Results 1 
2 of
2
Predictability, Complexity, and Learning
, 2001
"... We define predictive information Ipred(T) as the mutual information between the past and the future of a time series. Three qualitatively different behaviors are found in the limit of large observation times T: Ipred(T) can remain finite, grow logarithmically, or grow as a fractional power law. If t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We define predictive information Ipred(T) as the mutual information between the past and the future of a time series. Three qualitatively different behaviors are found in the limit of large observation times T: Ipred(T) can remain finite, grow logarithmically, or grow as a fractional power law. If the time series allows us to learn a model with a finite number of parameters, then Ipred(T) grows logarithmically with a coefficient that counts the dimensionality of the model space. In contrast, powerlaw growth is associated, for example, with the learning of infinite parameter (or nonparametric) models such as continuous functions with smoothness constraints. There are connections between the predictive information and measures of complexity that have been defined both in learning theory and the analysis of physical systems through statistical mechanics and dynamical systems theory. Furthermore, in the same way that entropy provides the unique measure of available information consistent with some simple and plausible conditions, we argue that the divergent part of Ipred(T) provides the unique measure for the complexity of dynamics underlying a time series. Finally, we discuss how these ideas may be useful in problems in physics, statistics, and biology.
Fluctuationdissipation theorem and models of learning
 Neural Comput
, 2005
"... Advances in statistical learning theory have resulted in a multitude of different designs of learning machines. But which ones are implemented by brains and other biological information processors? We analyze how various abstract Bayesian learners perform on different data and argue that it is diffi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Advances in statistical learning theory have resulted in a multitude of different designs of learning machines. But which ones are implemented by brains and other biological information processors? We analyze how various abstract Bayesian learners perform on different data and argue that it is difficult to determine which learningâ€“ theoretic computation is performed by a particular organism using just its performance in learning a stationary target (learning curve). Basing on the fluctuationâ€“dissipation relation in statistical physics, we then discuss a different experimental setup that might be able to solve the problem. 1