Is a neural network a lazy or eager learning method? Different web pages say different things so I want to get a solid answer with good literature to back it up. The most obvious book to look in would be Mitchell's famous Machine Learning book but skimming through the whole thing I can't see the answer. Thanks :).
Looking at the definition of the terms lazy and eager learning, and knowing how a neural network works, I believe that it is clear that it is eager. A trained network is a generalisation function, all the weights and paths used to arrive at a classification are entirely determined by training data, but the training data itself is not retained for the purposes of the decision making.
An important distinction is that a Lazy system stores its training data and uses it directly to determine a solution. An eager system determines a function from the training data, and thereafter the training data is no longer required. That is to say you cannot determine what the training data was from an eager system's function. A neural network certainly fits that description. An eager system can therfore be very storage efficient, but conversely is non-deterministic, in the sense that it is not possible to determine how or why it arrived a a particular solution, so problems of poor or inappropriate training data may be difficult deal with.
The eager article linked above even gives artificial neural networks as an example. You might of course prefer a cited text to Wikipedia but the page has existed with that assertion since 2007 without contradictory edits, so I'd say that was pretty robust.
Some neural networks are eager learners, and some are lazy. Feedforward neural networks (as are commonly trained by some variant of backpropagation) are eager: they attempt to derive a representation of the underlying relationships in the data at the time of training. Radial basis function networks (such as probabilistic NN or generalized regression NN), on the other hand, are lazy learners (very much like k-nearest neighbors, the classic lazy learner).
A neural network is generally considered to be an "eager" learning method.
"Eager" learning methods are models that learn from the training data in real-time, adjusting the model parameters as new examples are presented. Neural networks are an example of an eager learning method because the model parameters are updated during the training process, as the algorithm iteratively processes the training examples. This allows the model to adapt and improve its performance as more examples are seen.
On the other hand, "lazy" learning methods, also known as instance-based or memory-based learning, only learn from the training data when a new example is presented. The model does not update its parameters during the training process but instead, it memorizes the training data and uses it to make predictions. Lazy learning methods typically require less computation time to make predictions than eager learning methods, but they may not perform as well on unseen data.
In general, neural networks are considered eager learning methods because their parameters are updated during the training process.
Here are a few literature references:
"Eager Learning vs. Lazy Learning" by R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, and T. M. Mitchell. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the distinction between eager and lazy learning, and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. It was published in Machine Learning, 1983.
"An overview of instance-based learning algorithms" by A. K. Jain and R. C. Dubes. This book chapter provides an overview of the main concepts and techniques used in instance-based or lazy learning, and compares them to other types of learning algorithms, such as decision trees and neural networks. It was published in "Algorithms for Clustering Data" by Prentice-Hall, Inc. in 1988.
" Machine Learning" by Tom Mitchell. This book provides a comprehensive introduction to the field of machine learning, including the concepts of eager and lazy learning. It covers a wide range of topics, from supervised and unsupervised learning to deep learning and reinforcement learning. It was published by McGraw-Hill Education in 1997.
"Introduction to Machine Learning" by Alpaydin, E. This book provides an introduction to the field of machine learning, including the concepts of eager and lazy learning, as well as a broad range of machine learning algorithms. It was published by MIT press in 2010
It's also worth noting, that this classification of lazy and eager learning is not always clear cut and can be somewhat subjective, and some algorithms can belong to both categories, depending on the specific implementation.
Related
I am wondering what type of machine learning it uses and if someone could explain it to me. I have researched the different types and am unable to disngtuish what type it is due to my lack of knowledge.
While it's hard to say for sure, the fact that they're using deep learning on GPUs - pointing towards neural networks [1] seems to suggest that they're using a combination of unsupervised and supervised learning. The latter for bootstrapping the bot, and the former to learn on the job.
[1] http://www.existor.com/ai-parallel
call it weakly-supervised learning since we do not have exact labels but have intended document types. I dont know exaclty Cleverbot but state of the art takes large amount of documents and find models sequence relations of words by using Recurrent Neural Networks and LSTM in particular. Sometimes before it was Hidden Markov Models but now Deep Learning changed the game. If you search NLP with Recurrent Neural Network Google blows information.
