[jjgreen]

The usual deal would be to ask colleagues in the field, but (since that's not available) asking relevant experts on the understanding that most won't reply due to pressure of time, and that's OK. Not my field, so no proper comments from me, but

- that hand-drawn figure needs sorting

- no references?

- for a review copy, 1.5-spacing and wide margins, for a "readable" copy, rework the typography, no underlining, no ragged-right etc.

[peterweyand]

Yes this is a very rough preliminary draft. The lack of references is a problem, although I cite the literature in philosophy for a number or people without pulling direct quotes [Timothy Williamson on modality for example]. The paper would need to be run through LaTeX, and the charts would need to be done in LaTeX. As to your suggestion I fixed some of the formatting, but it needs a complete rework later.

As to the literature for machine learning, I currently do not understand the state of the art. My understanding of the models is that they are systems of neural networks with varying degrees of complexity, but in essence are still neural networks (without A^ as described). I would need to read more on the literature or talk to someone who has as it's a complicated field. One issue is that I don't know that there is any one right model or system of neural networks that has been shown to work - some apparently do and some don't and it's been more of an experimental approach. So who to cite? Navigating the literature may be difficult.