perceptible, if not dramatic, lack of efficiency in the simple (naive) mean field estimators, and the objective of this contribution is to propose and investigate ways of refining the method so as to improve performance without detracting from the appealing, and frequently essential, simplicity of the approach. The procedure used here is based on a second order correction to the naive mean field well known in statistical physics and sometimes called the cavity or TAP method (Mezard, Parisi & Virasoro, 1987). It has been applied recently in cluster analysis (Hofmann & Buhmann, 1996). In Section 2 we introduce the structure of our model, Section 3 explains the refined mean field approach, Section 4 provides numerical results, and Section 5 contains a statement of our conclusions.

The classes in classification tasks often have a natural ordering, and the training and testing examples are often incomplete. We propose a nonlinear ordinalmodel for classification into ordered classes. Predictive, simulation-based approaches are used to learn from past and classify future incompleteexamples. These techniques are illustrated by making prognoses for patients who have suffered severe head injuries.

Machine-learning research has been making great progress in many directions. This article summarizes four of these directions and discusses some current open problems. The four directions are (1) the improvement of classification accuracy by learning ensembles of classifiers, (2) methods for scaling up supervised learning algorithms, (3) reinforcement learning, and (4) the learning of complex stochastic models.

In recent years, there has been a flurry of research into empirical, corpus-based learning approaches to natural language processing (NLP). Most empirical NLP work to date has focused on relatively low-level language processing such as part-of-speech tagging, text segmentation, and syntactic parsing. The success of these approaches has stimulated research in using empirical learning techniques in other facets of NLP, including semantic analysis -- uncovering the meaning of an utterance. This article is an introduction to some of the emerging research in the application of corpus-based learning techniques to problems in semantic interpretation. In particular, we focus on two important problems in semantic interpretation, namely, word-sense disambiguation and semantic parsing.

Does machine learning really work? Yes. Over the past decade, machine learning has evolved from a field of laboratory demonstrations to a field of significant commercial value. Machine-learning algorithms have now learned to detect credit card fraud by mining data on past transactions, learned to steer vehicles driving autonomously on public highways at 70 miles an hour, and learned the reading interests of many individuals to assemble personally customized electronic newsAbstracts. A new computational theory of learning is beginning to shed light on fundamental issues, such as the trade-off among the number of training examples available, the number of hypotheses considered, and the likely accuracy of the learned hypothesis. Newer research is beginning to explore issues such as long-term learning of new representations, the integration of Bayesian inference and induction, and life-long cumulative learning. This article, based on the keynote talk presented at the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, samples a number of recent accomplishments in machine learning and looks at where the field might be headed. [Copyright restrictions preclude electronic publication of this article.]

We describe a new paradigm for implementing inference in belief networks, which consists of two steps: (1) compiling a belief network into an arithmetic expression called a Query DAG (Q-DAG); and (2) answering queries using a simple evaluation algorithm. Each node of a Q-DAG represents a numeric operation, a number, or a symbol for evidence. Each leaf node of a Q-DAG represents the answer to a network query, that is, the probability of some event of interest. It appears that Q-DAGs can be generated using any of the standard algorithms for exact inference in belief networks (we show how they can be generated using clustering and conditioning algorithms). The time and space complexity of a Q-DAG generation algorithm is no worse than the time complexity of the inference algorithm on which it is based. The complexity of a Q-DAG evaluation algorithm is linear in the size of the Q-DAG, and such inference amounts to a standard evaluation of the arithmetic expression it represents. The intended value of Q-DAGs is in reducing the software and hardware resources required to utilize belief networks in on-line, real-world applications. The proposed framework also facilitates the development of on-line inference on different software and hardware platforms due to the simplicity of the Q-DAG evaluation algorithm. Interestingly enough, Q-DAGs were found to serve other purposes: simple techniques for reducing Q-DAGs tend to subsume relatively complex optimization techniques for belief-network inference, such as network-pruning and computation-caching.

This article was reprinted with permission from "ACM Computing Surveys: 28(4): December 1996, 653-670. original is available from ACM.

Therefore, we want c to be less than 0.5. In order to get a 2:1 margin, we choose c 0.25. The classifier is trained only on individual partial characters instead of all possible combinations of partial characters. Therefore, we can specify the classifier using only 1523 constraints, instead of creating a training set of approximately 128,000 possible combinations of partial characters. Applying these constraints is therefore much faster than back-propagation on the entire data set.

In this setting, each pattern, represented as an n-dimensional feature vector, is associated with a discrete pattern class, or state of nature (Duda and Hart, 1973). Using available information, (e.g., a statistically representative set of labeled feature vectors