<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Learning New Facts From Knowledge Bases With Neural Tensor Networks and Semantic Word Vectors · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1301.3618/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1301.3618/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Learning New Facts From Knowledge Bases With Neural Tensor Networks and Semantic Word Vectors — mentioned by kmike84</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8806296</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1301.3618:8806296</guid><pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 14:13:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Sure they can, see e.g. http://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/SocherChenManningNg_NIPS2013.pd... or http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3618v2.pdf. Check the first paper - when working on this problem researchers from Stanford developed a way to measure the quality of an approach, evaluated the results on 30k+ relation examples from 2 different datasets and compared their algorithm with 4 other algorithms. The problem with cortical.io or numenta (both commercial companies) is that they don&amp;#x27;t compare their approaches with existing approaches and don&amp;#x27;t evaluate them on public datasets. And when people do such…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1301.3618/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
