10 skills found
nathanshartmann / Portuguese Word EmbeddingsPortuguese Word Embeddings: Evaluating on Word Analogies and Natural Language Tasks
dalinvip / Word Similarity And Word AnalogyWord Similarity and Word Analogy Task scripts
Aryia-Behroziuan / ReferencesPoole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, p. 1. Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 55. Definition of AI as the study of intelligent agents: Poole, Mackworth & Goebel (1998), which provides the version that is used in this article. These authors use the term "computational intelligence" as a synonym for artificial intelligence.[1] Russell & Norvig (2003) (who prefer the term "rational agent") and write "The whole-agent view is now widely accepted in the field".[2] Nilsson 1998 Legg & Hutter 2007 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 2. McCorduck 2004, p. 204 Maloof, Mark. "Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction, p. 37" (PDF). georgetown.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 August 2018. "How AI Is Getting Groundbreaking Changes In Talent Management And HR Tech". Hackernoon. Archived from the original on 11 September 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2020. Schank, Roger C. (1991). "Where's the AI". AI magazine. Vol. 12 no. 4. p. 38. Russell & Norvig 2009. "AlphaGo – Google DeepMind". Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Allen, Gregory (April 2020). "Department of Defense Joint AI Center - Understanding AI Technology" (PDF). AI.mil - The official site of the Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 25 April 2020. Optimism of early AI: * Herbert Simon quote: Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. * Marvin Minsky quote: Minsky 1967, p. 2 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. Boom of the 1980s: rise of expert systems, Fifth Generation Project, Alvey, MCC, SCI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 426–441 * Crevier 1993, pp. 161–162,197–203, 211, 240 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 * NRC 1999, pp. 210–211 * Newquist 1994, pp. 235–248 First AI Winter, Mansfield Amendment, Lighthill report * Crevier 1993, pp. 115–117 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 22 * NRC 1999, pp. 212–213 * Howe 1994 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 Second AI winter: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 430–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 209–210 * NRC 1999, pp. 214–216 * Newquist 1994, pp. 301–318 AI becomes hugely successful in the early 21st century * Clark 2015 Pamela McCorduck (2004, p. 424) writes of "the rough shattering of AI in subfields—vision, natural language, decision theory, genetic algorithms, robotics ... and these with own sub-subfield—that would hardly have anything to say to each other." This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by the major AI textbooks, including: * Russell & Norvig 2003 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 * Nilsson 1998 Kolata 1982. Maker 2006. Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general: Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3, who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering. McCorduck 2004, pp. 100–101, who writes that there are "two major branches of artificial intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplished, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones." Kolata 1982, a paper in Science, which describes McCarthy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real".[19] McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence".[20]. Neats vs. scruffies: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 421–424, 486–489 * Crevier 1993, p. 168 * Nilsson 1983, pp. 10–11 Symbolic vs. sub-symbolic AI: * Nilsson (1998, p. 7), who uses the term "sub-symbolic". General intelligence (strong AI) is discussed in popular introductions to AI: * Kurzweil 1999 and Kurzweil 2005 See the Dartmouth proposal, under Philosophy, below. McCorduck 2004, p. 34. McCorduck 2004, p. xviii. McCorduck 2004, p. 3. McCorduck 2004, pp. 340–400. This is a central idea of Pamela McCorduck's Machines Who Think. She writes: "I like to think of artificial intelligence as the scientific apotheosis of a venerable cultural tradition."[26] "Artificial intelligence in one form or another is an idea that has pervaded Western intellectual history, a dream in urgent need of being realized."[27] "Our history is full of attempts—nutty, eerie, comical, earnest, legendary and real—to make artificial intelligences, to reproduce what is the essential us—bypassing the ordinary means. Back and forth between myth and reality, our imaginations supplying what our workshops couldn't, we have engaged for a long time in this odd form of self-reproduction."[28] She traces the desire back to its Hellenistic roots and calls it the urge to "forge the Gods."[29] "Stephen Hawking believes AI could be mankind's last accomplishment". BetaNews. 21 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 August 2017. Lombardo P, Boehm I, Nairz K (2020). "RadioComics – Santa Claus and the future of radiology". Eur J Radiol. 122 (1): 108771. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108771. PMID 31835078. Ford, Martin; Colvin, Geoff (6 September 2015). "Will robots create more jobs than they destroy?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 June 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018. AI applications widely used behind the scenes: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 28 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 265 * NRC 1999, pp. 216–222 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 AI in myth: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 4–5 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 939 AI in early science fiction. * McCorduck 2004, pp. 17–25 Formal reasoning: * Berlinski, David (2000). The Advent of the Algorithm. Harcourt Books. ISBN 978-0-15-601391-8. OCLC 46890682. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Turing, Alan (1948), "Machine Intelligence", in Copeland, B. Jack (ed.), The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 412, ISBN 978-0-19-825080-7 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 16. Dartmouth conference: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 111–136 * Crevier 1993, pp. 47–49, who writes "the conference is generally recognized as the official birthdate of the new science." * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who call the conference "the birth of artificial intelligence." * NRC 1999, pp. 200–201 McCarthy, John (1988). "Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of the History of Computing. 10 (3): 224–229., collected in McCarthy, John (1996). "10. Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Defending AI Research: A Collection of Essays and Reviews. CSLI., p. 73, "[O]ne of the reasons for inventing the term "artificial intelligence" was to escape association with "cybernetics". Its concentration on analog feedback seemed misguided, and I wished to avoid having either to accept Norbert (not Robert) Wiener as a guru or having to argue with him." Hegemony of the Dartmouth conference attendees: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who write "for the next 20 years the field would be dominated by these people and their students." * McCorduck 2004, pp. 129–130 Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18. Schaeffer J. (2009) Didn't Samuel Solve That Game?. In: One Jump Ahead. Springer, Boston, MA Samuel, A. L. (July 1959). "Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 3 (3): 210–229. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.368.2254. doi:10.1147/rd.33.0210. "Golden years" of AI (successful symbolic reasoning programs 1956–1973): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 243–252 * Crevier 1993, pp. 52–107 * Moravec 1988, p. 9 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 18–21 The programs described are Arthur Samuel's checkers program for the IBM 701, Daniel Bobrow's STUDENT, Newell and Simon's Logic Theorist and Terry Winograd's SHRDLU. DARPA pours money into undirected pure research into AI during the 1960s: * McCorduck 2004, p. 131 * Crevier 1993, pp. 51, 64–65 * NRC 1999, pp. 204–205 AI in England: * Howe 1994 Lighthill 1973. Expert systems: * ACM 1998, I.2.1 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–24 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–331 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 17.4 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 327–335, 434–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–62, 197–203 * Newquist 1994, pp. 155–183 Mead, Carver A.; Ismail, Mohammed (8 May 1989). Analog VLSI Implementation of Neural Systems (PDF). The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. 80. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1639-8. ISBN 978-1-4613-1639-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2020. Formal methods are now preferred ("Victory of the neats"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25–26 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 486–487 McCorduck 2004, pp. 480–483. Markoff 2011. "Ask the AI experts: What's driving today's progress in AI?". McKinsey & Company. Archived from the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018. Administrator. "Kinect's AI breakthrough explained". i-programmer.info. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Rowinski, Dan (15 January 2013). "Virtual Personal Assistants & The Future Of Your Smartphone [Infographic]". ReadWrite. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. "Artificial intelligence: Google's AlphaGo beats Go master Lee Se-dol". BBC News. 12 March 2016. Archived from the original on 26 August 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. Metz, Cade (27 May 2017). "After Win in China, AlphaGo's Designers Explore New AI". Wired. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. "World's Go Player Ratings". May 2017. Archived from the original on 1 April 2017. "柯洁迎19岁生日 雄踞人类世界排名第一已两年" (in Chinese). May 2017. Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Clark, Jack (8 December 2015). "Why 2015 Was a Breakthrough Year in Artificial Intelligence". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. After a half-decade of quiet breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, 2015 has been a landmark year. Computers are smarter and learning faster than ever. "Reshaping Business With Artificial Intelligence". MIT Sloan Management Review. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Lorica, Ben (18 December 2017). "The state of AI adoption". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Allen, Gregory (6 February 2019). "Understanding China's AI Strategy". Center for a New American Security. Archived from the original on 17 March 2019. "Review | How two AI superpowers – the U.S. and China – battle for supremacy in the field". Washington Post. 2 November 2018. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018. at 10:11, Alistair Dabbs 22 Feb 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: You know it isn't real, yeah?". www.theregister.co.uk. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. "Stop Calling it Artificial Intelligence". Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019. "AI isn't taking over the world – it doesn't exist yet". GBG Global website. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (1 January 2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence". Business Horizons. 62 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. Domingos 2015, Chapter 5. Domingos 2015, Chapter 7. Lindenbaum, M., Markovitch, S., & Rusakov, D. (2004). Selective sampling for nearest neighbor classifiers. Machine learning, 54(2), 125–152. Domingos 2015, Chapter 1. Intractability and efficiency and the combinatorial explosion: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 9, 21–22 Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 3. Hart, P. E.; Nilsson, N. J.; Raphael, B. (1972). "Correction to "A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths"". SIGART Newsletter (37): 28–29. doi:10.1145/1056777.1056779. S2CID 6386648. Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 6. "Can neural network computers learn from experience, and if so, could they ever become what we would call 'smart'?". Scientific American. 2018. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Domingos 2015, Chapter 6, Chapter 7. Domingos 2015, p. 286. "Single pixel change fools AI programs". BBC News. 3 November 2017. Archived from the original on 22 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. "AI Has a Hallucination Problem That's Proving Tough to Fix". WIRED. 2018. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. Matti, D.; Ekenel, H. K.; Thiran, J. P. (2017). Combining LiDAR space clustering and convolutional neural networks for pedestrian detection. 2017 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS). pp. 1–6. arXiv:1710.06160. doi:10.1109/AVSS.2017.8078512. ISBN 978-1-5386-2939-0. S2CID 2401976. Ferguson, Sarah; Luders, Brandon; Grande, Robert C.; How, Jonathan P. (2015). Real-Time Predictive Modeling and Robust Avoidance of Pedestrians with Uncertain, Changing Intentions. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. 107. Springer, Cham. pp. 161–177. arXiv:1405.5581. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_10. ISBN 978-3-319-16594-3. S2CID 8681101. "Cultivating Common Sense | DiscoverMagazine.com". Discover Magazine. 2017. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Davis, Ernest; Marcus, Gary (24 August 2015). "Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence". Communications of the ACM. 58 (9): 92–103. doi:10.1145/2701413. S2CID 13583137. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020. Winograd, Terry (January 1972). "Understanding natural language". Cognitive Psychology. 3 (1): 1–191. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3. "Don't worry: Autonomous cars aren't coming tomorrow (or next year)". Autoweek. 2016. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Knight, Will (2017). "Boston may be famous for bad drivers, but it's the testing ground for a smarter self-driving car". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2018. Prakken, Henry (31 August 2017). "On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law". Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25 (3): 341–363. