Guided Learning: Lubricating End-to-End Modeling for Multi-stage Decision-making

Jian Guo; Saizhuo Wang; Yiyan Qi

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Guided Learning: Lubricating End-to-End Modeling for Multi-stage Decision-making

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that adding intermediate "guides" to an end-to-end neural network stabilizes multi-stage decision-making training and improves the final objective, and shows on a portfolio task that an information-coefficient guide…

desk verdict Useful survey-style framing of intermediate supervision, but the claimed empirical win is not statistically established and depends on post hoc guide selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10496 v1 pith:K7TPY6UQ submitted 2024-11-15 cs.LG cs.AIq-fin.CP

Jian Guo , Saizhuo Wang , Yiyan Qi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIq-fin.CP

keywords guidedlearningend-to-endmulti-stagedecision-makingintermediatesupervisiondeepportfoliooptimizationSharperatioquantitativeinvestment

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Guided Learning is a framework for training multi-stage decision-making models end to end by attaching small auxiliary objectives, called guides, to intermediate layers. The paper's central claim is that these guides steer gradients away from suboptimal collapse and improve the final decision utility, especially when the final objective is not a standard supervised label. The experiments on cross-sectional portfolio construction with Chinese A-share data support this: an information-coefficient guide on the temporal embedding raises the Sharpe ratio from 0.94 (guide-free) to 1.05 and the Calmar ratio from 2.58 to 3.27, outperforming stage-wise optimization (Sharpe 0.73) and multi-task variants (0.62). The paper also positions guides as a flexible middle ground between deep supervision and multi-task learning, and argues the framework carries over to other multi-stage systems such as autonomous driving.

What carries the argument

The central object is the guided composite loss $\mathcal{L} = \sum_{i=1}^{K-1} \lambda_i \mathcal{L}^c_i(c_i, y^c_i) + U(h_K)$, where $h_K$ is the final output, $U$ is the final utility (e.g., Sharpe ratio), $\mathcal{L}^c_i$ is the guided loss at stage $i$, $c_i$ is the phased output produced by an optional guided head $g_{\phi_i}(h_i)$, and $y^c_i$ is the phased goal. The guide is the function that induces an intermediate layer to move toward a phased goal, thereby redirecting gradients away from suboptimal regions of the final loss landscape. It is the mechanism that carries the argument: by adding these intermediate pulls, the paper claims the end-to-end model avoids collapse and reaches better optima than guide-free training.

What would settle it

A reader could run the same IC guide on a new asset universe or a new temporal-encoder architecture and check whether the Sharpe-ratio gain over guide-free end-to-end persists; if it does not, or if a guide with randomly generated phased goals produces the same improvement, then the central claim that guide content matters would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that an end-to-end model for multi-stage decision-making can be trained more reliably when chosen intermediate representations are guided by small auxiliary losses. A guide consists of an optional head that maps a layer's output to a phased output, a phased goal, and a guided loss; the total training objective is the final utility plus a weighted sum of guided losses at each conceptual stage. This differs from multi-task learning because the auxiliary objectives are placed at distinct stages rather than only at the output, and from deep supervision because the goals can be sample-specific, dimension-specific, and heterogeneous across stages. In the quantitative investment study, the guide that works best is an information-coefficient loss on the temporal embedding; the wrong choice can be harmful, as the ranking-based guide collapses training, yielding a Sharpe ratio of only 0.33 with near-zero variance across runs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the chosen guide configuration—which layer to guide, which loss to use, and how much weight to give it—is aligned with the final decision objective; the paper offers no principled rule for selecting it, and its own experiments show a poor choice (the rank guide) can collapse training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the guided-learning claim holds, end-to-end training of multi-stage systems becomes viable in settings where the final objective is not a standard supervised loss, because guides can inject phased domain knowledge without abandoning end-to-end differentiability.
Guide placement and type become a new design axis: the paper's tables show temporal embedding guidance beats embedding-level or cross-sectional guidance, and MSE beats ranking-based guidance, so practitioners can treat stage selection and loss choice as hyperparameters.
The utility-function component extends guided learning to decision-making problems without ground-truth labels, such as portfolio optimization, where the paper directly optimizes risk-adjusted return.
The framework implies that deep-supervision-style losses can be made stage-specific and sample-specific, giving a richer interface for injecting prior knowledge into deep networks.
Because the paper's results are demonstrated on one dataset and architecture family with repeated runs, a direct consequence is the expectation that similar guide recipes can be transferred to other architectures and modalities, as the paper's own architectural generalization experiments suggest.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A principled selection rule for guides is the missing piece implied by the paper's own evidence; automated search over guide placements, losses, and coefficients would likely be the next step, and the paper's non-monotonic sensitivity plots suggest this is not a trivial extension.
The collapse of the ranking guide suggests that guides can act as a strong regularizer that may dominate the final objective; in practice, users should validate guide choices carefully and consider annealing the guide weights during training.
The guided-learning recipe may be applicable to other multi-stage systems with natural intermediate semantic goals, such as perception-prediction-planning stacks in autonomous driving, where each stage already has a standard loss; a testable extension is to compare guided end-to-end training against stage-wise baselines on such tasks.
The comparison to reinforcement learning suggests that guides could serve as a credit-assignment mechanism for sparse-reward problems, but the paper does not test this; a concrete next experiment would be to apply guided learning to a control task with a sparse terminal reward.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

