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)

Definition by Samuel[edit]

The definition by Arthur Samuel,(1959) seems to be non-existent. Some papers/books cite his key-paper on ML in Checkers-games (see: http://aitopics.org/sites/default/files/classic/Feigenbaum_Feldman/Computers_And_Thought-Part_1_Checkers.pdf) but that doesn't contain a definition whatsoever (better yet, it states "While this is not the place to dwell on the importance of machine-learning procedures, or to discourse on the philosophical aspects" p.71). So I wonder whether we should keep that definition in the wiki-page... Otherwise I'm happy to receive the source+page where that definition is stated :)

Agree with above - this is a clear problem, as the WP leading quote can be found in many, many places around the Internet (as of 2017) with no actual citation. I've marked that reference as "disputed", since it doesn't cite any actual paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.185 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The second source added by User:HelpUsStopSpam is behind a paywall and so isn't clear on the content. Can you excerpt the exact phrase and context used in that paper? 54.240.196.171 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem that should be solved. Why hasn't it been? The first sentence absolutely does not need to contain the definition from the first time the term occurred. The first sentence shall confer to the reader an understanding what it is all about. Naturally, the concept of ML has changed and deepened enormously since 1959. I suggest a paraphrase of this: the difficulties face by systems relying on hard-coded knowledge suggest that AI systems need the ability to acquire their own knowledge, by extracting patterns from raw data. Thi capability is known as machine learning. Goodfellow, Bengio, Courville; Deep Learning; MIT Press; 2016; page 2. --Ettrig (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The "definition" paraphrased from Samuel seems to be the the most common one. The second source (Koza et al. 1996) says "Paraphrasing Arthur Samuel": "How can computers learn to solve problems without being explicitly programmed?". So this is in the source, and so is the paraphrased-from attribution to Arthur Samuel. A) Arthur Samuel is frequently cited/paraphrased throughout literature; this ("without being explicitly programmed") is a widely accepted definition. B) it is an early source. Samuel said something like this in 1959. Much of the other sources we've seen here just re-iterate what they read in other works that repeated what they read in other works and so on. Goodfellow and Bengio is certainly not a bad source, but he did not coin that term; they are also very much focused on the subset of machine learning that is neural networks. I'd rather stick with Arthur Samuel. Chire (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
So the main question to me is, if Koza et al. 1996 were the first to use this "paraphrase" of Samuel, and everybody else copied it from them, or if they again read this somewhere else. (There is also a 1995 paper from Koza). And yes, it says "How can computer learn", not "machine learning is defined as", so what? Arthur Samuel is commonly credited for pioneering this field. Chire (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Machine learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 11 January 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

@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)