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.

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.

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

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.

A practical method for Bayesian training of feed-forward neural networks using sophisticated Monte Carlo methods is presented and evaluated. In reasonably small amounts of computer time this approach outperforms other state-of-the-art methods on 5 datalimited tasks from real world domains.

We compare two regularization methods which can be used to improve the generalization capabilities of Gaussian mixture density estimates. The first method uses a Bayesian prior on the parameter space. We derive EM (Expectation Maximization) update rules which maximize the a posterior parameter probability. In the second approach we apply ensemble averaging to density estimation. This includes Breiman's "bagging", which recently has been found to produce impressive results for classification networks.

Sigmoid type belief networks, a class of probabilistic neural networks, provide a natural framework for compactly representing probabilistic information in a variety of unsupervised and supervised learning problems. Often the parameters used in these networks need to be learned from examples. Unfortunately, estimating the parameters via exact probabilistic calculations (i.e, the EMalgorithm) is intractable even for networks with fairly small numbers of hidden units. We propose to avoid the infeasibility of the E step by bounding likelihoods instead of computing them exactly. We introduce extended and complementary representations for these networks and show that the estimation of the network parameters can be made fast (reduced to quadratic optimization) by performing the estimation in either of the alternative domains.

The Bayesian analysis of neural networks is difficult because a simple prior over weights implies a complex prior distribution over functions. In this paper we investigate the use of Gaussian process priors over functions, which permit the predictive Bayesian analysis for fixed values of hyperparameters to be carried out exactly using matrix operations. Two methods, using optimization and averaging (via Hybrid Monte Carlo) over hyperparameters have been tested on a number of challenging problems and have produced excellent results. 1 INTRODUCTION In the Bayesian approach to neural networks a prior distribution over the weights induces a prior distribution over functions. This prior is combined with a noise model, which specifies the probability of observing the targets t given function values y, to yield a posterior over functions which can then be used for predictions. For neural networks the prior over functions has a complex form which means that implementations must either make approximations (e.g.