Quick take: the paper repackages deep supervision with flexible intermediate losses and calls it Guided Learning. That is not a new mechanism, and the paper admits as much. What is new-ish is the application to quantitative investment with IC guides on intermediate embeddings, and the experiments do suggest a plausible benefit from adding staged losses to an end-to-end portfolio model. The paper is well-written, cites relevant work, and is honest about the ad-hoc nature of guide design in the conclusions.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The headline claim that guided learning 'significantly outperforms' stage-wise and end-to-end baselines is not statistically established. Table 1 reports Sharpe 1.05 vs 0.94 for the guide-free baseline, but with four runs the standard deviation is 0.09, so the gap is about one standard deviation. No significance tests, no confidence intervals, no paired comparison across seeds. The best guide configuration is selected after comparing many positions and types (Tables 3 and 4) and grid-searching coefficients (Figure 5), with no multiple-testing adjustment. The paper's own Figure 5 shows non-monotonic, bumpy sensitivity to both coefficients, and Table 4 shows the Rank guide collapses to zero variance across all metrics. So the improvement is configuration-dependent, not a generic property of the framework. The authors themselves write that guide design relies on 'ad-hoc manual design with domain expertise' and that analyzing guide effectiveness is future work. That is honest but it undercuts the strength of the empirical claim.

There is no code and no data release, and the dataset is a proprietary-feature Chinese A-share backtest. That makes the central quantitative result unverifiable. The generalization experiment across LSTM/TCN/PatchTST is nice, but the PatchTST gains are negligible and within noise.

What the paper does well: it gives a clean formalization of intermediate guides, situates the idea relative to deep supervision, multi-task learning, and RL, and demonstrates a plausible use case. If a reader wants a survey-style entry point into intermediate supervision for end-to-end decision pipelines, this is a reasonable reference.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee, because the problem matters and the framework is coherent. But the empirical claim needs much more work: code/data release, pre-registered protocol or significance tests, and ideally a repeated bootstrap over multiple time periods. As it stands, I would not accept it based on Table 1. Recommend: send to peer review with a clear request for statistical rigor.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes "Guided Learning" (GL), a training framework for multi-stage end-to-end decision-making in which intermediate representations receive auxiliary "guided" losses in addition to the final task utility (Eq. (4)). The authors define the components of a guide (phased output, phased goal, guided loss), discuss relations to multi-task learning, deep supervision, and reinforcement learning, and report a portfolio-optimization backtest on Chinese A-share data. The headline empirical result (Table 1) is that an IC-Guide configuration improves the Sharpe ratio from 0.94 (guide-free end-to-end) to 1.05 and the Calmar ratio from 2.58 to 3.27, while also outperforming stage-wise baselines. Additional experiments vary the temporal encoder (Table 2), guide placement (Table 3), and guide type (Table 4), and a sensitivity analysis of guide coefficients is presented in Figure 5.

