Hi Shujing,
On 07/09/2017 11:34 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
Hi, thanks,
I just implemented quoting the output patterns and the return AtomSpace:
1. There is a "if_quote_output_pattern" in config file, if it is set to
true, the patterns will be quoted.
2. The quote link type can be define with
Hi, thanks,
I just implemented quoting the output patterns and the return AtomSpace:
1. There is a "if_quote_output_pattern" in config file, if it is set to
true, the patterns will be quoted.
2. The quote link type can be define with
"output_pattern_quoted_linktype" in the config file
Shujing,
On 06/25/2017 05:06 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
My son seems better today, starts to be playful again and more willing
to eat and drink. But still have diarrhea.
Great!
I will implement exporting patterns first. And then the interestingness
evaluation inside 1-gram pattern when Nil gives
On 06/24/2017 11:23 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
Yes, to output the pattern. There are two ways:
1. return the atomspace that store the patterns.
2. return a HandleSeq of patterns.
As far as the C++ API is concerned a HandleSeq, or an
OrderedHandleSet/UnorderedHandleSet depending on whether we want
Yes, the math is basic the same. I will try to implement it basic on the
same math.
It would be nice to have a simple small corpus for experimenting this
interestingness implementation.
My son seems better today, starts to be playful again and more willing to
eat and drink. But still have diarrhea
Hi Shujing,
> 4. About the interestingness evalution
>
> I didn't quite get the meaning of the rich(x) and z(y) and married(x,y)
> example.
> I think it is also related to the pattern gram. For below 2 patterns: x,y,z
> are variables
> pattern A: rich(x) and z(y) and married(x,y)
> pattern B: ri
Yes, to output the pattern. There are two ways:
1. return the atomspace that store the patterns.
2. return a HandleSeq of patterns.
Each raw pattern will be quoted within a PatternLink.
Because the numbers of patterns are huge, I think it make sense to give an
input parameter to specify the top p
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Nil Geisweiller
wrote:
> OK. Although I think we still need to come up soon with a way to pass the
> results, including frequencies, interestingness, etc, as atoms in the
> atomspace, as opposed to writing the results in a file.
Agreed...
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
Hi,
On 06/21/2017 03:29 AM, Shujing Ke wrote:
Hi, Ben and Nil,
Thanks for all your responses. I may be a bit slow this week - it is too
warm here and my baby is sick, he barely eat and drink anything since
yesterday morning.
*1. About the output format and TV of patterns*
The pattern miner
Actually in the point 2 in previous emaile, a more clear example is the
pattern 5 given below for 2 gram patterns when only ImplicationLinks are
allow to be root links:
*Pattern 5:*
ImplicationLink
EvaluationLink
PredicateNode "var1"
ListLink
ConceptNode "Ben"
correting a typeo:
in the point 4 in previous email:
pattern B should be:
ImplicationLink
AndLink
InheritanceLink x rich
InheritanceLink y cute
EvaluationLink married x y
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Shujing Ke wrote:
> Hi, Ben and Nil,
>
> Thanks for all your re
Hi, Ben and Nil,
Thanks for all your responses. I may be a bit slow this week - it is too
warm here and my baby is sick, he barely eat and drink anything since
yesterday morning.
*1. About the output format and TV of patterns*
The pattern miner will output the raw patterns found from the input da
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Nil Geisweiller
wrote:
> What do you mean exactly by "useful(A==>D)"?
What I was thinking was: If the implication [666], e.g.
ImplicationLink [handle=666]
EvaluationLink
PredicateNode "eat"
ListLink
ConceptNode "Ben"
On 06/19/2017 09:29 PM, Nil Geisweiller wrote:
ImplicationScopeLink
V
Y
useful(X)
where V, X and Y are meta-pattern-matcher variables as they represent
patterns that the pattern miner should come up with (of course all this
should be properly quoted), which looks very much like a Cogn
Ben,
On 06/19/2017 07:49 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
In the PLN case, if we take an example possible pattern like "two
deductions in a row, involving associated entities, are often useful"
that would look like
A ==> B, B==>C |- A==>C
A==>C, C ==> D |- A ==>D
HebbianLink (D,B)
useful(A==>D)
So the
(Nil, please look at the end of this email, I have a suggestion for
you there...)
