"No free lunch theorem"의 두 판 사이의 차이

수학노트
둘러보기로 가기 검색하러 가기
(→‎노트: 새 문단)
 
(→‎메타데이터: 새 문단)
33번째 줄: 33번째 줄:
 
===소스===
 
===소스===
 
  <references />
 
  <references />
 +
 +
== 메타데이터 ==
 +
 +
===위키데이터===
 +
* ID :  [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7045226 Q7045226]

2020년 12월 26일 (토) 03:58 판

노트

위키데이터

말뭉치

  1. During your adventures in machine learning, you may have already come across the “No Free Lunch” Theorem.[1]
  2. two No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems: one for machine learning and one for search and optimization.[1]
  3. Free Lunch Theorems Really mean; How to Improve Search Algorithms, Wolpert discusses the close relationship between search and supervised learning and its implications to the No Free Lunch theorems.[1]
  4. He demonstrates that, in the context of the No Free Lunch theorem, supervised learning is closely analogous to search/optimization.[1]
  5. Broadly speaking, there are two no free lunch theorems.[2]
  6. The no free lunch theorem for search and optimization (Wolpert and Macready 1997) applies to finite spaces and algorithms that do not resample points.[2]
  7. The "no free lunch" theorems (Wolpert and Macready) have sparked heated debate in the computational learning community.[2]
  8. It is argued why the scenario on which the No Free Lunch Theorem is based does not model real life optimization.[2]
  9. The No Free Lunch Theorem (NFLT) is named after the phrase, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.[3]
  10. Hence, the “No free lunch theorem” does not apply when we don’t follow the assumptions it asks us to make.[3]
  11. The above theorem (the proof found in No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimisation) shows a few things.[4]
  12. In formal terms, there is no free lunch when the probability distribution on problem instances is such that all problem solvers have identically distributed results.[5]
  13. It follows that the original "no free lunch" theorem does not apply to what can be stored in a physical computer; instead the so-called "tightened" no free lunch theorems need to be applied.[5]
  14. The “No Free Lunch” theorem states that there is no one model that works best for every problem.[6]
  15. I end by briefly discussing the various free lunch theorems that have been derived, and possible directions for future research.[7]
  16. Generalized No Free Lunch Theorem for Adversarial Robustness.[8]
  17. The first problem is that there are at least two theorems with the name “no free lunch” that I know about.[9]
  18. Wolpert also published a “No Free Lunch in Optimization”, but I'm only concerned with the theorem for supervised learning.[9]
  19. Now that we revisited both conclusion and assumptions, let’s try to summarize, or maybe rephrase the No Free Lunch theorem by Wolpert.[9]
  20. As I mentioned, there’s another “No Free Lunch Theorem”.[9]
  21. This is a really common reaction after first encountering the No Free Lunch theorems (NFLs).[10]
  22. The No Free Lunch theorems say the same thing.[10]
  23. In this paper I contrast White's thesis with the famous no free lunch (NFL) theorem.[11]
  24. The “No Free Lunch” theorem states that, averaged over all optimization problems, without re-sampling, all optimization algorithms perform equally well.[12]
  25. I recently learnt of the existence of a “no free lunch” (NFL) theorem for supervised learning.[13]
  26. This essay is an illustrated proof of the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem; the NFL theorem has many variants, which all say slightly different things.[14]
  27. One lesson from the disconnect between empirical results and the No Free Lunch Theorem is that our search space is often more constrained than we think.[14]

소스

메타데이터

위키데이터