Significance. If validated, Guided Learning would offer a useful compromise between stage-wise pipelines and monolithic end-to-end optimization: it is a simple, modular way to inject domain knowledge at intermediate stages while keeping a single differentiable objective. The formalization in Eq. (4) is clean, and the connections to deep supervision, multi-task learning, and RL provide useful context. However, the paper's significance hinges on the empirical claim of "significantly outperforms," and that claim is not currently established: there are no significance tests, only four runs per configuration, no control for the multiple guide configurations explored, and no code or data release. The authors themselves concede in the Conclusions that guide design is "ad-hoc manual design with domain expertise" and that understanding guide effectiveness is future work. The framework is potentially valuable, but the evidence in this manuscript supports only a tentative, configuration-specific demonstration, not the strong claim in the abstract.

major comments (5)

[Experiment, Table 1 and Abstract] The central claim that guided learning "significantly outperforms" baselines is not statistically supported. The main comparison (IC-Guide vs. Guide-free) shows a Sharpe gap of 0.11 (1.05 vs. 0.94) with per-configuration standard deviations of 0.09 and 0.03 over only four runs; such a gap can easily arise from run-to-run noise. No paired significance tests, confidence intervals, or per-run values are reported anywhere in the paper. Because this improvement is the basis for the abstract's "significantly outperforms," the paper needs either proper statistical testing (e.g., paired tests over seeds with correction), many more seeds, or a softened claim.
[Experiment, Tables 3-4 and Figure 5] The paper reports the best of many configurations, creating a multiple-comparison problem. The authors select among guide positions (Table 3), guide types (Table 4), and grid-searched coefficients (Figure 5), then present the chosen configuration's metrics as the method's performance. The Rank guide's complete collapse (Table 4: 0.00 standard deviation across all metrics) and the strongly non-monotonic dependence on both coefficients (Figure 5) show that guide choices can destroy performance or have arbitrary effects. Without a pre-registered or at least validation-only selection rule followed by a test-set evaluation, the headline improvement cannot be attributed to the guide mechanism rather than to selection among many alternatives.
[Experiment, Tables 3 and 4] The "guide placement" comparison omits the guide-free baseline, so the text's conclusion that "Temporal embedding guidance yields the best overall performance" is uninformative about whether any placement actually helps; the reader cannot tell whether the best placement's Sharpe of 0.88 exceeds the guide-free value of 0.94 from Table 1 (it does not, on the point estimate). Table 4 likewise omits both the guide-free row and the IC guide used in Table 1, and its text says "MSE guidance yields the best overall performance" even though the MSE row's Sharpe (0.78) is below Table 1's guide-free value (0.94). These inconsistencies make the empirical story internally confusing and need to be resolved.
[Experiment, Table 2] The claimed generalization across architectures is overstated. With four runs, LSTM Sharpe is 0.56±0.11 vs. 0.54±0.33, TCN is 0.84±0.23 vs. 0.79±0.13, and PatchTST is 0.34±0.10 vs. 0.34±0.00; all differences are well within one standard deviation. The "Improve" percentages are also computed inconsistently (e.g., LSTM Calmar reported as 12.30% but (1.58−1.41)/1.41 = 12.06%; TCN Calmar reported as 11.84% but (2.47−2.21)/2.21 = 11.76%). This table cannot support the claim that "guidance generalizes well across different model architectures."
[Appendix: Dataset and Reproducibility] The backtest uses 500 proprietary meta-features, and no code or data are released. Combined with only four runs and no statistical tests, the central empirical result is not independently verifiable. The paper should release code and data, or use a public dataset (e.g., Qlib's public data) and report the random seeds, so that the reported improvements can be reproduced and checked.

minor comments (5)

[Formulation of Guided Learning, Eq. (4)] The stage index is inconsistent: the text defines h_N as the final output, but Eq. (4) sums to K−1 and uses h_K; the relationship among L, K, and N should be standardized.
[Appendix: Additional Experimental Details] There are typos: "wonorized" should be "winsorized," and "Addtional Results" should be "Additional Results."
[Experiment, Table 2] The sign convention for the "Max. Drawdown" improvement is not stated; since drawdown values are negative, a smaller absolute value is an improvement, but the "Improve" row mixes signs without explanation.
[Discussion: Compared with Other Learning Paradigms] The claim that deep supervision "regularizes each sample independently" in contrast to guided learning is too categorical; deep supervision can also use varied or sample-level objectives, so the distinction should be qualified.
[Related Work] The related-work section mentions E2EAI (Wei et al., 2023) as an end-to-end investing framework but does not compare against it in the experiments; adding such a comparison or explaining its absence would strengthen the empirical evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework and reported improvements are empirical and do not reduce by construction to the paper's own definitions.

