Almalgo_Labs

Project Owner

ConceptForge: Digital Idea Synthesis in Hyperon

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Experiment with concept blending in MeTTa

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

Overview

ConceptForge proposes to investigate novel approaches to concept generation in artificial intelligence through OpenCog Hyperon. Our research will explore the integration of concept blending techniques and formal concept analysis using MeTTa, focusing on how different methodologies can enhance creative concept formation. We aim to evaluate approaches, including fuzzy logic and information-theoretic methods, to understand their effectiveness in generating meaningful new concepts. We aim to develop evaluation frameworks using LLMs to assess concept novelty and coherence.

RFP Guidelines

Experiment with concept blending in MeTTa

Internal Proposal Review

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $100,000 USD
Proposals 6
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Oct. 4, 2024

This RFP seeks proposals that experiment with concept blending techniques and formal concept analysis (including fuzzy and paraconsistent variations) using the MeTTa programming language within OpenCog Hyperon. The goal is to explore methods for generating new concepts from existing data and concepts, and evaluating these processes for creativity and efficiency.

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
4
Total Budget
$55,000_USD
Last Updated
5 Dec 2024

Milestone 1 - Research and Framework Setup

Description

We will be working on a literature review and technical requirements analysis development environment setup and initial architecture design.

Deliverables

We will provide: Research report and technical specification configured MeTTa development environment basic concept representation structure test dataset collection.

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

Our success criteria are: Documented analysis of at least 3 concept blending methods, Working MeTTa environment with Hyperon integration verified, Test dataset covering minimum 100 concept pairs, Basic concept representation able to handle 90% of test cases, Research findings peer-reviewed by technical team.

Milestone 2 - Basic Implementation and Testing

Description

We will be working on a baseline FCA implementation initial concept blending methods core testing framework development.

Deliverables

We will provide: working FCA implementation in MeTTa basic concept blending prototype comprehensive testing suite integration documentation.

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

Our success criteria are: Successfully blend 80% of test concept pairs, all unit tests passing with 90% coverage, integration with Atomspace verified through test cases Processing time under 2 seconds per concept pair, documentation reviewed and approved.

Milestone 3 - Advanced Methods Integration

Description

We will be working on a Fuzzy FCA implementation information-theoretic blending system and evaluation framework development.

Deliverables

We will provide: Advanced concept generation systems LLM-based evaluation framework performance benchmarking tools and technical documentation.

Budget

$16,000 USD

Success Criterion

Our success criteria are: Successful multi-concept blending for 75% of test cases, LLM evaluation accuracy above 80%, Fuzzy FCA handling uncertainty with 85% accuracy, performance benchmarks showing 30% improvement over baseline, and integration tests passing with 95% success rate.

Milestone 4 - System Completion and Documentation

Description

We will be working on a System optimization final integration testing comprehensive documentation completion.

Deliverables

We will provide: Optimized final system complete documentation package performance analysis report integration guide and research findings publication.

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

Our success criteria are: All test cases passing with 95% success rate, documentation approved by technical review, system processing 1000+ concept pairs per hour Memory usage within specified limits, successful live demonstration of concept generation, research paper draft completed, and integration guide validated by external developer.

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

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

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

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.

Almalgo_Labs

Project Owner

Project Coordinator, Research Lead

View Profile

Account Pending

Data Scientist

Testing and Model implementation Lead.

Account Pending

Tech lead

Low-level programming, Distributed computation algorithms design and implementation.

Account Pending

Engineer

CI/CD, containerization, delivery.

Account Pending