Franz

Project Owner

Adaptive Compression with WILLIAM-on-MORK

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Development of an adaptive compression and discovery service

Details locked. Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.

Overview

This proposal develops WILLIAM-on-MORK, an adaptive compression and pattern discovery service for the Hyperon ecosystem. By integrating WILLIAM’s MDL-based incremental compression with MORK’s hypergraph indexing, it will enable Hyperon to discover, cache, and reuse structural patterns across reasoning processes. The focus is on integration with ECAN, PLN, and unification, where WILLIAM-on-MORK will compress and index traces and subgraphs to identify recurring structures and improve efficiency. The resulting system will serve as a core Hyperon service, later accessible via SingularityNET for broader adaptive compression use cases.

RFP Guidelines

Development of an adaptive compression and discovery service

Proposal Submission (4 days left)

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $150,000 USD
Proposals 4
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Oct. 2, 2025

This RFP seeks proposals to create a scalable and reusable adaptive compression service that discovers, elevates, and reuses patterns across multiple data domains.

Proposal Description

Proposal Details Locked…

In order to protect this proposal from being copied, all details are hidden until the end of the submission period. Please come back later to see all details.

Total Milestones
3
Total Budget
$100,000_USD
Last Updated
6 Oct 2025

Milestone 1 - Research Plan

Description

A comprehensive research plan will be developed, detailing the conceptual foundations of adaptive incremental compression, its integration with Hyperon, and the timeline for implementation. The framework design will outline data flow, module interfaces, and evaluation methods.

Deliverables

Research plan, agile task breakdown with timeline, and preliminary framework architecture.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Approval of the research plan by the review committee and readiness for initial implementation.

Milestone 2 - Core functionality and integration with MORK

Description

Develop the core functionality of WILLIAM to efficiently compress multiple data streams and generate compressing graphs in sequence and image domains. Implement parameter elevation and b-compression to establish a performance baseline. Integrate with the MORK hypergraph kernel by extending WeightedTriemap nodes with additional statistical fields and enabling feedback between WILLIAM and MORK for adaptive pattern reuse.

Deliverables

Draft implementation, integration tests with MORK, initial compression benchmarks including acceleration of compression by MORK-assisted reuse of useful patterns.

Budget

$40,000 USD

Success Criterion

Verified functionality of compression across domains and successful data exchange between WILLIAM and MORK with efficiency improvement established by the reduced number of graph evaluations to achieve the same compression rate.

Milestone 3 - Optimization and deployment

Description

Optimize the framework by transitioning from trees to DAGs, implementing search within Callables and parallelizing the algorithm. Use a fixed, small but general template library achieve domain specialization through MORK-assisted reuse of domain-relevant patterns. Deploy WILLIAM-on-MORK as an internal Hyperon service that continuously compresses and indexes traces, subgraphs, and activity patterns produced by PLN, backward/forward chaining, and ECAN. This allows Hyperon to cache, generalize, and reuse recurring reasoning patterns, effectively building a long-term memory of compressive templates. The system will also be made available as an external SingularityNET service for third-party adaptive compression tasks.

Deliverables

Optimized codebase, documentation, performance and compression reports, Hyperon integration tests on PLN/chaining/ECAN traces, and deployment-ready service on SingularityNET.

Budget

$40,000 USD

Success Criterion

Improved performance of at least some Hyperon components through the usage of the WILLIAM-on-MORK service.

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

0 /5000 chars

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

Reviews and Ratings in Deep Funding are structured in 4 categories. This will ensure that the reviewer takes all these perspectives into account in their assessment and it will make it easier to compare different projects on their strengths and weaknesses. Overall (Primary) This is an average of the 4 perspectives. At the start of this new process, we are assigning an equal weight to all categories, but over time we might change this and make some categories more important than others in the overall score. (This may even be done retroactively). Feasibility (secondary) This represents the user\'s assessment of whether the proposed project is theoretically possible and if it is deemed feasible. E.g. A proposal for nuclear fission might be theoretically possible, but it doesn’t look very feasible in the context of Deep Funding. Viability (secondary) This category is somewhat similar to Feasibility, but it interprets the feasibility against factors such as the size and experience of the team, the budget requested, and the estimated timelines. We could frame this as: “What is your level of confidence that this team will be able to complete this project and its milestones in a reasonable time, and successfully deploy it?” Examples:

A proposal that promises the development of a personal assistant that outperforms existing solutions might be feasible, but if there is no AI expertise in the team the viability rating might be low.
A proposal that promises a new Carbon Emission Compensation scheme might be technically feasible, but the viability could be estimated low due to challenges around market penetration and widespread adoption.

Desirability (secondary) Even if the project team succeeds in creating a product, there is the question of market fit. Is this a project that fulfills an actual need? Is there a lot of competition already? Are the USPs of the project sufficient to make a difference? Example:

Creating a translation service from, say Spanish to English might be possible, but it\'s questionable if such a service would be able to get a significant share of the market

Usefulness (secondary) This is a crucial category that aligns with the main goal of the Deep Funding program. The question to be asked here is: “To what extent will this proposal help to grow the Decentralized AI Platform?” For proposals that develop or utilize an AI service on the platform, the question could be “How many API calls do we expect it to generate” (and how important / high-valued are these calls?). For a marketing proposal, the question could be “How large and well-aligned is the target audience?” Another question is related to how the budget is spent. Are the funds mainly used for value creation for the platform or on other things? Examples:

A metaverse project that spends 95% of its budget on the development of the game and only 5 % on the development of an AI service for the platform might expect a low ‘usefulness’ rating here.

A marketing proposal that creates t-shirts for a local high school, would get a lower ‘usefulness’ rating than a marketing proposal that has a viable plan for targeting highly esteemed universities in a scaleable way.
An AI service that is fully dedicated to a single product, does not take advantage of the purpose of the platform. When the same service would be offered and useful for other parties, this should increase the ‘usefulness’ rating.

Franz

Project Owner

All roles.

View Profile