full rationale

The central formulation (Eq. 4) defines guided learning as a composite objective combining intermediate guided losses with the final utility; the paper's claim that this improves end-to-end training is tested empirically against guide-free and stage-wise baselines on held-out 2021 data, not derived from the definition itself. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: guide type, placement, and coefficients are design choices whose sensitivity is explicitly reported, and the non-monotonic behavior in Figure 5 is presented as a tuning challenge rather than as evidence that the framework's success is forced by construction. The conclusions openly state that guide design is 'ad-hoc manual design with domain expertise' and that theoretical analysis is future work; this is a limitation on generality, not circularity. The paper distinguishes its stage-specific, multi-objective guides from deep supervision and multi-task learning, and the distinction is substantive. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no known result merely renamed as a new framework. The empirical comparison is self-contained against external baselines, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen guide configurations, a proxy utility function, and the domain assumption that intermediate supervision helps. The guide is a conceptual construct with no independent evidence beyond the reported backtests.

free parameters (2)

Guide weighting coefficients lambda_i = not reported exactly; optimal values in mid-range (IC about 1.4 to 2.0, Return about 0.6 to 1.0 per Figure 5)
Equation (4) introduces lambda_i for each guided loss, and performance is non-monotonically sensitive to these values, so the reported improvements depend on hand-chosen coefficients.
Guide type and placement selection = IC-Guide on the temporal embedding chosen as the best among MSE, CLF, Rank and among embedding, temporal…
Tables 3 and 4 compare many configurations, and the best one is reported without correction for multiple comparisons, so the selection itself is a free choice that shapes the result.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Intermediate representations can be supervised toward stage goals without degrading the final end-to-end objective.
Central premise of Equation (4); the paper offers no proof and notes in the Discussion that the outcome depends on the specific choice of guide.
domain assumption The 22-day subsampled Sharpe ratio is a sufficiently faithful proxy for the full-horizon backtest objective during training.
The Experiment section states that Equation (6) cannot be optimized directly and is approximated by subsampling; the validity of this approximation is not analyzed.
domain assumption Cross-sectional z-score winsorization and clipping do not remove the signal needed for portfolio optimization.
The appendix describes data preprocessing without ablation; it affects all methods equally, so it does not specifically support guided learning.

invented entities (1)

guide
purpose: An auxiliary objective attached to intermediate layer outputs to steer gradients during end-to-end training
The guide is defined operationally via guided loss terms in Equation (4) and has no falsifiable handle outside the paper's specific experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Guided Learning: Lubricating End-to-End Modeling for Multi-stage Decision-making." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7TPY6UQ

@misc{pith2026241110496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Guided Learning: Lubricating End-to-End Modeling for Multi-stage Decision-making},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7TPY6UQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10496}
}

read the original abstract

Multi-stage decision-making is crucial in various real-world artificial intelligence applications, including recommendation systems, autonomous driving, and quantitative investment systems. In quantitative investment, for example, the process typically involves several sequential stages such as factor mining, alpha prediction, portfolio optimization, and sometimes order execution. While state-of-the-art end-to-end modeling aims to unify these stages into a single global framework, it faces significant challenges: (1) training such a unified neural network consisting of multiple stages between initial inputs and final outputs often leads to suboptimal solutions, or even collapse, and (2) many decision-making scenarios are not easily reducible to standard prediction problems. To overcome these challenges, we propose Guided Learning, a novel methodological framework designed to enhance end-to-end learning in multi-stage decision-making. We introduce the concept of a ``guide'', a function that induces the training of intermediate neural network layers towards some phased goals, directing gradients away from suboptimal collapse. For decision scenarios lacking explicit supervisory labels, we incorporate a utility function that quantifies the ``reward'' of the throughout decision. Additionally, we explore the connections between Guided Learning and classic machine learning paradigms such as supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised, multi-task, and reinforcement learning. Experiments on quantitative investment strategy building demonstrate that guided learning significantly outperforms both traditional stage-wise approaches and existing end-to-end methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10496 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of guided learning in an end-to-end model with an example guide implementation. The model is concep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of the multi-stage approach and end [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Backtest curve is trained by maximizing the performance across whole history ϕ ∗ = arg max ϕ U(W, R) (6) where U is a utility function such as Sharpe ratio, and R ∈ R T ×N is the actual return. In practice, due to computation complexity and memory limit, the objectiv…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Parameter sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Almukhtar, F.; Mahmoodd, N.; and Kareem, S. 2021. Search engine optimization: a review. Applied computer science, 17(1): 70--80

work page 2021
[4]

