You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives 
Chapter Title:  Smoothness and the Curse of Dimensionality 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  We present a series of theoretical arguments supporting the claim that a large class of modern learning algorithms that rely solely on the smoothness prior - with similarity between examples expressed with a local kernel - are sensitive to the curse of dimensionality, or more precisely to the variability of the target. Our discussion covers supervised, semi-supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms. These algorithms are found to be local in the sense that crucial properties of the learned function at x depend mostly on the neighbors of x in the training set. This makes them sensitive to the curse of dimensionality, well studied for classical non-parametric statistical learning. We show in the case of the Gaussian kernel that when the function to be learned has many variations, these algorithms require a number of training examples proportional to the number of variations, which could be large even though there may exist short descriptions of the target function, i.e. their Kolmogorov complexity may be low. This suggests that there exist non-local learning algorithms that at least have the potential to learn about such structured but apparently complex functions (because locally they have many variations), while not using very specific prior domain knowledge. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  e de MontrMontreal, Canada The family of decision tree learning algorithms is among the most widespread and studied. Motivated by the desire to develop learning algorithms that can generalize when learning highly varying functions such as those presumably needed to achieve artificial intelligence, we study some theoretical limitations of decision trees. We demonstrate formally that they can be seriously hurt by the curse of dimensionality in a sense that is a bit different from other nonparametric statistical methods, but most importantly, that they cannot generalize to variations not seen in the training set. This is because a decision tree creates a partition of the input space and needs at least one example in each of the regions associated with a leaf to make a sensible prediction in that region. A better understanding of the fundamental reasons for this limitation suggests that one should use forests or even deeper architectures instead of trees, which provide a form of distributed representation and can generalize to variations not encountered in the training data. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  Can machine learning deliver AI? Theoretical results, inspiration from the brain and cognition, as well as machine learning experiments suggest that in order to learn the kind of complicated functions that can represent high-level abstractions (e.g. in vision, language, and other AI-level tasks), one would need deep architectures. Deep architectures are composed of multiple levels of non-linear operations, such as in neural nets with many hidden layers, graphical models with many levels of latent variables, or in complicated propositional formulae re-using many sub-formulae. Each level of the architecture represents features at a different level of abstraction, defined as a composition of lower-level features. Searching the parameter space of deep architectures is a difficult task, but new algorithms have been discovered and a new sub-area has emerged in the machine learning community since 2006, following these discoveries. Learning algorithms such as those for Deep Belief Networks and other related unsupervised learning algorithms have recently been proposed to train deep architectures, yielding exciting results and beating the state-of-the-art in certain areas. Learning Deep Architectures for AI discusses the motivations for and principles of learning algorithms for deep architectures. By analyzing and comparing recent results with different learning algorithms for deep architectures, explanations for their success are proposed and discussed, highlighting challenges and suggesting avenues for future explorations in this area.

Literature Review:
For AI tasks such as vision and NLP, it seems hopeless to rely only on simple parametric models (such as linear models) because they cannot capture enough of the complexity of interest unless provided with the appropriate feature space. Conversely, machine learning researchers have sought flexibility in local 6 nonparametric learners such as kernel machines with a fixed generic local-response kernel (such as the Gaussian kernel). Unfortunately, as argued at length by Bengio and Monperrus BIB001 , Bengio et al. BIB002 , Bengio and LeCun  , Bengio BIB004 , and Bengio et al. BIB003 , most of these algorithms only exploit the principle of local generalization, i.e., the assumption that the target function (to be learned) is smooth enough, so they rely on examples to explicitly map out the wrinkles of the target function. Generalization is mostly achieved by a form of local interpolation between neighboring training examples. Although smoothness can be a useful assumption, it is insufficient to deal with the curse of dimensionality because the number of such wrinkles (ups and downs of the target function) may grow exponentially with the number of relevant interacting factors when the data are represented in raw input space. We advocate learning algorithms that are flexible and nonparametric, 7 but do not rely exclusively on the smoothness assumption. Instead, we propose to incorporate generic priors such as those enumerated above into representationlearning algorithms. Smoothness-based learners (such as kernel machines) and linear models can still be useful on top of such learned representations. In fact, the combination of learning a representation and kernel machine is equivalent to learning the kernel, i.e., the feature space. Kernel machines are useful, but they depend on a prior definition of a suitable similarity metric or a feature space in which naive similarity metrics suffice. We would like to use the data, along with very generic priors, to discover those features or, equivalently, a similarity function.