Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SputLink updates #20

Open
3 of 7 tasks
marcverhagen opened this issue Apr 12, 2016 · 2 comments
Open
3 of 7 tasks

SputLink updates #20

marcverhagen opened this issue Apr 12, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@marcverhagen
Copy link
Member

marcverhagen commented Apr 12, 2016

SputLink is integrated and creates new links, but there are issues:

  • We now get link duplication because existing links are added again. Need to remove all existing links from the TarsqiDocument before we add the new batch, this is also needed because some of the original links may have been deemed to be inconsistent.
  • Decide what we want to take from the output. We now take all non-disjunctive links. We could add the disjunctive links as well. Or we could not take inverse relations. or we could reduce the graph to a minimal graph.
  • We now put all links on the queue, but they are not ordered. For the merging routine to be fully effective we should rank the TLINKs in terms of how likely they are to be correct.
  • Since commit 102275a we now put all links on the queue, and order them in a rather simplistic way (S2T < Blinker < Classifier, and for classifier links we also use the confidence score. For the merging routine to be better we should let the ranking be informed by hard evaluation data.
  • Write logger warnings when a link was not added due to inconsistencies.
  • From the queue, we add a link, run closure, then add the inverse of the link and run closure again. It may be possible to get a good speed up by adding the link and run closure, but keep track of everything added and then add the inverses as well.
  • Think about how to implement reference intervals
@reevesr
Copy link

reevesr commented Apr 12, 2016

Doesn't the TLINK ranking depend on probabilities generated by Classifier?

@marcverhagen
Copy link
Member Author

In theory, yes, in practice, not in this version of the code. But it is easy to add. I am actually writing an email right now to you and Josh on this issue and other issues surrounding SputLink.

marcverhagen added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 14, 2016
This prevents the merger from adding duplicates, it also takes care of stray
duplicates in the input as well as nasty links like the reflexive weirdo links
like [t1 < t1] that Blinker generated with its broken Timex linking.

Related to issues #20 and
#16.
marcverhagen added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 15, 2016
- Sputlink now writes warnings to the log if there is an inconsistency
  (see issue #20)
- Restored cycle numbering to give added garbage constraints their own number
marcverhagen added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 31, 2017
This is a rather simplistic ordering where S2T links are considered better than Blinker links and where Blinker links are considered better than Classifier links. Classifier links are ordered on the classifier-assigned confidence scores.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants