Hi, Nil and Ben,
I studied the corpus. Is each BindLink one instance of inference? So that
each BindLink should be considered as primitve / atomic - one pattern
should be one BindLink; any Links inside a BindLink should not be mined
separatly, right? For example,
(InheritanceLink
(VariableNode "$X")
(PatternVariableNode "var1")
)
(InheritanceLink
(VariableNode "$X")
(VariableNode "$B-6266d6f2")
)
(InheritanceLink
(VariableNode "$B-6266d6f2")
(PatternVariableNode "var1")
)
This is a pattern that may be mined by patten miner from the PLN corpus
under a general purpose. But it is not that kind of expected patterns as
descriped in
http://wiki.opencog.org/w/Pattern_Miner_Prospective_Examples#patterns_in_PLN_inference_histories
Actually, the particular goal here is not to mine any connected patterns
freely, it is to mine a particular type of patterns - abstraction of
BindLinks of the same structures. If two BindLinks have different
structures, even they share one or several Nodes, patterns still should not
be extracted from them. For example,
(BindLink
(LinkTypeA
(NodeType_a "someNode1")
(NodeType_b "someNode2")
)
(LinkTypeB
(NodeType_c "someNode3")
(LinkTypeC
(NodeType_c "someNode3")
(NodeType_d "someNode4")
)
)
)
(BindLink
(LinkTypeA
(NodeType_a "someNode1")
(NodeType_e "someNode5)
)
(LinkTypeD
(NodeType_e "someNode5")
(NodeType_f "someNode6")
)
)
This two BindLinks share the same Node (NodeType_a "someNode1"), a common
pattern of (LinkTypeA) can be extracted for mining general patterns, but
these two BindLinks have different structures - the first BindLink contains
a LinkTypeA , a LinkTypeB and a LinkTypeC; the second BindLink contains a
LinkTypeA and a LinkTypeD. So despite the ultimate goal of AGI, to learning
this type of patterns more effectively, it's better to find all the
BindLinks with same structures, and then apply some kind of induction
learning algorithm on them. What do you think?
But I will still give it a try with Pattern Miner.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Nil Geisweiller <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've corrected the inferences (note that ExecutionLink are actually
> ExecutionOutputLink because the "inference trails" are actually inferences
> to be executed rather than records).
>
> Also I've attached a file with ~500 inferences obtained from running the
> BackwardChainerUTest, can generate many more if needed.
>
> Nil
>
> On 05/21/2017 06:17 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
>> Nil,
>>
>> I wrote down our two sketchy examples of patterns to be mined from PLN
>> inference patterns, from our F2F discussion last week, here:
>>
>> http://wiki.opencog.org/w/Pattern_Miner_Prospective_Examples
>> #patterns_in_PLN_inference_histories
>>
>> It will be good if you can write these out in the fully explicit
>> Atomese format that PLN actually uses to save its inference
>> histories...
>>
>> thx!
>> ben
>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CALpD4-LB3Pn096UAW0PeSX50nxEZixV0jZwbqOCyf%2Bs4dsvFTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