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9210-0. Lieto, Antonio (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possible developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Problem solving, puzzle solving, game playing and deduction: * Russell & Norvig 2003, chpt. 3–9, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, chpt. 2,3,7,9, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, chpt. 3,4,6,8, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 7–12 Uncertain reasoning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 452–644, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 345–395, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 333–381, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 19 Psychological evidence of sub-symbolic reasoning: * Wason & Shapiro (1966) showed that people do poorly on completely abstract problems, but if the problem is restated to allow the use of intuitive social intelligence, performance dramatically improves. (See Wason selection task) * Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky (1982) have shown that people are terrible at elementary problems that involve uncertain reasoning. (See list of cognitive biases for several examples). * Lakoff & Núñez (2000) have controversially argued that even our skills at mathematics depend on knowledge and skills that come from "the body", i.e. sensorimotor and perceptual skills. (See Where Mathematics Comes From) Knowledge representation: * ACM 1998, I.2.4, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–363, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 23–46, 69–81, 169–196, 235–277, 281–298, 319–345, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–243, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18 Knowledge engineering: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 260–266, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 199–233, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. ≈17.1–17.4 Representing categories and relations: Semantic networks, description logics, inheritance (including frames and scripts): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 349–354, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 174–177, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 248–258, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.3 Representing events and time:Situation calculus, event calculus, fluent calculus (including solving the frame problem): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 328–341, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–298, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.2 Causal calculus: * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 335–337 Representing knowledge about knowledge: Belief calculus, modal logics: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 341–344, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 275–277 Sikos, Leslie F. (June 2017). Description Logics in Multimedia Reasoning. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54066-5. ISBN 978-3-319-54066-5. S2CID 3180114. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Ontology: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–328 Smoliar, Stephen W.; Zhang, HongJiang (1994). "Content based video indexing and retrieval". IEEE Multimedia. 1 (2): 62–72. doi:10.1109/93.311653. S2CID 32710913. Neumann, Bernd; Möller, Ralf (January 2008). "On scene interpretation with description logics". Image and Vision Computing. 26 (1): 82–101. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2007.08.013. Kuperman, G. J.; Reichley, R. M.; Bailey, T. C. (1 July 2006). "Using Commercial Knowledge Bases for Clinical Decision Support: Opportunities, Hurdles, and Recommendations". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 13 (4): 369–371. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2055. PMC 1513681. PMID 16622160. MCGARRY, KEN (1 December 2005). "A survey of interestingness measures for knowledge discovery". The Knowledge Engineering Review. 20 (1): 39–61. doi:10.1017/S0269888905000408. S2CID 14987656. Bertini, M; Del Bimbo, A; Torniai, C (2006). "Automatic annotation and semantic retrieval of video sequences using multimedia ontologies". MM '06 Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara: ACM. pp. 679–682. Qualification problem: * McCarthy & Hayes 1969 * Russell & Norvig 2003[page needed] While McCarthy was primarily concerned with issues in the logical representation of actions, Russell & Norvig 2003 apply the term to the more general issue of default reasoning in the vast network of assumptions underlying all our commonsense knowledge. Default reasoning and default logic, non-monotonic logics, circumscription, closed world assumption, abduction (Poole et al. places abduction under "default reasoning". Luger et al. places this under "uncertain reasoning"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 354–360, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 248–256, 323–335, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 335–363, * Nilsson 1998, ~18.3.3 Breadth of commonsense knowledge: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 21, * Crevier 1993, pp. 113–114, * Moravec 1988, p. 13, * Lenat & Guha 1989 (Introduction) Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986. Gladwell 2005. Expert knowledge as embodied intuition: * Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 (Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher and critic of AI who was among the first to argue that most useful human knowledge was encoded sub-symbolically. See Dreyfus' critique of AI) * Gladwell 2005 (Gladwell's Blink is a popular introduction to sub-symbolic reasoning and knowledge.) * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 (Hawkins argues that sub-symbolic knowledge should be the primary focus of AI research.) Planning: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.8, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–459, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–316, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Information value theory: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 600–604 Classical planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–430, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–315, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Planning and acting in non-deterministic domains: conditional planning, execution monitoring, replanning and continuous planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 430–449 Multi-agent planning and emergent behavior: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 449–455 Turing 1950. Solomonoff 1956. Alan Turing discussed the centrality of learning as early as 1950, in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".[120] In 1956, at the original Dartmouth AI summer conference, Ray Solomonoff wrote a report on unsupervised probabilistic machine learning: "An Inductive Inference Machine".[121] This is a form of Tom Mitchell's widely quoted definition of machine learning: "A computer program is set to learn from an experience E with respect to some task T and some performance measure P if its performance on T as measured by P improves with experience E." Learning: * ACM 1998, I.2.6, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 649–788, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 397–438, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 385–542, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 3.3, 10.3, 17.5, 20 Jordan, M. I.; Mitchell, T. M. (16 July 2015). "Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects". Science. 349 (6245): 255–260. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..255J. doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415. PMID 26185243. S2CID 677218. Reinforcement learning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 763–788 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 442–449 Natural language processing: * ACM 1998, I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 790–831 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 91–104 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 591–632 "Versatile question answering systems: seeing in synthesis" Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Mittal et al., IJIIDS, 5(2), 119–142, 2011 Applications of natural language processing, including information retrieval (i.e. text mining) and machine translation: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 840–857, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 623–630 Cambria, Erik; White, Bebo (May 2014). "Jumping NLP Curves: A Review of Natural Language Processing Research [Review Article]". IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 9 (2): 48–57. doi:10.1109/MCI.2014.2307227. S2CID 206451986. Vincent, James (7 November 2019). "OpenAI has published the text-generating AI it said was too dangerous to share". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020. Machine perception: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 537–581, 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, ~chpt. 6 Speech recognition: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 568–578 Object recognition: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 885–892 Computer vision: * ACM 1998, I.2.10 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 6 Robotics: * ACM 1998, I.2.9, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 901–942, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 443–460 Moving and configuration space: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 916–932 Tecuci 2012. Robotic mapping (localization, etc): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 908–915 Cadena, Cesar; Carlone, Luca; Carrillo, Henry; Latif, Yasir; Scaramuzza, Davide; Neira, Jose; Reid, Ian; Leonard, John J. (December 2016). "Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: Toward the Robust-Perception Age". IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 32 (6): 1309–1332. arXiv:1606.05830. Bibcode:2016arXiv160605830C. doi:10.1109/TRO.2016.2624754. S2CID 2596787. Moravec, Hans (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press. p. 15. Chan, Szu Ping (15 November 2015). "This is what will happen when robots take over the world". Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 23 April 2018. "IKEA furniture and the limits of AI". The Economist. 2018. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Kismet. Thompson, Derek (2018). "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Scassellati, Brian (2002). "Theory of mind for a humanoid robot". Autonomous Robots. 12 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1023/A:1013298507114. S2CID 1979315. Cao, Yongcan; Yu, Wenwu; Ren, Wei; Chen, Guanrong (February 2013). "An Overview of Recent Progress in the Study of Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination". IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 9 (1): 427–438. arXiv:1207.3231. doi:10.1109/TII.2012.2219061. S2CID 9588126. Thro 1993. Edelson 1991. Tao & Tan 2005. Poria, Soujanya; Cambria, Erik; Bajpai, Rajiv; Hussain, Amir (September 2017). "A review of affective computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion". Information Fusion. 37: 98–125. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003. hdl:1893/25490. Emotion and affective computing: * Minsky 2006 Waddell, Kaveh (2018). "Chatbots Have Entered the Uncanny Valley". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Pennachin, C.; Goertzel, B. (2007). Contemporary Approaches to Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence. Cognitive Technologies. Cognitive Technologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4_1. ISBN 978-3-540-23733-4. Roberts, Jacob (2016). "Thinking Machines: The Search for Artificial Intelligence". Distillations. Vol. 2 no. 2. pp. 14–23. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 20 March 2018. "The superhero of artificial intelligence: can this genius keep it in check?". the Guardian. 16 February 2016. Archived from the original on 23 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Mnih, Volodymyr; Kavukcuoglu, Koray; Silver, David; Rusu, Andrei A.; Veness, Joel; Bellemare, Marc G.; Graves, Alex; Riedmiller, Martin; Fidjeland, Andreas K.; Ostrovski, Georg; Petersen, Stig; Beattie, Charles; Sadik, Amir; Antonoglou, Ioannis; King, Helen; Kumaran, Dharshan; Wierstra, Daan; Legg, Shane; Hassabis, Demis (26 February 2015). "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning". Nature. 518 (7540): 529–533. Bibcode:2015Natur.518..529M. doi:10.1038/nature14236. PMID 25719670. S2CID 205242740. Sample, Ian (14 March 2017). "Google's DeepMind makes AI program that can learn like a human". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. "From not working to neural networking". The Economist. 2016. Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Domingos 2015. Artificial brain arguments: AI requires a simulation of the operation of the human brain * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 957 * Crevier 1993, pp. 271 and 279 A few of the people who make some form of the argument: * Moravec 1988 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 262 * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 The most extreme form of this argument (the brain replacement scenario) was put forward by Clark Glymour in the mid-1970s and was touched on by Zenon Pylyshyn and John Searle in 1980. Goertzel, Ben; Lian, Ruiting; Arel, Itamar; de Garis, Hugo; Chen, Shuo (December 2010). "A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures". Neurocomputing. 74 (1–3): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2010.08.012. Nilsson 1983, p. 10. Nils Nilsson writes: "Simply put, there is wide disagreement in the field about what AI is all about."[163] AI's immediate precursors: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 51–107 * Crevier 1993, pp. 27–32 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 15, 940 * Moravec 1988, p. 3 Haugeland 1985, pp. 112–117 The most dramatic case of sub-symbolic AI being pushed into the background was the devastating critique of perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert in 1969. See History of AI, AI winter, or Frank Rosenblatt. Cognitive simulation, Newell and Simon, AI at CMU (then called Carnegie Tech): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 139–179, 245–250, 322–323 (EPAM) * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–149 Soar (history): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 450–451 * Crevier 1993, pp. 258–263 McCarthy and AI research at SAIL and SRI International: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 251–259 * Crevier 1993 AI research at Edinburgh and in France, birth of Prolog: * Crevier 1993, pp. 193–196 * Howe 1994 AI at MIT under Marvin Minsky in the 1960s : * McCorduck 2004, pp. 259–305 * Crevier 1993, pp. 83–102, 163–176 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 19 Cyc: * McCorduck 2004, p. 489, who calls it "a determinedly scruffy enterprise" * Crevier 1993, pp. 239–243 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 363−365 * Lenat & Guha 1989 Knowledge revolution: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 266–276, 298–300, 314, 421 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–23 Frederick, Hayes-Roth; William, Murray; Leonard, Adelman. "Expert systems". AccessScience. doi:10.1036/1097-8542.248550. Embodied approaches to AI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 454–462 * Brooks 1990 * Moravec 1988 Weng et al. 2001. Lungarella et al. 2003. Asada et al. 2009. Oudeyer 2010. Revival of connectionism: * Crevier 1993, pp. 214–215 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25 Computational intelligence * IEEE Computational Intelligence Society Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Hutson, Matthew (16 February 2018). "Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis". Science. pp. 725–726. Bibcode:2018Sci...359..725H. doi:10.1126/science.359.6377.725. Archived from the original on 29 April 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018. Norvig 2012. Langley 2011. Katz 2012. The intelligent agent paradigm: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 27, 32–58, 968–972 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 7–21 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 235–240 * Hutter 2005, pp. 125–126 The definition used in this article, in terms of goals, actions, perception and environment, is due to Russell & Norvig (2003). Other definitions also include knowledge and learning as additional criteria. Agent architectures, hybrid intelligent systems: * Russell & Norvig (2003, pp. 27, 932, 970–972) * Nilsson (1998, chpt. 25) Hierarchical control system: * Albus 2002 Lieto, Antonio; Lebiere, Christian; Oltramari, Alessandro (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possibile developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Lieto, Antonio; Bhatt, Mehul; Oltramari, Alessandro; Vernon, David (May 2018). "The role of cognitive architectures in general artificial intelligence". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.08.003. hdl:2318/1665249. S2CID 36189683. Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 1. White Paper: On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (PDF). Brussels: European Commission. 2020. p. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020. CNN 2006. Using AI to predict flight delays Archived 20 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Ishti.org. N. Aletras; D. Tsarapatsanis; D. Preotiuc-Pietro; V. Lampos (2016). "Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective". PeerJ Computer Science. 2: e93. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.93. "The Economist Explains: Why firms are piling into artificial intelligence". The Economist. 31 March 2016. Archived from the original on 8 May 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016. Lohr, Steve (28 February 2016). "The Promise of Artificial Intelligence Unfolds in Small Steps". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 February 2016. Retrieved 29 February 2016. Frangoul, Anmar (14 June 2019). "A Californian business is using A.I. to change the way we think about energy storage". CNBC. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2019. Wakefield, Jane (15 June 2016). "Social media 'outstrips TV' as news source for young people". BBC News. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. Smith, Mark (22 July 2016). "So you think you chose to read this article?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 25 July 2016. Brown, Eileen. "Half of Americans do not believe deepfake news could target them online". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019. The Turing test: Turing's original publication: * Turing 1950 Historical influence and philosophical implications: * Haugeland 1985, pp. 6–9 * Crevier 1993, p. 24 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 70–71 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3 and 948 Dartmouth proposal: * McCarthy et al. 1955 (the original proposal) * Crevier 1993, p. 49 (historical significance) The physical symbol systems hypothesis: * Newell & Simon 1976, p. 116 * McCorduck 2004, p. 153 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18 Dreyfus 1992, p. 156. Dreyfus criticized the necessary condition of the physical symbol system hypothesis, which he called the "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules."[206] Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence: * Dreyfus 1972, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 * Crevier 1993, pp. 120–132 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 211–239 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 950–952, Gödel 1951: in this lecture, Kurt Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine. He recognized that this was only a conjecture, since one could never disprove (b). Yet he considered the disjunctive conclusion to be a "certain fact". The Mathematical Objection: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 949 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 448–449 Making the Mathematical Objection: * Lucas 1961 * Penrose 1989 Refuting Mathematical Objection: * Turing 1950 under "(2) The Mathematical Objection" * Hofstadter 1979 Background: * Gödel 1931, Church 1936, Kleene 1935, Turing 1937 Graham Oppy (20 January 2015). "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016. These Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments are, however, problematic, and there is wide consensus that they fail. Stuart J. Russell; Peter Norvig (2010). "26.1.2: Philosophical Foundations/Weak AI: Can Machines Act Intelligently?/The mathematical objection". Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4. even if we grant that computers have limitations on what they can prove, there is no evidence that humans are immune from those limitations. Mark Colyvan. An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2012. From 2.2.2, 'Philosophical significance of Gödel's incompleteness results': "The accepted wisdom (with which I concur) is that the Lucas-Penrose arguments fail." Iphofen, Ron; Kritikos, Mihalis (3 January 2019). "Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society". Contemporary Social Science: 1–15. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803. ISSN 2158-2041. "Ethical AI Learns Human Rights Framework". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019. Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144. In the early 1970s, Kenneth Colby presented a version of Weizenbaum's ELIZA known as DOCTOR which he promoted as a serious therapeutic tool.[216] Joseph Weizenbaum's critique of AI: * Weizenbaum 1976 * Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 356–373 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 961 Weizenbaum (the AI researcher who developed the first chatterbot program, ELIZA) argued in 1976 that the misuse of artificial intelligence has the potential to devalue human life. Wendell Wallach (2010). Moral Machines, Oxford University Press. Wallach, pp 37–54. Wallach, pp 55–73. Wallach, Introduction chapter. Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson (2011), Machine Ethics, Cambridge University Press. "Machine Ethics". aaai.org. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Rubin, Charles (Spring 2003). "Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature". The New Atlantis. 1: 88–100. Archived from the original on 11 June 2012. Brooks, Rodney (10 November 2014). "artificial intelligence is a tool, not a threat". Archived from the original on 12 November 2014. "Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial Intelligence". Observer. 19 August 2015. Archived from the original on 30 October 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015. Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219. Archived from the original on 8 March 2005. Retrieved 11 October 2018. See also this link Archived 8 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine Horst, Steven, (2005) "The Computational Theory of Mind" Archived 11 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Searle 1980, p. 1. This version is from Searle (1999), and is also quoted in Dennett 1991, p. 435. Searle's original formulation was "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states." [230] Strong AI is defined similarly by Russell & Norvig (2003, p. 947): "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently
CallMeJiaGu / WordSimilarityAnalogyData用于词向量的相似性任务、类比任务的数据。包含了中文新闻语料分类的实验数据。（Data for similarity tasks and analogy tasks of word vectors. The experimental data of Chinese news corpus classification are included.）
MirunaPislar / Emoji2vecTrain emoji embeddings based on emoji descriptions.
nickvdw / Word2vec From ScratchA word2vec implementation (for CBOW and Skipgram) demonstrated on the word analogy task
ispras-texterra / Word Embeddings Eval HyPre-trained fastText, word2vec, GloVe embeddings for the Armenian language and datasets for their intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation
kata-ai / KawatKata Word Analogy Task for Indonesian.
