Difference between revisions of "Vulcan/SystemPrototype"
From Knowitall
(→Status) |
(→Status) |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* The system fails on the iron nail example. | * The system fails on the iron nail example. | ||
* Both "iron nail" and "plastic cup" get same high probability score (0.94). <b>Don't know why this is happening.</b>. | * Both "iron nail" and "plastic cup" get same high probability score (0.94). <b>Don't know why this is happening.</b>. | ||
− | * Based on manual inspection the plastic cup proposition should not get any score at all. I | + | * Based on manual inspection the plastic cup proposition should not get any score at all. Could be a bug in the way I codified the rules or my interpretation of the MLN syntax or a genuine derivation that I somehow miss. Will dig in when I come back. |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Revision as of 21:43, 27 August 2013
Overview
The prototype is designed to work on three questions. We want the system to output the following:
- Score for the input proposition.
- New facts inferred.
- Facts and rules used in scoring.
Status
Ran Tuffy on three example questions. It failed on one question.
- Hand generated the input evidence for the propositions (one correct and one incorrect) for three questions.
- Hand generated the MLN rules based on Stephen's human-readable rules.The MLN rules can be found here.
- Ran Tuffy to obtain the inference probabilities on the propositions.
- The system also outputs:
- All inferred facts along with their probabilities.
- All rules that are reachable from the query fact. i.e., Clauses in the MLN that are relevant to the inference of the query fact.
- Does it work?
- Tuffy gets it right for 2 out of 3 questions. i.e., it assigns higher probabilities for the correct proposition.
- Facts inferred by larger number of steps have a lower score compared to those inferred by a smaller number of steps.
- Why does it fail on the one question?
- The system fails on the iron nail example.
- Both "iron nail" and "plastic cup" get same high probability score (0.94). Don't know why this is happening..
- Based on manual inspection the plastic cup proposition should not get any score at all. Could be a bug in the way I codified the rules or my interpretation of the MLN syntax or a genuine derivation that I somehow miss. Will dig in when I come back.
- What diagnostics do we NOT have?
- Connections between the clauses in the MLN.
- A reconstruction/visualization of the MLN network. Working with Tuffy developers on this.
- What next?
<blockqoute>
- Fix the
</blockquote>
- What does this exercise suggest?
- Need to figure out how the weights on the MLN rules and evidence are use. [I assigned them arbitrarily for this round.]
- Use predicates with small arity. For example, avoid writing rules entire nested tuples as predicates.
- The only reason we'd need a nested tuple is for the purpose of computing the score. For now we can compute this from the score of its components: Score(nested_tuple) = Score(top tuple) * Score (nested).