I know that Artificial Intelligence field is very vast and there are many books on it. But i just want to know the any resource where i can get the simple inroduction to all Artificail Intelligence techniques like
It would like to have 1 or 2 page introduction of all techniques and their examples of how they can be applied or for what purpose they can be used. I am interested in
Backpropagation Algoritm
Hebbs Law
Bayesian networks
Markov Chain Models
Simulated Annealing
Tabu Search
Genetic Algorithms or Evolutionary Algos
Now there are many variants and more AI techniques. And each one have many books written on them. i am unable to decide which algos i can use unless i know what they are capable of doing.
So can i find 1-2 page inroduction of them with Application examples
Essentials of Metaheuristics covers several of these - I can't promise it'll cover all of them, but I know there's good stuff on simulated annealing and genetic algorithms in there. Probably at least a few of the others, but I'd have to re-download it to check. It's available for free download.
It can be a bit light on the theory, but it'll give you a straightforward description, some explanation of when you'd want to use each, and a lot of useful pseudocode.
Here's an image on local search (= tabu search without tabu) from the Drools Planner manual:
I am working on similar images for Greedy algorithms, brute force, branch and bound and simulated annealing.
As an example of Genetic Algorithms implementation I can give you this.
It's an API I developed for GA, with one implementation for each operator, and one concrete example problem solved ((good) Soccer Team among ~600 players with budget restriction). Its all setup so you run it with mvn exec:java and watch it evolving in the console output. But you can implement your own problem structure, or even other operators (crossing, mutating, selection) methods.
I'm starting to study machine learning and bayesian inference applied to computer vision and affective computing.
If I understand right, there is a big discussion between
classical IA, ontology, semantic web researchers
and machine learning and bayesian guys
I think it is usually referred as strong AI vs weak AI related also to philosophical issues like functional psychology (brain as black box set) and cognitive psychology (theory of mind, mirror neuron), but this is not the point in a programming forum like this.
I'd like to understand the differences between the two points of view. Ideally, answers will reference examples and academic papers where one approach get good results and the other fails. I am also interested in the historical trends: why approaches fell out of favour and a newer approaches began to rise up. For example, I know that Bayesian inference is computationally intractable, problem in NP, and that's why for a long time probabilistic models was not favoured in information technology world. However, they've began to rise up in econometrics.
I think you have got several ideas mixed up together. It's true that there is a distinction that gets drawn between rule-based and probabilistic approaches to 'AI' tasks, however it has nothing to do with strong or weak AI, very little to do with psychology and it's not nearly as clear cut as being a battle between two opposing sides. Also, I think saying Bayesian inference was not used in computer science because inference is NP complete in general is a bit misleading. That result often doesn't matter that much in practice and most machine learning algorithms don't do real Bayesian inference anyway.
Having said all that, the history of Natural Language Processing went from rule-based systems in the 80s and early 90s to machine learning systems up to the present day. Look at the history of the MUC conferences to see the early approaches to information extraction task. Compare that with the current state-of-the-art in named entity recognition and parsing (the ACL wiki is a good source for this) which are all based on machine learning methods.
As far as specific references, I doubt you'll find anyone writing an academic paper that says 'statistical systems are better than rule-based systems' because it's often very hard to make a definite statement like that. A quick Google for 'statistical vs. rule based' yields papers like this which looks at machine translation and recommends using both approaches, according to their strengths and weaknesses. I think you'll find that this is pretty typical of academic papers. The only thing I've read that really makes a stand on the issue is 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data' which is a good read.
As for the "rule-based" vs. " probabilistic" thing you can go for the classic book by Judea Pearl - "Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. Pearl writes very biased towards what he calls "intensional systems" which is basically the counter-part to rule-based stuff. I think this book is what set off the whole probabilistic thing in AI (you can also argue the time was due, but then it was THE book of that time).
I think machine-learning is a different story (though it's nearer to probabilistic AI than to logics).
There are many papers about ranged combat artificial intelligences, like Killzones's (see this paper), or Halo. But I've not been able to find much about a fighting IA except for this work, which uses neural networs to learn how to fight, which is not exactly what I'm looking for.