Ermlab / Polish Word Embeddings ReviewEvaluation of polish word embeddings prepared by various research groups. Evaluation is done by words analogy task
yukubo / Sample Word2vec Skipgram# Copyright 2015 Google Inc. All Rights Reserved. # # Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); # you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. # You may obtain a copy of the License at # # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 # # Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software # distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, # WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. # See the License for the specific language governing permissions and # limitations under the License. # ============================================================================== """Multi-threaded word2vec mini-batched skip-gram model. Trains the model described in: (Mikolov, et. al.) Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space ICLR 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 This model does traditional minibatching. The key ops used are: * placeholder for feeding in tensors for each example. * embedding_lookup for fetching rows from the embedding matrix. * sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits to calculate the loss. * GradientDescentOptimizer for optimizing the loss. * skipgram custom op that does input processing. """ from __future__ import absolute_import from __future__ import division from __future__ import print_function import os import sys import threading import time from six.moves import xrange # pylint: disable=redefined-builtin import numpy as np import tensorflow as tf from tensorflow.models.embedding import gen_word2vec as word2vec flags = tf.app.flags flags.DEFINE_string("save_path", None, "Directory to write the model and " "training summaries.") flags.DEFINE_string("train_data", None, "Training text file. " "E.g., unzipped file http://mattmahoney.net/dc/text8.zip.") flags.DEFINE_string( "eval_data", None, "File consisting of analogies of four tokens." "embedding 2 - embedding 1 + embedding 3 should be close " "to embedding 4." "E.g. https://word2vec.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/questions-words.txt.") flags.DEFINE_integer("embedding_size", 200, "The embedding dimension size.") flags.DEFINE_integer( "epochs_to_train", 15, "Number of epochs to train. Each epoch processes the training data once " "completely.") flags.DEFINE_float("learning_rate", 0.2, "Initial learning rate.") flags.DEFINE_integer("num_neg_samples", 100, "Negative samples per training example.") flags.DEFINE_integer("batch_size", 16, "Number of training examples processed per step " "(size of a minibatch).") flags.DEFINE_integer("concurrent_steps", 12, "The number of concurrent training steps.") flags.DEFINE_integer("window_size", 5, "The number of words to predict to the left and right " "of the target word.") flags.DEFINE_integer("min_count", 5, "The minimum number of word occurrences for it to be " "included in the vocabulary.") flags.DEFINE_float("subsample", 1e-3, "Subsample threshold for word occurrence. Words that appear " "with higher frequency will be randomly down-sampled. Set " "to 0 to disable.") flags.DEFINE_boolean( "interactive", False, "If true, enters an IPython interactive session to play with the trained " "model. E.g., try model.analogy('france', 'paris', 'russia') and " "model.nearby(['proton', 'elephant', 'maxwell']") flags.DEFINE_integer("statistics_interval", 5, "Print statistics every n seconds.") flags.DEFINE_integer("summary_interval", 5, "Save training summary to file every n seconds (rounded " "up to statistics interval.") flags.DEFINE_integer("checkpoint_interval", 600, "Checkpoint the model (i.e. save the parameters) every n " "seconds (rounded up to statistics interval.") FLAGS = flags.FLAGS class Options(object): """Options used by our word2vec model.""" def __init__(self): # Model options. # Embedding dimension. self.emb_dim = FLAGS.embedding_size # Training options. # The training text file. self.train_data = FLAGS.train_data # Number of negative samples per example. self.num_samples = FLAGS.num_neg_samples # The initial learning rate. self.learning_rate = FLAGS.learning_rate # Number of epochs to train. After these many epochs, the learning # rate decays linearly to zero and the training stops. self.epochs_to_train = FLAGS.epochs_to_train # Concurrent training steps. self.concurrent_steps = FLAGS.concurrent_steps # Number of examples for one training step. self.batch_size = FLAGS.batch_size # The number of words to predict to the left and right of the target word. self.window_size = FLAGS.window_size # The minimum number of word occurrences for it to be included in the # vocabulary. self.min_count = FLAGS.min_count # Subsampling threshold for word occurrence. self.subsample = FLAGS.subsample # How often to print statistics. self.statistics_interval = FLAGS.statistics_interval # How often to write to the summary file (rounds up to the nearest # statistics_interval). self.summary_interval = FLAGS.summary_interval # How often to write checkpoints (rounds up to the nearest statistics # interval). self.checkpoint_interval = FLAGS.checkpoint_interval # Where to write out summaries. self.save_path = FLAGS.save_path # Eval options. # The text file for eval. self.eval_data = FLAGS.eval_data class Word2Vec(object): """Word2Vec model (Skipgram).""" def __init__(self, options, session): self._options = options self._session = session self._word2id = {} self._id2word = [] self.build_graph() self.build_eval_graph() self.save_vocab() self._read_analogies() def _read_analogies(self): """Reads