Anton, I feel like I am torturing you, and for that, I apologize. But when I read your attachments, I see things like this: Page 2:
> Obstacles > The following problems have been encountered during the research. > > 1. The MST-parses quality seems to be the main blocking issue preventing learning the reasonable and useful Link Grammar rules. To me, this claim sounds absurd and outlandish -- it is a direct violation of the central limit theorem. The quality of the MST parses should have no effect (minimal effect) on the learned grammar. That is what the central limit theorem says. So, as bullet/obstacle #1, you claim that a cornerstone, a foundation-stone of probability theory is false? Incorrect? Inapplicable? What evidence do you provide that your claim is true? Well -- none, so far. Now, perhaps the central limit theorem does not apply to language-learning. Perhaps it does not work the way that I think it would work. Perhaps it's invalid for Zipfian distributions. Perhaps it requires more iterations. We can be creative and invent many "perhaps". Which of these is it? You cannot just discard one of the cornerstone theorems of probability without explaining how/why. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Provide that proof. -- Linas On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 12:57 AM Anton Kolonin @ Gmail <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Linas, > > Are you saying that "while ULL team has found strong linear correlation > between A) quality (F1) on input parses and B) quality (F1) of the output > parses based on the grammar learned from the input parses, this phenomenon > is due to the fact that they test on the entire input corpus so this > phenomena should go away once they test on gold standard corpus consisting > only of sentences with high-frequency words"? > > If so, I hope we will have this premise verified instrumentally. > > Best regards, > > -Anton > > > 02.04.2019 5:38, Linas Vepstas пишет: > > OK, There's clearly a lot ow work happening in linguistics these days, > that I have fallen behind on reading. > > The nature of the conversations here has been frustrating, because so far, > it sounds like an attempt to evade the "central limit theorem" -- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem > > There are two related ideas I'm trying to get across: one is that if you > make enough observations of a phenomenon, eventually, the central-limit > theorem kicks in, and smooths over random variations. Specifically, I > claim that, despite MST being imperfect, a large number of observations > should smooth over the imperfections. I believe this to be true, (but I > could be wrong). > > The other idea is that the golden test corpus must avoid accidentally > testing disjuncts far away from the central limit -- to avoid, as it were, > making statements analogous to "Well, I flipped the coin three times, and I > did not get 50-50 odds, therefore the theory doesn't work". You have to > flip the coin at least N times, for some large N. Here, for MST, we don't > know how big N has to be, we don't have a good plan for determining N. > It's worse, cause everything is Zipfian aka 1/f noise. It is possible that > BERT or other approaches allow smaller values of N to work, but this is > also not clear. > > Its also not clear that BERT would converge to a different limit than MST > - the central-limit theorem says there is only one limit -- not two. But > perhaps I'm misapplying it, perhaps I'm neglecting some important effect. > Without measurements, its hard to guess what that effect is (if it even > exists). > > Anyway, I have a backlog of half-a-dozen important unread papers, so I'll > try to get around to that "real soon now". > > --linas > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:15 AM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Replacing MST by DNN/BERT" is a strange way to put it... >> >> DNN/BERT builds a pretty complex and comprehensive language model, >> much beyond what is done by calculation of MI values and similar >> >> The extraction of a parse dag satisfying syntactic constraints (no >> links cross, covering all words in the sentence, connected graph) is a >> conceptually simple step, and nobody is spending much time on this >> step indeed... >> >> The question of how to assign a quantitative weight to the relation >> btw two word-instances in a sentence, taking into account the specific >> context in that sentence, but also the history of co-utilization of >> those words (or other similar words), is less conceptually simple and >> this is one place I think DNN language models can help >> >> Using MST or similar parsing based on numbers exported from DNN >> language models is one way of extracting symbolic-ish structured >> knowledge from these big messy subsymbolic probabilistic language >> models... >> >> The DNNs in use now like BERT do not really satisfy me on a >> theoretical or conceptual level, but they have been tuned to work >> pretty nicely and they have been implemented pretty efficiently on >> multi-GPU hardware -- so, given this and given the quality of the >> recent practical results obtained with them -- I consider it well >> worth exploring how to use them as tools in our pursuits for grammar >> and semantics learning >> >> -- Ben >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 2:07 PM Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:51 PM Anton Kolonin @ Gmail < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Linas, I like this thread more and more :-) >> > >> > I don't. I use a lot of CAPITALIZED WORDS below. There is a deep and >> dark fundamental misunderstanding, and I am sometimes at wits end trying to >> figure out why, and how to explain things in an understandable fashion. >> >> >> >> >But somehow, I suspect... Isn't this why OpenCog has "unified rule >> engine" (URE) instead of link grammar at its core, >> >> >> >> Linas, the "extraction of phrasemes" goal approaching has been >> discussed exactly in terms of MST->GL->URL on the last fall in Hong Kong >> discussion: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13YyqtGud0GAbVaFcc94kAd2LhGf7jTr5XDYgiuC294c/edit >> >> >> >> That is: >> >> >> >> 1) Do MST-parsing to get word links proto-disjuncts >> >> >> >> 2) Do Grammar Learning to cluster and conclude word categories and >> rules with disjuncts >> >> >> >> 3) Do URE-kind-of-thing to build the rules into "phrasemes" or >> "sections" or "patterns". >> > >> > Yes. >> >> >> >> However, your current discourse and our current results just show that >> "no one is be able to do reasonable MST-parsing" so the above is just waste >> of time, correct? >> > >> > No. Very much no. I'm saying the opposite of that. You can replace MST >> by almost *ANYTHING* else, and the quality of your results WILL NOT CHANGE! >> > >> > If the quality of your results depends on the quality of MST, you are >> DOING SOMETHING WRONG! >> > >> > I'm utterly flabbergasted. I don't know how many more times I can say >> this: stop wasting time on this unimportant step! >> >> >> >> At the time we speak, Ben, Alexely, Sergey and Asuares are trying to >> use DNN/BERT magic to do the trick 1. >> > >> > I want to call this "a complete waste of time". It will almost surely >> not improve the quality of the results! I don't understand why four smart >> people think that replacing MST by BERT will make any difference at all! >> It should not matter! Nothing depends on this step! Anything at all, >> anything with a probability better than random chance, is sufficient! Why >> isn't this obvious? >> > >> > If Ben is reading this: I recall talking to Ben about this in an >> ice-cream shop in Berlin, for an AGI conference, and he seemed to >> understand back then. I have no idea why he changed his mind. I really do >> not understand why everyone spends so much time obsessing about MST. Is >> this a "color of the bike shed" problem? >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality >> > >> > MST-vs.-BERT==color-of-bike-shed >> > >> > Just use MST. It's simple. It works. It gives good results. Stop >> trying to improve it. The interesting problems are elsewhere! Just use >> MST, and move on to the good stuff! >> >> >> >> To my mind, that may get possible only if the DNN/BERT magic do the >> trick having the steps 2 and 3 done under the hood. If this is done, in >> such case, we don't need to do 2 and 3 after we have the DNN/BERT-based >> model, because we can simply "milk-out" the grammar rules out of DNN/BERT >> micelium for that. And we don't need the ULL as well by the way, because we >> just need DNN/BERT and rows of different sorts of milk machines around it. >> > >> > So why are you bothering to work on ULL? >> >> >> >> So, instead of solving the problem of constructing the pipeline for >> learning grammar from raw text we need to solve the problem of milking the >> grammar out of DNN/BERT model trained on these texts, right? >> > >> > Because I don't think that you know how to milk lexical functions out >> of DNN/BERT -- We've wasted more than a year talking about MST. Instead of >> endlessly talking about MST, you could have JUST USED IT, WITHOUT ANY >> MODIFICATIONS, gotten good results, and spent the year working on something >> interesting! >> > >> > Again: replacing MST by DNN/BERT with something else will NOT IMPROVE >> the accuracy! You'll have exactly the same accuracy as before, and if your >> accuracy improves, it is because you are doing something wrong! >> > >> >> However, either way, we need to understand algorithmic machinery of >> how the links assemble in disjuncts and disjuncts assemble into sections, >> through the universe-scale combinatorial explosion. >> > >> > No. That is the OPPOSITE of what ACTUALLY HAPPENS!!!! >> >> >> >> And I agree that clustering and categorizing word and links (and then >> disjuncts and sections, right) is part of the process - explicitly in ULL >> pipeline or implicitly deep in DNN/BERT darkness. >> > >> > It is NOT DEEP AND DARK. I wrote not one but TWO PAPERS on this, >> CASTING LIGHT ON THAT DARKNESS >> > >> > I'm frustrated to the 43rd degree on why I cannot seem to have a >> reasonable conversation with any other human being about any of this. >> > >> > -- Linas >> > >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> -Anton >> >> >> >> >> >> 01.04.2019 9:17, Linas Vepstas: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:22 AM Ivan V. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Linas Vepstas wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >... knowledge extraction can be done generically, and not just on >> language. >> >>> >> >>> If link grammar would be Turing complete, this might be possible >> right away. >> >> >> >> >> >> In my experience, thinking about Turing completeness is unproductive >> and a distraction. >> >> >> >>> But somehow, I suspect... Isn't this why OpenCog has "unified rule >> engine" (URE) instead of link grammar at its core, >> >> >> >> >> >> No. It has the rule-engine because back then, I did not understand >> sheaves. I'm starting to think that the rule engine is a strategic >> mistake. The original idea is that rule-application is the main conceptual >> abstraction of term-rewriting. One rewrites, or proves theorems by >> applying sequences of rules. It turns out that discovering the right >> sequence is hard. Finding correct long sequences is hard - a combinatorial >> explosion. >> >> >> >> The openpsi system addresses some of these issues. Unfortunately, it's >> current implementation is a tangle of rule-selection mechanisms, and >> theories of human psychology. It's probably better than the URE, but is >> currently not as powerful. >> >> >> >> I'm trying to place a theory of sheaves as a replacement for URE, and >> as the natural generalization of openpsi, but I've successfully >> self-sabotaged myself in these efforts. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> and with URE things get much more complicated. I'm sorry, but that is >> still a Gordian knot to me, considering all of my modest knowledge. >> >> >> >> >> >> We all have modest knowledge. That is the nature of the human >> condition. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> On the other hand, if someone really smart would provide automatic >> grammar extraction by means of unrestricted grammar, I believe that would >> be it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, that is the goal of the language-learning project. However, as >> noted in my last email (on the link-grammar list) it is not enough to just >> learn a semi-Thue system, declare victory, and go home. The example I gave >> there: >> >> >> >> "I think that you should give that car a second look" >> >> "you should really give that song a second listen" >> >> "maybe you should give Sue a second chance". >> >> >> >> Learning to parse these "set phrases" or phrasemes is equivalent to >> learning a semi-Thue system; however, its not enough to realize that all >> three are forms of advice-giving, having "conserved" or "fixed" regions "x >> YOU SHOULD y GIVE z SECOND w" where z is very highly variable having >> millions of variations, and w only has a few dozen allowed variations. >> Note that the words "fixed", "conserved", "variable" are words used in >> genetics and proteomics and antibody structure. Its the same idea. >> >> >> >> The goal of learning lexical functions (LF's) is to learn that all >> three are advice-giving forms, and also to learn what is, and what can be >> plugged in for x,y,z,w. So, although a super-whiz-bang grammar learner >> capable of learning context-sensitive languages should be able to learn "x >> YOU SHOULD y GIVE z SECOND w", it still will not know the *meaning* of this >> phrase. To know the *meaning*, you have to know the acceptable ranges (as >> fuzzy-sets) of x,y,z,w. >> >> >> >> To conclude, thinking about Turing-completeness is a waste of time, >> because Turing completeness only tells you that "x YOU SHOULD y GIVE z >> SECOND w" is recursively enumerable; it does not tell you what it actually >> means. >> >> >> >> Put another way: having a universal Turing machine is not the same as >> knowing how some particular program works. Automagically learning a >> context-sensitive grammar is not enough to know what that grammar is >> "saying/doing". >> >> >> >> -- Linas >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Thank you, >> >>> Ivan V. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> čet, 28. ožu 2019. u 07:58 Anton Kolonin @ Gmail <[email protected]> >> napisao je: >> >>>> >> >>>> Ben, Linas, >> >>>> >> >>>> >But we know that MST parsing is shit. Stop wasting time on MST or >> trying to "improve" it. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think that sounds like kind of support for the concept of "dumb >> explosive parsing" being advocated for 1+ year ago: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14MpKLH5_5eVI39PRZuWLZHa1aUS73pJZNZzgigCWwWg/edit#heading=h.aqo9bumb3doy >> >>>> >> >>>> I also agree we other Linas'es reasoning in this thread. I would >> consider giving it a try starting next month if we don't have a >> breakthrough with DNN-MI-milking-based-MST-Parsing by that time. >> >>>> >> >>>> > can be done generically, and not just on language >> >>>> >> >>>> I think everyone in bio-informatics dreams of extracting secrets of >> "dark side of the genome" with something like that ;-) >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> >> >>>> -Anton >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> 28.03.2019 1:24, Linas Vepstas пишет: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Anton, >> >>>> >> >>>> I've cc'ed the link-grammar mailing list, because I describe below >> some concepts for word-sense disambiguation. I'm also cc'ing the opencog >> mailing list and ivan vodisek, because after studying hilbert systems, I >> think he's ready to think about how knowledge extraction can be done >> generically, and not just on language. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- Linas >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:39 AM Anton Kolonin @ Gmail < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Linas, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >I'd call it "interesting", but maybe not "golden" >> >>>>> >> >>>>> These are randomly selected sentences from "Gutenberg Children" >> corpus: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> http://langlearn.singularitynet.io/data/cleaned/English/Gutenberg-Children-Books/lower_LGEng_token/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "Gutenberg Children silver standard" is LG-English parses: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> http://langlearn.singularitynet.io/data/parses/English/Gutenberg-Children-Books/test/GCB-LG-English-clean.ull >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "Gutenberg Children gold standard" is subset of "silver standard" >> with semi-random selection of sentences skipping direct speech and doing >> manual verification of the links. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So as long as we are training on "Gutenberg Children" corpus, >> having the test on the same "Gutenberg Children" seems reasonable, right? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Yes. You still need to verify that each word in the "golden" corpus >> occurs at least N=10 or 20 times in the training corpus. The dependency of >> accuracy on N is not generally known, but it is very clear that if a word >> occurs only N=3 times in the training corpus, then whatever is learned >> about it will be very low quality. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> But thanks, we may have put mire effort in removal of ancient >> constructions and words even if these are present in the corpus. >> >>>> >> >>>> If you consistently train on 19th century literature, and then >> evaluate 19th-century literature comprehension, that's fine. Just don't >> expect it to work for 21st century blog posts. >> >>>> >> >>>> The strongest effect will be the N=number of observations effect. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >Anyway -- you only indicate pair-wise word-links. Is the omission >> of disjuncts intentional? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If you have all links in the sentence, you can construct all of the >> disjuncts with o ambiguity, correct? >> >>>> >> >>>> No, but only because you did not indicate the link-type. The whole >> point of a clustering step is to obtain a link-type; if you discard it, you >> will never get better-than-MST results. The link-type is critical for >> obtaining the word-classes. The whole point of learning is to learn the >> word-classes; you've learned very little, if you know only word-pairs. >> >>>> >> >>>> Consider this example: >> >>>> >> >>>> I saw wood >> >>>> I saw some wood >> >>>> >> >>>> A solution that would be "almost perfect" (or "golden") would be >> this: >> >>>> >> >>>> saw: {performer-of-actions}- & {sculptable-mass}+; >> >>>> saw: {observer}- & {viewable-thing}+; >> >>>> >> >>>> These disambiguate the two different senses of the word "saw". It's >> impossible to have word-sense disambiguation without actually having these >> disjuncts. The word-pairs alone are not sufficient to report the link-type >> connecting the words. Clustering gives the other dictionary entries: >> >>>> >> >>>> I: {performer-of-actions}+ or {observer}+; >> >>>> wood: {sculptable-mass}- or ({quantity-determiner}- & >> {viewable-thing}-); >> >>>> some: {quantity-determiner}+; >> >>>> >> >>>> Thus, the pronoun "I" also belong to two different word-sense >> categories: performers and observers. Compare to: >> >>>> >> >>>> "The chainsaw saws wood" -- a "chainsaw" can be a "performer of >> actions" but cannot be an "observer". >> >>>> "The dog saw some wood" -- dogs can be observers. They can perform >> some actions; like run, jump, but they cannot saw, hammer, cut, stab. >> >>>> >> >>>> The link-type is absolutely crucial to understanding a word. The >> language-learning project is all about learning the link-types. Without >> correct link-type assignments, you cannot have correct parses. >> >>>> >> >>>> ... which is 100% of the problem with MST. The problem with MST is >> not so much that "its not accurate" -sure, it is not terribly accurate. But >> even if MST or some MST-replacement was 100% accurate, it would still be >> "wrong" because it fails to indicate the link-type. If you want to >> understand a sentence, you MUST know the link-types! >> >>>> >> >>>> Otherwise, you just have "green ideas sleep furiously", which >> parses, but only because the link types have been erased, or made stupid. >> Here's a stupid grammar: >> >>>> >> >>>> ideas: {adjective}- & {verb}+; >> >>>> green: {adjective}+; >> >>>> >> >>>> which allows "green ideas" to parse. But of course, this is wrong; >> it should have been: >> >>>> >> >>>> ideas: {noospheric-modifier}- & {concept-manipulating-verb}+; >> >>>> green: {physical-object-modifier}+; >> >>>> >> >>>> and now it is clear that "green ideas" cannot parse, because the >> link-types clash. >> >>>> >> >>>> * If you cluster down to 5 or 6 clusters (adjective, verb, noun ...) >> you will get very low quality grammars. >> >>>> >> >>>> * If you cluster to 200 or 300 clusters, you get sort-of-OK >> grammars. This is what deep-learning/neural-nets do: this is why the >> deep-learning systems seem to give nice results: 200 or 300 features is >> enough to start having adequate functional distinctions (e.g. the famous >> "king - male+female=queen" example, or "paris-france+germany=berlin" >> example) >> >>>> >> >>>> * If you cluster to 3K to 8K clusters, you start having a quite >> decent model of language >> >>>> >> >>>> * Note that wordnet has 117K "synsets". >> >>>> >> >>>> Note that in the above example: >> >>>> wood: {sculptable-mass}- or ({quantity-determiner}- & >> {viewable-thing}-); >> >>>> >> >>>> the things in the curly-braces are effectively "synsets". >> >>>> >> >>>> The next set of goal-posts is to have disjuncts, of maybe low-medium >> quality, and use these to extract ontologies. e.g. >> >>>> {sculptable-mass} is-a {mass} is-a {physical-thing} is-a {thing} >> >>>> >> >>>> You can try to do this by clustering but there are probably better >> ways of discovering ontology. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >Also -- no hint of any word-classes or part-of-speech tagging? >> This is surely important to evaluate as well, or is this to be done in some >> other way? i.e. to evaluate if "Pivi" was correctly clustered with other >> given names? Or that lama/llama was clustered with other four-legged >> animals? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We don't have that in MST-Parsing, right? We need this corpus to >> assess the quality of the MST-Parsing so we don't need part-of-speech >> information for that. >> >>>> >> >>>> But we know that MST parsing is shit. Stop wasting time on MST or >> trying to "improve" it. We already know that it is close to a high-entropy >> path to structure; trying to squeeze a few more percent of entropy is not >> worth the effort, not at this time. Focus on finding a high-entropy >> structure extraction algorithm, don't waste time on MST. >> >>>> >> >>>> You should be focusing on extracting disjuncts, word-classes, >> word-senses, and trying to improve the quality of those. If you obtain a >> high-entropy path to these structures, the quality of your parses will >> automatically improve. Focus on the entropy numbers. Try to maximize that. >> >>>> >> >>>>> The clustering is able to do that anyway - see the graphs in the >> end of the last year report: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gxl-hIqPQCYPb9NNkyA3sBYUyfwvJFvT1hZ5ZpXsaPc/edit#heading=h.twoiv52o0tou >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >Also -- I can't tell -- is it free of loops, or are loops >> allowed? Allowing loops tends to provide stronger, more accurate parses. >> Loops act as constraints. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The loops and crossing links are not allowed in the MST-Parser now. >> If we allow them in the test corpus, how could it make assessment of >> MST-Parses better? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Note, that we ARE working we MST-Parses now - accordingly to Ben's >> directions. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Not to say bad things about Ben, but I'm certain he has not actually >> thought about this problem very much. He is very very busy doing other >> things; he is not thinking about this stuff. I have repeatedly tried to >> explain the issues to him, and its quite clear that he is far away from >> understanding them, from working at the level that I would like to have you >> and your team work at. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm trying to have you make small, quantified baby-steps, to verify >> the accuracy of your methods and data. What I'm seeing is that you are >> attempting to make giant-steps, without verification, and then getting >> low-quality results, without understanding the root causes for them. You >> can't dig yourself out of a ditch, and digging harder and more furiously >> won't raise the accuracy of the parse results. >> >>>> >> >>>> --linas >> >>>> >> >>>>> We have your MST-Parser-less idea on the map but we are NOT trying >> it now: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://github.com/singnet/language-learning/issues/170 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We may try it after we explore the account for costs >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://github.com/singnet/language-learning/issues/183 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -Anton >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 24.03.2019 9:24, Linas Vepstas пишет: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Also, BTW, link-grammar cannot parse "I just stood there, my hand >> on the knob, trembling like a leaf." correctly. It is one of a class of >> sentences it does not know about. Which is maybe OK, because ideally, the >> learned grammar will be able to do this. But today, LG cannot. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --linas >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:12 PM Linas Vepstas < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Anton, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> It's certainly an unusual corpus, and it might give you rather low >> scores. I'd call it "interesting", but maybe not "golden". Although I >> suppose it depends on your training corpus. Here are some problems that >> pop out: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> First sentence -- >> >>>>>> "the old beast was whinnying on his shoulder" -- the word >> "whinnying" is a fairly rare English verb -- you could read half-a-million >> wikipedia articles, and not see it once. You could read lots of >> 19th-century or early-20th century cowboy/adventure novels, (like what >> you'd find on Project Gutenberg) and maybe see it some fair amount. Even >> then -- to "whinny on a shoulder" seems bizarre.. I guess he's hugging the >> horse? How often does that happen, in any cowboy novel? "to whinny on >> something" is an extremely rare construction. It will work only if you've >> correctly categorized "whinny" as a verb that can take a preposition. Are >> your clustering algos that good, yet, to correctly cluster rare words into >> appropriate verb categories? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Second sentence .. "Jims" is a very uncommon name. Frankly, I've >> never heard of it as a name before. Your training data is going to be >> extremely slim on this. And lack of training data means poor statistics, >> which means low scores. Unless -- again, your clustering code is good >> enough to place "Jims" in a "proper name" cluster... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "the lama snuffed blandly" -- "snuffed" is a very uncommon, almost >> archaic verb. These days, everyone spells llama with two ll's not one. >> Unless your talking about Buddhist monks, its a typo. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "you understand?" is .. awkward. Common in speech, uncommon in >> writing. Unlikely that you'll have enough training data for this. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "Willard" is an uncommon name. Does your training corp[us have a >> sufficient number of mentions of Willard? Do you have clustering working >> well enough to stick "Willard" into a cluster with other names? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "it is so with Sammy Jay" is clearly archaic English. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "he hasn't any relations here" is clearly archaic, an >> olde-fashioned construction. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "Pivi said not one word" - again, a clearly old-fashioned >> construction. Does the training set contain enough examples of "Pivi" to >> recognize it as a name? Are names clustering correctly? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Any sentence with an inversion is going to sound old-fashioned. >> All of the sentences in that corpus sound old-fashioned. Which maybe is OK >> if you are training on 19th century Gutenberg texts .. but its certainly >> not modern English. Even when I was a child, and I read those old >> crumbly-yellow paper adventure books, part of the fun was that no one >> actually talked that way -- not at school, not at home, not on TV. It was >> clearly from a different time and place -- an adventure. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Anyway -- you only indicate pair-wise word-links. Is the omission >> of disjuncts intentional? Also -- no hint of any word-classes or >> part-of-speech tagging? This is surely important to evaluate as well, or is >> this to be done in some other way? i.e. to evaluate if "Pivi" was >> correctly clustered with other given names? Or that lama/llama was >> clustered with other four-legged animals? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Also -- I can't tell -- is it free of loops, or are loops >> allowed? Allowing loops tends to provide stronger, more accurate parses. >> Loops act as constraints. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- Linas >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:09 PM Anton Kolonin @ Gmail < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Linas, Andes and whoever understands LG and English well >> enough both. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Attached are first 100 sentences for GC "gold standard" - >> manually checked based on LG parses. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> We are expecting more to come in the next two weeks. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> To enable that, please have cursory review of the corpus and let >> us know if there are corrections still needed so your corrections will be >> used as a reference to fix the rest and keep going further. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thank you, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Anton >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "lang-learn" 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]. >> >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lang-learn/bde76364-a578-4ab8-8ac5-2f49f794072b%40gmail.com >> . >> >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> -Anton Kolonin >> >>>>> skype: akolonin >> >>>>> cell: +79139250058 >> >>>>> [email protected] >> >>>>> https://aigents.com >> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/aigents >> >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/aigents >> >>>>> https://medium.com/@aigents >> >>>>> https://steemit.com/@aigents >> >>>>> https://golos.blog/@aigents >> >>>>> https://vk.com/aigents >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you >> >>>> -- >> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "lang-learn" 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]. >> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lang-learn/CAHrUA36dE5ihtcCaqPv_q4qgmbEy-yX6kTkUHyLZmjk6d4VfOg%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> -Anton Kolonin >> >>>> skype: akolonin >> >>>> cell: +79139250058 >> >>>> [email protected] >> >>>> https://aigents.com >> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/aigents >> >>>> https://www.facebook.com/aigents >> >>>> https://medium.com/@aigents >> >>>> https://steemit.com/@aigents >> >>>> https://golos.blog/@aigents >> >>>> https://vk.com/aigents >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -Anton Kolonin >> >> skype: akolonin >> >> cell: +79139250058 >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://aigents.com >> >> https://www.youtube.com/aigents >> >> https://www.facebook.com/aigents >> >> https://medium.com/@aigents >> >> https://steemit.com/@aigents >> >> https://golos.blog/@aigents >> >> https://vk.com/aigents >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> http://goertzel.org >> >> "Listen: This world is the lunatic's sphere, / Don't always agree >> it's real. / Even with my feet upon it / And the postman knowing my >> door / My address is somewhere else." -- Hafiz >> > > > -- > cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lang-learn" 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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lang-learn/CAHrUA35rQWNZDg-LmgBVjcLX%3DF6nceWvDXFq%2B-mfc4rJiqqG3g%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lang-learn/CAHrUA35rQWNZDg-LmgBVjcLX%3DF6nceWvDXFq%2B-mfc4rJiqqG3g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -Anton Kolonin > skype: akolonin > cell: > [email protected]https://aigents.comhttps://www.youtube.com/aigentshttps://www.facebook.com/aigentshttps://medium.com/@aigentshttps://steemit.com/@aigentshttps://golos.blog/@aigentshttps://vk.com/aigents > > -- cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you -- 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/CAHrUA34jVyBKHk1smT8Jr6n9kSN17ZyOdGqXyOsZbWErfqx4sw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