Occidental AI in games is heavily focused on FPS, it seems! Does anyone know which techniques are used to implement a decent fighting AI? Hierarchical Finite State Machines? Decision Trees? They could end up being pretty predictable.
In our research labs, we are using AI planning technology for games. AI Planning is used by NASA to build semi-autonomous robots. Planning can produce less predictable behavior than state machines, but planning is a highly complex problem, that is, solving planning problems has a huge computational complexity.
AI Planning is an old but interesting field. Particularly for gaming only recently people have started using planning to run their engines. The expressiveness is still limited in the current implementations, but in theory the expressiveness is limited "only by our imagination".
Russel and Norvig have devoted 4 chapters on AI Planning in their book on Artificial Intelligence. Other related terms you might be interested in are: Markov Decision Processes, Bayesian Networks. These topics are also provided sufficient exposure in this book.
If you are looking for some ready-made engine to easily start using, I guess using AI Planning would be a gross overkill. I don't know of any AI Planning engine for games but we are developing one. If you are interested in the long term, we can talk separately about it.
You seem to know already the techniques for planning and executing. Another thing that you need to do is predict the opponent's next move and maximize the expected reward of your response. I wrote a blog article about this: http://www.masterbaboon.com/2009/05/my-ai-reads-your-mind-and-kicks-your-ass-part-2/ and http://www.masterbaboon.com/2009/09/my-ai-reads-your-mind-extensions-part-3/ . The game I consider is very simple, but I think the main ideas from Bayesian decision theory might be useful for your project.
I have reverse engineered the routines related to the AI subsystem within the Street Figher II series of games. It does not incorporate any of the techniques mentioned above. It is entirely reactive and involves no planning, learning or goals. Interestingly, there is no "technique weight" system that you mention, either. They don't use global weights for decisions to decide the frequency of attack versus block, for example. When taking apart the routines related to how "difficulty" is made to seem to increase, I did expect to find something like that. Alas, it relates to a number of smaller decisions that could potentially affect those ratios in an emergent way.
Another route to consider is the so called Ghost AI as described here & here. As the name suggests you basically extract rules from actual game play, first paper does it offline and the second extends the methodology for online real time learning.
Check out also the guy's webpage, there are a number of other papers on fighting games that are interesting.
http://www.ice.ci.ritsumei.ac.jp/~ftgaic/index-R.html
its old but here are some examples
What do you use?
Fast Artificial Neural Network Library (FANN) is a free open source neural network library, which implements multilayer artificial neural networks in C with support for both fully connected and sparsely connected networks. Cross-platform execution in both fixed and floating point are supported. It includes a framework for easy handling of training data sets. It is easy to use, versatile, well documented, and fast. PHP, C++, .NET, Ada, Python, Delphi, Octave, Ruby, Prolog Pure Data and Mathematica bindings are available.
FannTool A graphical user interface is also available for the library.
There are a lot of different network simulators dependant on how detailed you want to do your sim, and what kind of network you want to simulate.
NEURON and GENESIS are good if you want to simulate full biological networks (Which I'm geussing you probably don't) even down to the behaviour of dendrites etc.
NEST and SPLIT and some others are good for doing population simulations where you create the population on a node-by-node basis and see what the whole population does. This is pretty much the 'industry' standard approach, and is used a lot in research and commercial applications, so there are worth looking into. I know that IBM use SPLIT for some of their research.
MIIND is good if you want to use differential equations to model what a population would do, but this approach is relatively new and computationally expensive (if very cool).
Not sure if that is exactly what you wanted!
(N.B. if you google any of the names in caps along with the word "simulator" you will end up at the relevant web page =)
Whenever I've wanted to play around with any data mining algorithm quickly, I just load up Weka. It's pretty complex but it implements a lot of algorithms (including neural networks) with a lot of customizability. Plus, it has some visualizations for NNs.
It is old, but I have always used NeuroShell 2 when not using my own code. Unfortunately, it is not free. I think The newer NeuroShells are designed only for predicting stocks.
If you're looking to experiment with deep learning, you should look into
Theano
Pylearn2 (which is based on Theano)