through the analogy question file. Returns: questions: a [n, 4] numpy array containing the analogy question's word ids. questions_skipped: questions skipped due to unknown words. """ questions = [] questions_skipped = 0 with open(self._options.eval_data, "rb") as analogy_f: for line in analogy_f: if line.startswith(b":"): # Skip comments. continue words = line.strip().lower().split(b" ") ids = [self._word2id.get(w.strip()) for w in words] if None in ids or len(ids) != 4: questions_skipped += 1 else: questions.append(np.array(ids)) print("Eval analogy file: ", self._options.eval_data) print("Questions: ", len(questions)) print("Skipped: ", questions_skipped) self._analogy_questions = np.array(questions, dtype=np.int32) def forward(self, examples, labels): """Build the graph for the forward pass.""" opts = self._options # Declare all variables we need. # Embedding: [vocab_size, emb_dim] init_width = 0.5 / opts.emb_dim emb = tf.Variable( tf.random_uniform( [opts.vocab_size, opts.emb_dim], -init_width, init_width), name="emb") self._emb = emb # Softmax weight: [vocab_size, emb_dim]. Transposed. sm_w_t = tf.Variable( tf.zeros([opts.vocab_size, opts.emb_dim]), name="sm_w_t") # Softmax bias: [emb_dim]. sm_b = tf.Variable(tf.zeros([opts.vocab_size]), name="sm_b") # Global step: scalar, i.e., shape []. self.global_step = tf.Variable(0, name="global_step") # Nodes to compute the nce loss w/ candidate sampling. labels_matrix = tf.reshape( tf.cast(labels, dtype=tf.int64), [opts.batch_size, 1]) # Negative sampling. sampled_ids, _, _ = (tf.nn.fixed_unigram_candidate_sampler( true_classes=labels_matrix, num_true=1, num_sampled=opts.num_samples, unique=True, range_max=opts.vocab_size, distortion=0.75, unigrams=opts.vocab_counts.tolist())) # Embeddings for examples: [batch_size, emb_dim] example_emb = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(emb, examples) # Weights for labels: [batch_size, emb_dim] true_w = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(sm_w_t, labels) # Biases for labels: [batch_size, 1] true_b = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(sm_b, labels) # Weights for sampled ids: [num_sampled, emb_dim] sampled_w = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(sm_w_t, sampled_ids) # Biases for sampled ids: [num_sampled, 1] sampled_b = tf.nn.embedding_lookup(sm_b, sampled_ids) # True logits: [batch_size, 1] true_logits = tf.reduce_sum(tf.mul(example_emb, true_w), 1) + true_b # Sampled logits: [batch_size, num_sampled] # We replicate sampled noise lables for all examples in the batch # using the matmul. sampled_b_vec = tf.reshape(sampled_b, [opts.num_samples]) sampled_logits = tf.matmul(example_emb, sampled_w, transpose_b=True) + sampled_b_vec return true_logits, sampled_logits def nce_loss(self, true_logits, sampled_logits): """Build the graph for the NCE loss.""" # cross-entropy(logits, labels) opts = self._options true_xent = tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits( true_logits, tf.ones_like(true_logits)) sampled_xent = tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits( sampled_logits, tf.zeros_like(sampled_logits)) # NCE-loss is the sum of the true and noise (sampled words) # contributions, averaged over the batch. nce_loss_tensor = (tf.reduce_sum(true_xent) + tf.reduce_sum(sampled_xent)) / opts.batch_size return nce_loss_tensor def optimize(self, loss): """Build the graph to optimize the loss function.""" # Optimizer nodes. # Linear learning rate decay. opts = self._options words_to_train = float(opts.words_per_epoch * opts.epochs_to_train) lr = opts.learning_rate * tf.maximum( 0.0001, 1.0 - tf.cast(self._words, tf.float32) / words_to_train) self._lr = lr optimizer = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(lr) train = optimizer.minimize(loss, global_step=self.global_step, gate_gradients=optimizer.GATE_NONE) self._train = train def build_eval_graph(self): """Build the eval graph.""" # Eval graph # Each analogy task is to predict the 4th word (d) given three # words: a, b, c. E.g., a=italy, b=rome, c=france, we should # predict d=paris. # The eval feeds three vectors of word ids for a, b, c, each of # which is of size N, where N is the number of analogies we want to # evaluate in one batch. analogy_a = tf.placeholder(dtype=tf.int32) # [N] analogy_b = tf.placeholder(dtype=tf.int32) # [N] analogy_c = tf.placeholder(dtype=tf.int32) # [N] # Normalized word embeddings of shape [vocab_size, emb_dim]. nemb = tf.nn.l2_normalize(self._emb, 1) # Each row of a_emb, b_emb, c_emb is a word's embedding vector. # They all have the shape [N, emb_dim] a_emb = tf.gather(nemb, analogy_a) # a's embs b_emb = tf.gather(nemb, analogy_b) # b's embs c_emb = tf.gather(nemb, analogy_c) # c's embs # We expect that d's embedding vectors on the unit hyper-sphere is # near: c_emb + (b_emb - a_emb), which has the shape [N, emb_dim]. target = c_emb + (b_emb - a_emb) # Compute cosine distance between each pair of target and vocab. # dist has shape [N, vocab_size]. dist = tf.matmul(target, nemb, transpose_b=True) # For each question (row in dist), find the top 4 words. _, pred_idx = tf.nn.top_k(dist, 4) # Nodes for computing neighbors for a given word according to # their cosine distance. nearby_word = tf.placeholder(dtype=tf.int32) # word id nearby_emb = tf.gather(nemb, nearby_word) nearby_dist = tf.matmul(nearby_emb, nemb, transpose_b=True) nearby_val, nearby_idx = tf.nn.top_k(nearby_dist, min(1000, self._options.vocab_size)) # Nodes in the construct graph which are used by training and # evaluation to run/feed/fetch. self._analogy_a = analogy_a self._analogy_b = analogy_b self._analogy_c = analogy_c self._analogy_pred_idx = pred_idx