Alexey: Yeah the pattern miner is a crude tool but it's still a valuable one ... sometimes statistically pruned brute force search (which, in an Atomspace pattern context, is the pattern miner) is all you can do...
As you know one of our TODOs for this year is to fully integrate MOSES, PLN, Concept Blending and Pattern Miner within Atomspace using the URE ... this will give us a much richer toolset for concept creation and generalization ... Sometime in a few weeks I will write up some details on my ideas/plans for integrating all these things (I think Nil gets it already though...)... for the next few weeks it seems I'll be swamped with SingularityNET organizational stuff ... -- Ben On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:27 AM, 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding the pattern mining challenge: > > It seems it would be valuable to support embedded subtrees. For instance > given ground terms > > Evaluation > Predicate "P" > List > Concept "A" > > Evaluation > Predicate "P" > List > List > Concept "A" > > ... > > we have currently no way to express queries like: > > atoms starting with Evaluation P ... and containing Concept "A" somewhere > down their tree. > > One can do that by inserting a scheme function call in the query but that's > neither convenient nor efficient, and ultimately unnatural to build, which > the pattern miner needs to do. > > Regarding the guided inference challenge: > > Unless we have an obscene number of rules (sketch-based or other), I don't > think it should be too problematic because decision is cheap (at least as > currently implemented as Thomson bandit, close to linear with the number of > rules I believe, assuming rules are cheap to evaluate though). However, I'm > not seeing precisely how resources allocated to each sketch would be > managed, it feels that it already requires to jump to another meta-level. I > don't know. > > I agree with Alexey that good proof sketching requires good > conceptualization. I suppose it's kinda of a chicken-egg problem, isn't it? > Yet more turtles... > > Nil > > On 01/08/2018 03:27 PM, Alexey Potapov wrote: >> >> Ben, >> here are some of my random thoughts on this. >> Indeed, loose reasoning over generalized concepts should be very important >> for AGI, and proof sketching seems an interesting analogy here. However, >> there are others. E.g. in Heuristic Search, there were attempts to >> generalize states and transitions between them, and to search in this >> greatly reduced search space first. Unfortunately, I don't know any general >> and interesting solution here. In deep reinforcement learning, there also >> was a paper on learning both a space of generalized states and a policy for >> it. I don't believe that such deep learning models will scale up to complex >> symbolic domains, but 'theorem proving' approach might also be too >> restrictive... >> I have been thinking about this topic for a while recently, and I believe >> that inference control should be tightly connected with conceptualization. >> We rarely can find patterns in inference trees per se, but humans usually >> construct new concepts, in terms of which they can describe >> (domain-specific) inference rules. E.g. in the Go game, players use quite >> abstract notions ('wall', etc.) and reasoning over them (building a wall >> here will protect the territory and spread the influence). Such rules and >> concepts can be mined not in the inference trees, but in historical data of >> agent-environment interactions... >> So, >> - Most inference rules are domain-specific rules, and they involve >> concepts constructed specifically to be used in these rules (one can go >> further and say that most of our concepts are inference control concepts, >> but it sounds too radical) >> - There are just a few general inference rules (e.g. entities, which are >> similar w.r.t. some properties, might be similar w.r.t. other properties). >> These rules involve general concepts (e.g. similarity), which can be either >> pre-defined, or which can also be constructed together with these rules for >> these rules to work (e.g. similar entities are entities for which this >> inference rule works). Such rules based on predefined abstract concepts and >> relations can be found by Pattern Miner, but this is of limited interest. >> - Inference/reasoning is an abstracted simulation/prediction. There should >> be no huge difference in constructing higher-level concepts from experience >> and from inference trees. >> - Generalization is an extremely non-trivial task. And what I see is that >> OpenCog is very refined in the part of reasoning, but it uses very >> simplistic Pattern Miner for generalization. Obviously, we cannot use >> anything heavier at the scale of the whole Atomspace, but for isolated >> domains, this should necessarily be done. Well, there is also MOSES in >> OpenCog, but it is also somewhat specialized, and not deeply integrated... >> Well... 'Proof sketching' for inference control is the step in the right >> direction, but we should focus much more on a stronger generalization... >> >> -- Alexey >> >> >> 2018-01-07 13:52 GMT+03:00 Ben Goertzel <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> >> Nil, Zar, Alexey, Eddie, Mike, anyone else interested, >> >> Attached file "inference-sketch-notes.pdf" outlines some speculative >> thinking i've been doing regarding using "proof sketching" as a means >> of PLN inference control... >> >> (the other attached file contains, toward the end, an example bio-AI >> inference that I use as an example in the document...) >> >> Nil, I am throwing these ideas out here now in part because they >> present a potentially important use-case for the integration of >> rule-engine inference into the pattern miner, as you're in the midst >> of working on... >> >> -- Ben >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> http://goertzel.org >> >> "In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or >> becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and >> experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In >> the mind, there are no limits.... In the province of connected minds, >> what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true >> within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. >> These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's >> mind there are no limits." -- John Lilly >> >> -- >> 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] >> <mailto:opencog%[email protected]>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog >> <https://groups.google.com/group/opencog>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CACYTDBejdBtiWWTKpdAq3M3RbomTCccSESfqQ-eBMHhWH9DR2w%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CACYTDBejdBtiWWTKpdAq3M3RbomTCccSESfqQ-eBMHhWH9DR2w%40mail.gmail.com>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> > > -- > 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/b095ba43-f191-1a08-fbdd-d7bb8c94cdd4%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits.... In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits." -- John Lilly -- 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/CACYTDBeduwQT9ERwDFs40QQ8nCtvDkzESA9RSZacPiOqoCVV8w%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
