Re: Announcing syntreenet: A Python library to build scalable production rule systems

Like I said, I am very newbie to this kind of algorithms I will need to
read some stuff about it.

Seems like Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach has a chapter about
the subject

Le dim. 7 juil. 2019 à 21:07, Enrique Pérez Arnaud <enrique@cazalla.net> a
écrit :

> Hi Amirouche,
>
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 01:02:47PM +0200, Amirouche Boubekki wrote:
> >
> > Hello Enrique,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing!
>
> Thanks for taking interest :)
>
> >
> > Le sam. 6 juil. 2019 à 20:53, Enrique Pérez Arnaud <enrique@cazalla.net>
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >     Hi all,
> >
> >     Perhaps some of you might be interested in this library I've
> released, that
> >     might be used to build production rule systems, with the peculiarity
> that
> >     the cost of matching a fact to the knowledge base would be
> logarithmic in
> >     the size of said knowledge base, measured as the number of rules
> plus the
> >     number of facts in working memory. As far as I know, the current
> state of
> >     the art is polynomial.
> >
> >     https://gitlab.com/enriquepablo/syntreenet
> >
> >
> >
> > I am interested in this work. Mind the fact that I am a newbie and I
> might ask
> > trivial questions.
> >
> > First, I can not tell the importance of this work compared to existing
> > solutions
> > even if what is described in the README seems promising.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > A) What about the name syntreenet?
>
> "Network of syntagm trees". Just wanted a name that is unique in google.
>
> >
> > B) What are Syntagm?
>
> See below
>
> >
> > C) I read the following:
> >
> >
> >     "syntreenet knows nothing about syntax. Facts are a black box with
> whatever
> >     internal structure that is appropriate for their universe of
> discourse.
> >     syntreenet never composes a fact."
> >
> >
> > What does syntax means in this context?
>
> Facts are truths; facts are what we are interested in. And facts might
> have any internal structure imaginable. They might be triples, for
> example, as in RDF, or they might be sets of key value pairs, or nested
> lists, or whatever. I call syntax to that internal structure; syntax is
> grammar from a different perspective.
>
> The point is that there is a universal transformation from facts built
> with any imaginable grammar (so universal wrt the grammar), to
> simple trees, and therefore to sets of tuples (the set of paths from
> each leaf to the root). And those paths carry enough information about
> the syntactic elements and their position within the facts so as to be used
> to test whether some other fact matches them.
>
> So, what are syntagms? Facts can have any internal structure, but there is
> a level of detail which must leak to syntreenet, which is the level at
> which the objects can be logical variables or not. Syntreenet must be
> able to know whether a given syntactic element in a fact (in one of the
> paths corresponding to it) is a variable or not.
>
> In essence, the question is that in a deduction system we need to manage
> 2 things, facts as carriers of truth and variables as carriers of
> generalization; and that the way in which the variables are a part of
> the facts, which depends on the grammar used to buid the facts, is not
> needed in the deduction procedure, even though within that procedure we
> need to see the variables within the facts. Using paths is like a
> universal (grammar independent) way of peeking within the facts to find
> the variables; a way to isolate the algorithm to make deductions from
> the internal structure of the deductions.
>
> >
> > It seems to me for the purpose of the demonstration, it would be easier
> to
> > avoid to be generic and stick to strings for facts and rules and have a
> > convention for variables. What do you think?
> >
> > Based on this log:
> >
> >
> > adding rule "X1 isa X2; X2 is X3 -> X1 isa X3"
> > adding rule "X1 is X2; X2 is X3 -> X1 is X3"
> > adding fact "animal is thing"
> > adding rule "X1 isa animal -> X1 isa thing"
> > adding rule "thing is X3 -> animal is X3"
> > adding rule "X1 is animal -> X1 is thing"
> >
> >
> > It seems like the algorithm rely on pre-computing rules based on
> existing rules
> > and facts, isn't it?
>
> If you have:
>
>   X1 isa X2; X2 is X3 -> X1 isa X3
>
> And you have:
>
>   animal is thing
>
> then you necessarily have:
>
>   X1 isa animal -> X1 isa thing
>
> So I would not call this pre-computing, perhaps we might call it
> book-keeping - thinking in the RETE algorithm, which in this situation
> would not produce a new rule, but keep the match in a beta node. I would
> just call it logic.
>
> > It seems to me the inference process starts before the kb is actually
> asked
> > something.
>
> This is what production systems are about, in contrast to backward
> chaining systems.
>
> Best!
>
> --
> Enrique Pérez Arnaud
>


-- 
Amirouche ~ amz3 ~ https://hyper.dev