We derive an equation for temporal difference learning from statistical principles. Specifically, we start with the variational principle and then bootstrap to produce an updating rule for discounted state value estimates. The resulting equation is similar to the standard equation for temporal difference learning with eligibility traces, so called TD(lambda), however it lacks the parameter alpha that specifies the learning rate. In the place of this free parameter there is now an equation for the learning rate that is specific to each state transition. We experimentally test this new learning rule against TD(lambda) and find that it offers superior performance in various settings. Finally, we make some preliminary investigations into how to extend our new temporal difference algorithm to reinforcement learning. To do this we combine our update equation with both Watkins' Q(lambda) and Sarsa(lambda) and find that it again offers superior performance without a learning rate parameter.

While statistics focusses on hypothesis testing and on estimating (properties of) the true sampling distribution, in machine learning the performance of learning algorithms on future data is the primary issue. In this paper we bridge the gap with a general principle (PHI) that identifies hypotheses with best predictive performance. This includes predictive point and interval estimation, simple and composite hypothesis testing, (mixture) model selection, and others as special cases. For concrete instantiations we will recover well-known methods, variations thereof, and new ones. PHI nicely justifies, reconciles, and blends (a reparametrization invariant variation of) MAP, ML, MDL, and moment estimation. One particular feature of PHI is that it can genuinely deal with nested hypotheses.

Although the definition and measurement of intelligence is clearly of fundamental importance to the field of artificial intelligence, no general survey of definitions and tests of machine intelligence exists. Indeed few researchers are even aware of alternatives to the Turing test and its many derivatives. In this paper we fill this gap by providing a short survey of the many tests of machine intelligence that have been proposed.

A fundamental problem in artificial intelligence is that nobody really knows what intelligence is. The problem is especially acute when we need to consider artificial systems which are significantly different to humans. In this paper we approach this problem in the following way: We take a number of well known informal definitions of human intelligence that have been given by experts, and extract their essential features. These are then mathematically formalised to produce a general measure of intelligence for arbitrary machines. We believe that this equation formally captures the concept of machine intelligence in the broadest reasonable sense. We then show how this formal definition is related to the theory of universal optimal learning agents. Finally, we survey the many other tests and definitions of intelligence that have been proposed for machines.

The Bayesian framework is a well-studied and successful framework for inductive reasoning, which includes hypothesis testing and confirmation, parameter estimation, sequence prediction, classification, and regression. But standard statistical guidelines for choosing the model class and prior are not always available or fail, in particular in complex situations. Solomonoff completed the Bayesian framework by providing a rigorous, unique, formal, and universal choice for the model class and the prior. We discuss in breadth how and in which sense universal (non-i.i.d.) sequence prediction solves various (philosophical) problems of traditional Bayesian sequence prediction. We show that Solomonoff's model possesses many desirable properties: Strong total and weak instantaneous bounds, and in contrast to most classical continuous prior densities has no zero p(oste)rior problem, i.e. can confirm universal hypotheses, is reparametrization and regrouping invariant, and avoids the old-evidence and updating problem. It even performs well (actually better) in non-computable environments.

This paper is a survey of a large number of informal definitions of ``intelligence'' that the authors have collected over the years. Naturally, compiling a complete list would be impossible as many definitions of intelligence are buried deep inside articles and books. Nevertheless, the 70-odd definitions presented here are, to the authors' knowledge, the largest and most well referenced collection there is.

We introduce a new principle for model selection in regression and classification. Many regression models are controlled by some smoothness or flexibility or complexity parameter c, e.g. the number of neighbors to be averaged over in k nearest neighbor (kNN) regression or the polynomial degree in regression with polynomials. Let f_D^c be the (best) regressor of complexity c on data D. A more flexible regressor can fit more data D' well than a more rigid one. If something (here small loss) is easy to achieve it's typically worth less. We define the loss rank of f_D^c as the number of other (fictitious) data D' that are fitted better by f_D'^c than D is fitted by f_D^c. We suggest selecting the model complexity c that has minimal loss rank (LoRP). Unlike most penalized maximum likelihood variants (AIC,BIC,MDL), LoRP only depends on the regression function and loss function. It works without a stochastic noise model, and is directly applicable to any non-parametric regressor, like kNN. In this paper we formalize, discuss, and motivate LoRP, study it for specific regression problems, in particular linear ones, and compare it to other model selection schemes.

This paper is concerned with the reliable inference of optimal tree-approximations to the dependency structure of an unknown distribution generating data. The traditional approach to the problem measures the dependency strength between random variables by the index called mutual information. In this paper reliability is achieved by Walley's imprecise Dirichlet model, which generalizes Bayesian learning with Dirichlet priors. Adopting the imprecise Dirichlet model results in posterior interval expectation for mutual information, and in a set of plausible trees consistent with the data. Reliable inference about the actual tree is achieved by focusing on the substructure common to all the plausible trees. We develop an exact algorithm that infers the substructure in time O(m^4), m being the number of random variables. The new algorithm is applied to a set of data sampled from a known distribution. The method is shown to reliably infer edges of the actual tree even when the data are very scarce, unlike the traditional approach. Finally, we provide lower and upper credibility limits for mutual information under the imprecise Dirichlet model. These enable the previous developments to be extended to a full inferential method for trees.

We bound the future loss when predicting any (computably) stochastic sequence online. Solomonoff finitely bounded the total deviation of his universal predictor M from the true distribution m by the algorithmic complexity of m. Here we assume we are at a time t>1 and already observed x=x_1...x_t. We bound the future prediction performance on x_{t+1}x_{t+2}... by a new variant of algorithmic complexity of m given x, plus the complexity of the randomness deficiency of x. The new complexity is monotone in its condition in the sense that this complexity can only decrease if the condition is prolonged. We also briefly discuss potential generalizations to Bayesian model classes and to classification problems.

We study the properties of the MDL (or maximum penalized complexity) estimator for Regression and Classification, where the underlying model class is countable. We show in particular a finite bound on the Hellinger losses under the only assumption that there is a "true" model contained in the class. This implies almost sure convergence of the predictive distribution to the true one at a fast rate. It corresponds to Solomonoff's central theorem of universal induction, however with a bound that is exponentially larger.