self._nearby_word = nearby_word self._nearby_val = nearby_val self._nearby_idx = nearby_idx def build_graph(self): """Build the graph for the full model.""" opts = self._options # The training data. A text file. (words, counts, words_per_epoch, self._epoch, self._words, examples, labels) = word2vec.skipgram(filename=opts.train_data, batch_size=opts.batch_size, window_size=opts.window_size, min_count=opts.min_count, subsample=opts.subsample) (opts.vocab_words, opts.vocab_counts, opts.words_per_epoch) = self._session.run([words, counts, words_per_epoch]) opts.vocab_size = len(opts.vocab_words) print("Data file: ", opts.train_data) print("Vocab size: ", opts.vocab_size - 1, " + UNK") print("Words per epoch: ", opts.words_per_epoch) self._examples = examples self._labels = labels self._id2word = opts.vocab_words for i, w in enumerate(self._id2word): self._word2id[w] = i true_logits, sampled_logits = self.forward(examples, labels) loss = self.nce_loss(true_logits, sampled_logits) tf.scalar_summary("NCE loss", loss) self._loss = loss self.optimize(loss) # Properly initialize all variables. tf.initialize_all_variables().run() self.saver = tf.train.Saver() def save_vocab(self): """Save the vocabulary to a file so the model can be reloaded.""" opts = self._options with open(os.path.join(opts.save_path, "vocab.txt"), "w") as f: for i in xrange(opts.vocab_size): f.write("%s %d\n" % (tf.compat.as_text(opts.vocab_words[i]), opts.vocab_counts[i])) def _train_thread_body(self): initial_epoch, = self._session.run([self._epoch]) while True: _, epoch = self._session.run([self._train, self._epoch]) if epoch != initial_epoch: break def train(self): """Train the model.""" opts = self._options initial_epoch, initial_words = self._session.run([self._epoch, self._words]) summary_op = tf.merge_all_summaries() summary_writer = tf.train.SummaryWriter(opts.save_path, graph_def=self._session.graph_def) workers = [] for _ in xrange(opts.concurrent_steps): t = threading.Thread(target=self._train_thread_body) t.start() workers.append(t) last_words, last_time, last_summary_time = initial_words, time.time(), 0 last_checkpoint_time = 0 while True: time.sleep(opts.statistics_interval) # Reports our progress once a while. (epoch, step, loss, words, lr) = self._session.run( [self._epoch, self.global_step, self._loss, self._words, self._lr]) now = time.time() last_words, last_time, rate = words, now, (words - last_words) / ( now - last_time) print("Epoch %4d Step %8d: lr = %5.3f loss = %6.2f words/sec = %8.0f\r" % (epoch, step, lr, loss, rate), end="") sys.stdout.flush() if now - last_summary_time > opts.summary_interval: summary_str = self._session.run(summary_op) summary_writer.add_summary(summary_str, step) last_summary_time = now if now - last_checkpoint_time > opts.checkpoint_interval: self.saver.save(self._session, opts.save_path + "model", global_step=step.astype(int)) last_checkpoint_time = now if epoch != initial_epoch: break for t in workers: t.join() return epoch def _predict(self, analogy): """Predict the top 4 answers for analogy questions.""" idx, = self._session.run([self._analogy_pred_idx], { self._analogy_a: analogy[:, 0], self._analogy_b: analogy[:, 1], self._analogy_c: analogy[:, 2] }) return idx def eval(self): """Evaluate analogy questions and reports accuracy.""" # How many questions we get right at precision@1. correct = 0 total = self._analogy_questions.shape[0] start = 0 while start < total: limit = start + 2500 sub = self._analogy_questions[start:limit, :] idx = self._predict(sub) start = limit for question in xrange(sub.shape[0]): for j in xrange(4): if idx[question, j] == sub[question, 3]: # Bingo! We predicted correctly. E.g., [italy, rome, france, paris]. correct += 1 break elif idx[question, j] in sub[question, :3]: # We need to skip words already in the question. continue else: # The correct label is not the precision@1 break print() print("Eval %4d/%d accuracy = %4.1f%%" % (correct, total, correct * 100.0 / total)) def analogy(self, w0, w1, w2): """Predict word w3 as in w0:w1 vs w2:w3.""" wid = np.array([[self._word2id.get(w, 0) for w in [w0, w1, w2]]]) idx = self._predict(wid) for c in [self._id2word[i] for i in idx[0, :]]: if c not in [w0, w1, w2]: return c return "unknown" def nearby(self, words, num=20): """Prints out nearby words given a list of words.""" ids = np.array([self._word2id.get(x, 0) for x in words]) vals, idx = self._session.run( [self._nearby_val, self._nearby_idx], {self._nearby_word: ids}) for i in xrange(len(words)): print("\n%s\n=====================================" % (words[i])) for (neighbor, distance) in zip(idx[i, :num], vals[i, :num]): print("%-20s %6.4f" % (self._id2word[neighbor], distance)) def _start_shell(local_ns=None): # An interactive shell is useful for debugging/development. import IPython user_ns = {} if local_ns: user_ns.update(local_ns) user_ns.update(globals()) IPython.start_ipython(argv=[], user_ns=user_ns) def main(_): """Train a word2vec model.""" if not FLAGS.train_data or not FLAGS.eval_data or not FLAGS.save_path: print("--train_data --eval_data and --save_path must be specified.") sys.exit(1) opts = Options() with tf.Graph().as_default(), tf.Session() as session: with tf.device("/cpu:0"): model = Word2Vec(opts, session) for _ in xrange(opts.epochs_to_train): model.train() # Process one epoch model.eval() # Eval analogies. # Perform a final save. model.saver.save(session, os.path.join(opts.save_path, "model.ckpt"), global_step=model.global_step) if FLAGS.interactive: # E.g., # [0]: model.analogy('france', 'paris', 'russia') # [1]: model.nearby(['proton', 'elephant', 'maxwell']) _start_shell(locals()) if __name__ == "__main__": tf.app.run()
