Epstein Secrets

uesses produced by pure procedure learning methods), it may still be valuable to have this procedure in compact and rapidly executable form such as Combo provides. To proceed with the technical description of predicate schematization in CogPrime. we first need the notion of an "executable predicate".

tand: all else equal, a predicate embodied in a small Combo tree is better than a predicate embodied in a big one. There is some work hidden here in Combo tree reduction; ideally, one would like to find the smallest representation of a given Combo tree, but this is a computationally formidable problem

formation, using the revision rule, and using a default parameter value for the weight of evidence. There is one pragmatic difference here from the PredicateNode case, though. As the system learns new PredicateNodes, its best estimate of pr(C) may change. Thus it makes sense for the system to store the a prio

(ExecutionLink eat:GroundedSchemallode (ListLink $1011619)))) (EvaluationLink increased: PredicateNode (ListLink (EvaluationLink EnergyDemandGoal:PredicateNode))) 37.4.2 The Fishgram Algorithm The core Fishgram algorithm, in pseudocode, is as follows: EFTA00624448 302 37 Pattern Mining initial layer

r the latter are learned via MOSES or via some other means. The textual realization of Combo resembles LISP with less syntactic sugar. Internally a Combo program is represented as a program tree. • Composer: In the PLN design, a rule is denoted a composer if it needs premises for generating its conse

ve its fingers to pick up a cup, coordinating its movements with its visual perceptions. It's certainly possible to represent this sort of thing in Combo, but Combo may be an awkward tool. However, if one represents low-level procedures like this using another method, e.g. learned cell assemblies in a

the question of programs in what programming language, and in this context we have made a fairly traditional choice, using a special language called Combo that is essentially a minor variant of LISP, and supplying Combo with a set of customized primitives intended to reduce the length of the typical p

cognitive dynamics, especially ECAN. But then the MapEncapstdation MindAgent may do its pattern mining and recognize this map explicitly, and form a PredicateNode encapsulating it. This PredicateNode may then be used in PLN inference, conceptual blending, and so forth (e.g. helping with the formation of a con

its own hardware and software infrastructure. CogPrime represents procedures as programs in an internal programming language called "Combo." While Combo has a textual representation, described online at the OpenCog wiki, this isn't one of its more important aspects (and may be redesigned slightly or

an internal node of a program, can also live in its own Atom. For example. a number in a program tree corresponds to a NmnberNode; an argument in a Combo program already corresponds to some Atom; and an operator in a program can be wrapped up in a Schemallode all its own, and considered as a one-leaf

ables in there. (Sometimes not.) So, we want to have the option to use variables, or not. 20.3.3.2 An Example of Variable Elimination Consider the PredicateNode AND InheritanceLink X cat eats X mice Here we have used a syntactically sugared representation involving the variable X. How can we get rid of t

tricks, fetch_ball and triple_kick to be described below. in order to calibrate the size penalty function: 1. fetch_ball, which corresponds to the Combo program and_seg (goto (ball) grab (ball) goto (owner) drop) 2. triple_kick, if the stick is near the ball then kick 3 times with the left leg an

n x, two possibilities exist: EFTA00624385 33.6 Hierarchical Program Learning 239 • There is already a model for PredicateNodes at position x in Combo trees in the given population, in which case a population of PredicateNodes potentially living at that position is drawn from the known model, and

here do these properties P come from? These properties should be patterns learned as part of the probabilistic modeling of the Combo tree inside the PredicateNode at position x. For example, if one is using a decision tree modeling framework, then the properties might be of the form decision tree D evaluates

r the latter are learned via MOSES or via some other means. The textual realization of Combo resembles LISP with less syntactic sugar. Internally a Combo program is represented as a program tree. • Composer: In the PLN design, a rule is denoted a composer if it needs premises for generating its conse

p the rules might profitably be ported into the Atomspace as ImplicationLinks. • Representation Building: A stage within MOSES, wherein a candidate Combo program tree (within a deme) is modified by replacing one or more tree nodes with alternative tree nodes, thus obtaining a new, different candidate

ge over some fuzzy set of goals and environments. • Predicate Evaluation: The process of determining the Truth Value of a predicate, embod- ied in a PredicateNode. This may be recursive, as the predicate referenced internally by a Grounded PredicateNode (and represented via a Combo program tree) may itself int

d up the rules might profitably be ported into the Atomspace as ImplicationLinks. Representation Building: A stage within MOSES, wherein a candidate Combo program tree (within a deme) is modified by replacing one or more tree nodes with alternative tree nodes, thus obtaining a new, different candidate p

her the latter are learned via MOSES or via some other means. The textual realization of Combo resembles LISP with less syntactic sugar. Internally a Combo program is represented as a program tree. e Composer: In the PLN design, a rule is denoted a composer if it needs premises for generating its conseq

ge over some fuzzy set of goals and environments. e Predicate Evaluation: The process of determining the Truth Value of a predicate, embod- ied in a PredicateNode. This may be recursive, as the predicate referenced internally by a Grounded PredicateNode (and represented via a Combo program tree) may itself inte