Talk:Machine learning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reinforcement Learning Placement[edit]

Shouldn't reinforcement learning be a subset of unsupervised learning?

I don't think so. Reinforcement learning is not completely unsupervised: the algorithm has access to a supervision signal (the reward). It's just that it is difficult to determine which action(s) led to the reward, and there's an exploitation vs. exploration tradeoff. So, it isn't strictly supervised learning, either. It's somewhere in-between. -- hike395 July 1, 2005 07:08 (UTC)
I agree, that it is somewhat a hybrid, but given that supervised learning is described in the same section as 'Supervised learning: The computer is presented with example inputs and their desired outputs, given by a "teacher"[...]' is it right to have reinforcement learning as a subitem of that? Reinforcement learning is explicitly not learning with a teacher, but rather with a critic, isn't it? As I have encountered it over the years, it has been regarded as a third paradigm besides supervised and unsupervised learning, also because of its different applications. But I could also err... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.125.3 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Machine learning lowers risks of credit[edit]

The content of this article probably has some value but I suggest to merge it into main article as a small sub-section. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New and developing methods[edit]

I have recently added a section to include current research on a new machine learning method known as Linear Poisson Modelling.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]As this method has not been widely communicated, I can understand why some would rather not include such work on the main Machine Learning page at present. However, the method is now associated with more than a dozen co-authors in application-specific areas, so I believe it is worth noting. I have tentatively place this in a new section regarding new and developing methods. Perhaps other new and developing methods could be placed there too? What criteria should be considered before inclusion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.74.236 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2018‎

References

  1. ^ "Automated quantitative measurements and associated error covariances for planetary image analysis". Advances in Space Research. 56 (1): 92–105. 2015-07-01. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.03.043. ISSN 0273-1177.
  2. ^ Deepaisarn, S; Tar, P D; Thacker, N A; Seepujak, A; McMahon, A W (2017-10-28). "Quantifying biological samples using Linear Poisson Independent Component Analysis for MALDI-ToF mass spectra". Bioinformatics. 34 (6): 1001–1008. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx630. ISSN 1367-4803.
  3. ^ Tar, P. D.; Thacker, N. A.; Babur, M.; Watson, Y.; Cheung, S.; Little, R. A.; Gieling, R. G.; Williams, K. J.; O’Connor, J. P. B. "A new method for the high-precision assessment of tumor changes in response to treatment". Bioinformatics. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty115.
  4. ^ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11038-016-9499-9
  5. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1387380617304906
  6. ^ http://www.bmva.org/annals/2014/2014-0001.pdf
@82.23.74.236: All of these references are around one single author. If they have any citations at all, these are all self-cites. They are not independent reliable sources, and this raises the question of a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - in particular, as this IP is in the same region as that shared author!
If we would cover every single obscure topic, the article would be millions of lines. It is an overview article, even key topics such as "Deep learning" used by thousands of authors only get a single paragraph. LPM clearly is not on the same level, including it here would likely give WP:undue weight to a single author's, not independently verified, work. If it were independently used, it may eventually be worth including it in, e.g., Poisson regression, which will be reachable via Regression analysis. But even then, that may take a few years and should be added by someone independent. Not everything needs to be front page! HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@130.88.234.208: the same thing still applies, even if you use a different IP and different article: The Three Rs. Do not cite yourself, you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Leave it for others to - later - decide what was a noteworthy research contribution. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Relation to statistics[edit]

The first paragraph of this section is very good, IMHO, but the last two are problematic. The second seems random and a little unfinished. The third raises an important point, but saying that statistical learning arose because "[s]ome statisticians have adopted methods from machine learning" is arguably confusing the chicken with the egg. It should also be mentioned here that statistical machine learning is a relatively well-established term (cf. e.g. this book) which has a meaning somewhere in between machine learning and statistical learning. Thomas Tvileren (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Reorganizing the Approaches section[edit]

I reorganized the Approaches section to more accurately represent the parent-child relationships of machine learning articles, as described in WP:SUMMARY style guidelines, and added text where I could by borrowing it from the lead sections of the child articles. I deleted the reference to List of machine learning algorithms as the primary main article (right under the section name) because it is not a more detailed version of the Approaches section as a whole. It is the opposite, a condensed list with no details. In a couple of other places, there were links to "main articles" that were not in fact child articles, as the label was intended for. It makes more sense to me to consider broader topics like the types of learning algorithms, the processes/techniques, and the models/frameworks used in ML to be the direct "children" of the Approaches section, so I created those headings and then sorted the text between them. I hope this makes the text easier to understand, and grasp at a higher level of understanding. Romhilde (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)