Here's the big idea: "everything is a graph" -- all knowledge is linked information. For example, knowledge-bases describe relations between "things" - entities, ideas, concepts.
Graphs are described by local connectivity: what is connected to what, nearby. These local connections are given many different names: assertions, statements, rules, facts, axioms.
Many local neighborhoods look alike, and connect in similar ways. Such similarities also have many different names: an "instance of a class", an "example of this type", a "template", a "general rule", an "axiom schema".
The way in which regions of graphs look locally similar can be described by a "grammar". The way they connect is a "syntax". Valid graphs have shapes that follow from the syntax/grammar. The "meaning" or the "semantics" of the graph lies in the connections themselves.
This project takes the above as the structure of "knowledge" and "meaning". For now, this is just metaphysics; more concrete details are provided below and in related PDF's in github, and on OpenCog wiki pages.
If you want to describe something, some idea, some concept, some situation or event, you have several choices: draw a picture, make a movie, write some text, dance about it, build a machine.
If you are writing text, what you are "actually doing" is taking the network of interconnected facts/ideas, and serializing them into a sequence of words. A sequential, time-like order, one word after another. You "serialize" the "graph of ideas."
When you read, and try to understand and learn, you try to "deserialize" the words, and reconstruct the graph-network of ideas in your mind.
The goal of this project is to build a serializer/deserializer pair. More narrowly, to convert natural language into a graph of ideas, and conversely, to express the knowledge-graph as a sequence of sentences. Narrower still, the goal is to extract the grammar and syntax from a corpus of natural language text.
This narrow focus is the starting point. Thus, most of what follows will talk about grammar. That focus is necessary to make forward progress, although the vision above hints at a far more general, far more powerful possibility for working with knowledge. This vision should be portable to (bio-)chemical structures, the 3D-shapes of physical objects, the correlation of images to text, the correlation of movement to text. But to keep things focused, for now its just text.
The "graph of knowledge" sketched above is assumed to be a "sparse graph", or olde-school "symbolic AI". This is in contrast to neural nets and deep learning, where knowledge is encoded in a dense graph, the network connectivity graph of weight matrices, vectors and the like. The deep learning industry has plenty of folks working on it. The goal of this project is to move forward on sparse-graph knowledge representation. (Note however: some parts of sparse graphs are densely connected, and, for those parts, deep-learning type structures may be ideal. This idea is explored in detail in several PDF's here and elsewhere. The heading for that discussion is "matrix factorization", or rather, "sparse matrix factorization.")
This is an ongoing project, with continuing if sometimes sporadic activity.
(See also: Language learning wiki for an alternate overview.)
The goal of this project is to create a system that is capable of learning the grammar and some of the semantics of natural language. The fundamental goal is to do this in an unsupervised fashion, with no training data beyond that of un-annotated raw text.
An early draft of how this can be done is presented in the paper "Language Learning", B. Goertzel and L. Vepstas (2014) on ArXiv; see ArXiv abs/1401.3372. Some of this is repeated on the language learning wiki. Updates, describing how to move past state-of-the-art results, are presented in the "Sheaf Theory" paper and in the "Neural-Net vs. Symbolic Machine Learning" paper. Other ideas and details are sketched in "Stitching Together Vector Spaces" and "Messaging".
The key process is a sequence of steps that can be used to extract the structure of the "language graph", with each step being noisy and error-prone, but the subsequent step averaging over this structure in such a way as to cancel noise, and allow the actual graphical structure to emerge. Central to this process is extracting the actual structure of the graph, as opposed to the extraction of vector spaces, as is currently done with neural-net techniques or other styles of clustering.
The core insight is that although vector spaces can be layered onto language data (thus explaining the success of modern-day neural net techniques), there is also a way of "stitching together" these vector spaces in such a way that they extract the underlying graphical structure. The appearance of vector spaces is not an accident: the axioms of algebraic linguistics (such as those found in categorial grammar, pregroup grammar, link grammar) are similar to the axioms that define a vector space. The similarity accounts for why techniques such as Word2Vec are successful. The dis-similarity is why these same techniques are incomplete. The road-block can be overcome by viewing the language graph (and graphs in general) as being constructed out of connected parts, with explicitly-named connectors. This connector-based approach to the definition of a graph just so happens to obey the axioms of a sheaf (as commonly understood in sheaf theory). This connector-based approach also indicates how vector spaces can be assembled, connected together to form the graph from which they are being sampled. The code here is an exploration and implementation of this insight.
