Hi,
On 06/01/2017 01:32 AM, Shujing Ke wrote:
Hi, Nil and Ben,
I studied the corpus. Is each BindLink one instance of inference? So
Yes.
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,
No they can and should be mined separately as well. Specifically what we
are interested in are the structures of ExecutionOutputLink (EOL). The
third argument of an inference BindLink is systematically gonna be an
EOL wrapping other EOLs, and we are mostly interested in mining these
EOLs. But ultimately mining the whole BindLink might be useful too. We
may want to do both, but for starter only mine patterns with an EOL as
root link.
(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?
No we want to extract patterns across BindLinks (or EOLs) that have
different structures, what I believe the pattern miner is good at, right?
Nil
But I will still give it a try with Pattern Miner.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Nil Geisweiller
<[email protected] <mailto:[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
<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/1aa37712-038a-0ddf-602f-840ba80e4444%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