Chen, L.; Wu, P.; Chitta, K.; Jaeger, B.; Geiger, A.; and Li, H. 2024. End-to-end autonomous driving: Challenges and frontiers. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

work page 2024
[5]

Predict , then Optimize

Elmachtoub, A. N.; and Grigas, P. 2022. Smart “ Predict , then Optimize ”. Management Science, 68(1): 9--26. Publisher: INFORMS

work page 2022
[6]

G.; Rahmani, H.; and Liu, J

Foo, L. G.; Rahmani, H.; and Liu, J. 2023. Ai-generated content (aigc) for various data modalities: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14177, 2: 2

arXiv 2023
[7]

D.; Tillman, H.; Goh, G.; Troll, R.; Radford, A.; Sutskever, I.; Leike, J.; and Wu, J

Gao, L.; la Tour, T. D.; Tillman, H.; Goh, G.; Troll, R.; Radford, A.; Sutskever, I.; Leike, J.; and Wu, J. 2024. Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders. ArXiv:2406.04093 [cs] version: 1

arXiv 2024
[8]

Hu, Y.; Yang, J.; Chen, L.; Li, K.; Sima, C.; Zhu, X.; Chai, S.; Du, S.; Lin, T.; Wang, W.; Lu, L.; Jia, X.; Liu, Q.; Dai, J.; Qiao, Y.; and Li, H. 2023. Planning-oriented Autonomous Driving . ArXiv:2212.10156 [cs]

arXiv 2023

Show all 29 references

[9]

S.; and Theophilus, E

Kangunde, V.; Jamisola Jr, R. S.; and Theophilus, E. K. 2021. A review on drones controlled in real-time. International journal of dynamics and control, 9(4): 1832--1846

2021
[10]

Ko, H.; Lee, S.; Park, Y.; and Choi, A. 2022. A survey of recommendation systems: recommendation models, techniques, and application fields. Electronics, 11(1): 141

2022
[11]

Lee, C.-Y.; Xie, S.; Gallagher, P.; Zhang, Z.; and Tu, Z. 2015. Deeply- Supervised Nets . In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , 562--570. PMLR. ISSN: 1938-7228

2015
[12]

Liu, T.; Roberts, S.; and Zohren, S. 2023. Deep Inception Networks : A General End -to- End Framework for Multi -asset Quantitative Strategies . ArXiv:2307.05522 [q-fin]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Markowitz, H. 1952. Portfolio Selection . The Journal of Finance, 7(1): 77--91

1952
[14]

McTear, M. 2022. Conversational ai: Dialogue systems, conversational agents, and chatbots. Springer Nature

2022
[15]

Nagy, P.; Frey, S.; Sapora, S.; Li, K.; Calinescu, A.; Zohren, S.; and Foerster, J. N. 2023. Generative AI for End -to- End Limit Order Book Modelling : A Token - Level Autoregressive Generative Model of Message Flow Using a Deep State Space Network . In 4th ACM International ...

2023
[16]

Ren, S.; Wei, F.; Albanie, S.; Zhang, Z.; and Hu, H. 2023. DeepMIM : Deep Supervision for Masked Image Modeling . ArXiv:2303.08817 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Sharpe, W. F. 1966. Mutual Fund Performance . The Journal of Business, 39(1): 119--138

1966
[18]

Shen, Z.; Liu, Z.; Li, J.; Jiang, Y.-G.; Chen, Y.; and Xue, X. 2019. Object Detection from Scratch with Deep Supervision . ArXiv:1809.09294 [cs]

2019 arXiv
[19]

L.; McDougall, C.; MacDiarmid, M.; Freeman, C

Templeton, A.; Conerly, T.; Marcus, J.; Lindsey, J.; Bricken, T.; Chen, B.; Pearce, A.; Citro, C.; Ameisen, E.; Jones, A.; Cunningham, H.; Turner, N. L.; McDougall, C.; MacDiarmid, M.; Freeman, C. D.; Sumers, T. R.; Rees, E.; Batson, J.; Jermyn, A.; Carter, S.; Olah, C.; and H...