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
> 3. The interestingness evaluation is different from previous applications
> Our interestingness evalution is based on surpringness measure, which
> includes Sur
Shujing, in
/opencog/learning/PatternMiner/types/atom_types.script
you've defined
PATTERN_LINK <- UNORDERED_LINK
but such a link type already exist in
/opencog/atoms/base/atom_types.script
Nil
On 06/19/2017 12:01 PM, Nil Geisweiller wrote:
Actually patterns involving scopes require quote li
Actually patterns involving scopes require quote links. Let me consider
the following pattern (the simplest of that sort I could find):
;Pattern: Frequency = 6
(ExecutionOutputLink (stv 1.00 1.00)
(GroundedSchemaNode "scm: conditional-full-instantiation-formula"
(stv 1.00 1.00
Shujing, just please don't set the confidences inside the patten to 1.0
like in
(ExecutionOutputLink (stv 1.00 1.00)
(GroundedSchemaNode "scm: bc-deduction-formula" (stv 1.00 1.00))
(ListLink (stv 1.00 1.00)
(InheritanceLink (stv 1.00 1.00)
(PatternV
Hi,
sorry, I was trapped in a variadic-template-hole. I managed to escape
but not without bringing back a vicious gift. Now everything looks like
a variadic template to me.
On 06/14/2017 04:32 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
3)GroundedSchemaNode and TypeNode are not considered to become
VariableNodes.
Hi Nil,
We need to get back to Shujing on all these issues ASAP so she can proceed.
I will think/look carefully regarding the Interestingness Measure
issue, as the probabilistic surprisingness aspect of this is something
I have thought about a lot...
If you can look at the other issues carefully
Anyone looked at the sample file yet?
Because each Link is big, my machine cannot finish mining all the patterns
from the whole corpus with current setting. It would be nice if anyone can
give more ideas about what kinds of patterns should be kept and what kinds
of patterns can be filtered out in t
Pattern gram in the current implementation is about the numbers of root
Links one pattern contains. A 1-gram pattern can contain many many
variablenodes if there are many many Links nested in a root Link, in this
case, the ExecutionOutputLinks .
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Ben Goertzel wrot
Hi,
I'm busy tonight and tomorrow but can look at this Friday, unless Nil
has studied it first ;)
About
> GroundedSchemaNode and TypeNode are not considered to become VariableNodes.
> Seems it doesn't make a lot of sense to make them into variables.
well it does make sense to make these into va
Hi Shuijing,
that is where CHandle could be useful. If there are equal it means they
are bound to the same scope, and thus should be considered the same. In
practice you won't find many patterns with persistent original variables
because these variables will have different scopes at most of th
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Shujing Ke wrote:
> Is this process OK?
too busy right now, so I'll let Nil study and answer
> One more question:
> Is GroundedSchemaNode also to become variablenode? or doesn't make much
> sense to consider it as variablenode?
There will be cases where it's cons
Hi Nil and Ben,
The Variablenodes of the same name in different clauses in a PLN corpus do
not really have to mean the same thing, therefore even they are of the same
name, still should not be considered as connected. And vice versa ,
different variable node names in different clauses could still
Ok : )
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:17 PM, 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog <
opencog@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2017 04:59 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
>
>> Oh, another question: is to mine patterns that contains at least one
>> ExecutionOutputLink, or to mine patterns that only contains
>> Execution
On 06/01/2017 04:59 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
Oh, another question: is to mine patterns that contains at least one
ExecutionOutputLink, or to mine patterns that only contains
ExecutionOutputLinks and the Links inside ExecutionOutputLinks?
I'd say all of them, at any depth. The corpus I gave you is
On 06/01/2017 04:59 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
Oh, another question: is to mine patterns that contains at least one
ExecutionOutputLink, or to mine patterns that only contains
ExecutionOutputLinks and the Links inside ExecutionOutputLinks?
I'd say all of them, at any depth. The corpus I gave you is
Oh, another question: is to mine patterns that contains at least one
ExecutionOutputLink, or to mine patterns that only contains
ExecutionOutputLinks and the Links inside ExecutionOutputLinks?
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Shujing Ke wrote:
> OK, I will try to mine EOLs first. Thanks : )
>
> S
OK, I will try to mine EOLs first. Thanks : )
Shujing
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Nil Geisweiller
wrote:
> 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 sh
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 sepa
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
(
34 matches
Mail list logo