An very early and yet pretty presentation of algebraic linguistics, as seen axiomatically, is given by Solomon Marcus, “Algebraic Linguistics; Analytical Models”, (1967), Elsevier.
A feels-right explanation of how one extracts semantics from disjuncts is given by EA Nida, “The Molecular Level of Lexical Semantics”, (1997) International Journal of Lexicography, 10(4): 265–274. What Nida is saying can, in fact, be measured, by correlating, for example, disjuncts with WordNet word-senses. The correlation is real and is measurable (and has been measured). The goal of this project is to move beyond this.
In 2019 we realized that training on English corpora does not offer sufficient control to measure the quality of the learning algorithm. Thus, we've devised a new approach: create a random grammar, create a corpus of sentences from that random grammar, learn a grammar from that corpus, and validate that the learned grammar accurately matches the input grammar. Doing this will allow the learning algorithm to be correctly calibrated for grammars of different sizes and complexities, and for corpora of different sizes. We will be able to measure how accuracy scales as a function of training time, how well different training algorithms perform, how large a corpus is need to get good results, and other related questions.
As of 2021, we are still setting up the infrastructure to do the above. Once this is done (real soon now?) the project can resume training runs. Please contact via email or discord opencog chat for details.
The instructions below still assume training is done on an English corpus, and will need to be modified to describe the above. The work on English seemed to work "pretty well", in that it was converging to what seemed to be the right answers. However, controlling the rate of convergence was a challenge, since measuring the accuracy of the results was impossible. We could "eyeball" the accuracy and it "looked OK". But "eyeballing it" is not very scientific.
See the README-Natural file for a description of the "open-loop" (uncalibrated) processing system. It describes the processing steps in detail. Getting good results requires tuning a variety of parameters, and so calibration needs to be run first.
See the README-Calibration file for the "new" (next-gen) process of generating artificial languages with bounded statistical properties, learning them, and then measuring the accuracy of the learned language vs. the generated artificial language.
A quick overview:
- download - code for downloading sample corpora off the intertubes.
- fake - code for generating artificial grammars.
- learn-lang-diary - diary and notes and papers describing results and theory.
- run - scripts for running the learning pipeline.
- scm - the code that actually does all the work.
- tests - unit tests. Currently unmaintained and broken.
All the "heavy lifting" is done in the OpenCog AtomSpace. The AtomSpace is a graph database for working with typed (hyper-)graphs. (Typed hypergraphs are ideal for storing very abstract kinds of knowledge.) The AtomSpace can be manipulated through Atomese, python, C++, haskel and scheme bindings. This project glues all of the parts together with scheme (guile). If you are a python fan, sorry! The goal here is rapid prototyping, easy experimentation, rapid reconfiguration/redesign. For that, scheme is just simpler, better, faster. (At least, for me.)
Long-term, the best and finest algorithms will probably be re-written in C++ (for speed), and exported with Atomese, python, haskel, scheme (pick your favorite) bindings. This migration process happens as we gain understanding of what the problem is, and what reasonable solutions look like.
This is a science project. The goal is to determine how things work, run experiments, create and refine new algorithms. Thus, the code in this repo is organized like a science lab: stuff laying around in a bit of a jumble, sometimes connected and working, and sometimes not. Sometimes with instructions and an operating manual, and sometimes not. If you're a scientist, you're used to this. If you're a software engineer, you might find all this to just be a vast incomprehensible mess of cryptic code. Sorry about that! This is a permanent construction site, evolving and changing regularly.
Yes, the code "works". It works the same way any science experiment works: you turn it on, things happen, and its up to you to figure out what that means. What to do with the results. If you were expecting an intelligent AI that you can crack jokes with, sorry, we don't have that here.
THE END.