2024
[20]

Tolstikhin, I.; Houlsby, N.; Kolesnikov, A.; Beyer, L.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Yung, J.; Steiner, A.; Keysers, D.; Uszkoreit, J.; Lucic, M.; and Dosovitskiy, A. 2021. MLP - Mixer : An all- MLP Architecture for Vision . arXiv:2105.01601 [cs]. ArXiv: 2105.01601

2021 arXiv
[21]

N.; Kaiser, L.; and Polosukhin, I

Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, L.; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS '17, 6000--6010. Red Hook, NY, USA:...

2017
[22]

Wang, L.; Lee, C.-Y.; Tu, Z.; and Lazebnik, S. 2015. Training deeper convolutional networks with deep supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.02496

2015 arXiv
[23]

Wei, Z.; Dai, B.; and Lin, D. 2023. E2EAI : End -to- End Deep Learning Framework for Active Investing . In 4th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance , ICAIF 2023, Brooklyn , NY , USA , November 27-29, 2023 , 55--63. ACM

2023
[24]

Yan, K.; Yan, J.; Luo, C.; Chen, L.; Lin, Q.; and Zhang, D. 2021. A Surrogate Objective Framework for Prediction + Programming with Soft Constraints . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 34, 21520--21532. Curran Associates, Inc

2021
[25]

???? Personalized Recommendation Multi-Objective Optimization Model Based on Deep Learning

Yang, Z.; Lu, P.; and Liu, P. ???? Personalized Recommendation Multi-Objective Optimization Model Based on Deep Learning. International Journal of Advanced Network, Monitoring and Controls, 9(1): 44--57
[26]

Zhang, L.; Chen, X.; Zhang, J.; Dong, R.; and Ma, K. 2022. Contrastive Deep Supervision . In Avidan, S.; Brostow, G.; Cissé, M.; Farinella, G. M.; and Hassner, T., eds., Computer Vision – ECCV 2022 , 1--19. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-031-19809-0

2022
[27]

Zhang, Y.; and Yang, Q. 2021. A survey on multi-task learning. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 34(12): 5586--5609

2021
[28]

P.; and Westerlund, T

Zhao, W.; Queralta, J. P.; and Westerlund, T. 2020. Sim-to-real transfer in deep reinforcement learning for robotics: a survey. In 2020 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence (SSCI), 737--744. IEEE

2020
[29]

Zhou, H.; Zhang, S.; Peng, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.; Xiong, H.; and Zhang, W. 2021. Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time - Series Forecasting . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(12): 11106--11115. Number: 12

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Almukhtar, F.; Mahmoodd, N.; and Kareem, S. 2021. Search engine optimization: a review. Applied computer science, 17(1): 70--80

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Chen, L.; Wu, P.; Chitta, K.; Jaeger, B.; Geiger, A.; and Li, H. 2024. End-to-end autonomous driving: Challenges and frontiers. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Predict , then Optimize

Elmachtoub, A. N.; and Grigas, P. 2022. Smart “ Predict , then Optimize ”. Management Science, 68(1): 9--26. Publisher: INFORMS

work page 2022

[6] [6]

G.; Rahmani, H.; and Liu, J

Foo, L. G.; Rahmani, H.; and Liu, J. 2023. Ai-generated content (aigc) for various data modalities: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14177, 2: 2

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

D.; Tillman, H.; Goh, G.; Troll, R.; Radford, A.; Sutskever, I.; Leike, J.; and Wu, J

Gao, L.; la Tour, T. D.; Tillman, H.; Goh, G.; Troll, R.; Radford, A.; Sutskever, I.; Leike, J.; and Wu, J. 2024. Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders. ArXiv:2406.04093 [cs] version: 1

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Hu, Y.; Yang, J.; Chen, L.; Li, K.; Sima, C.; Zhu, X.; Chai, S.; Du, S.; Lin, T.; Wang, W.; Lu, L.; Jia, X.; Liu, Q.; Dai, J.; Qiao, Y.; and Li, H. 2023. Planning-oriented Autonomous Driving . ArXiv:2212.10156 [cs]

arXiv 2023