Six learning algorithms are investigated and compared empirically. All of them are based on variants of the candidate training idea of the Cascade Correlation method. The comparison was performed using 42 different datasets from the PROBEN1 benchmark collection. The results indicate: (1) for these problems it is slightly better not to cascade the hidden units; (2) error minimization candidate training is better than covariance maximization for regression problems but may be a little worse for classification problems; (3) for most learning tasks, considering validation set errors during the selection of the best candidate will not lead to improved networks, but for a few tasks it will. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.