Mika Letonsaari

Project Owner

Pattern Discovery in Symbolic Visual Structures

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

This project explores Concept Blending as a Mechanism for Abstract Pattern Discovery in Symbolic Visual Structures, with a focus on tasks inspired by the ARC-AGI challenge. We implement an information-theoretic concept blending algorithm within the MeTTa language of the Hyperon framework, targeting the induction of reusable abstractions from small, discrete visual examples. Symbolic visual structures—such as shape groupings, spatial relations, and symmetry patterns—are represented as hypergraphs in the Atomspace. Blending operations generate higher-level concepts that generalize across tasks. The system is evaluated on its capacity for coherence, novelty, and reuse.

RFP Guidelines

Experiment with concept blending in MeTTa

Internal Proposal Review

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $100,000 USD
Proposals 12
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Apr. 14, 2025

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. Bids are expected to range from $30,000 - $60,000.

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
$30,000_USD
Last Updated
25 May 2025

Milestone 1 - Detailed research plan and initial tests

Description

Academic literature search. Check the of availability and integrity of required datasets. Test programming tools. Design a detailed research plan.

Deliverables

A detailed research plan and an agile breakdown of tasks with timeline.

Budget

$6,000 USD

Success Criterion

Submit a thorough research plan outlining and detailing the approach and work to be done. Confirmation of availability of required datasets.

Milestone 2 - Development and testing

Description

Complete initial development of the framework showing implementation of the conceptual underpinnings of the RFP along with preliminary testing.

Deliverables

Draft implementation initial testing results and draft analysis of the results.

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

Test implementation and initial testing results are published on GitHub.

Milestone 3 - Final reports and publishing

Description

Submit all final materials as committed to in the grant proposal.

Deliverables

Final report, code with documentation, preprint or preview of a journal article or conference presentation.

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

Clearly written final report. Code published on GitHub with documentation. Finished one academic article or a conference presentation

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.

Mika Letonsaari

Project Owner

Dr. Mika Letonsaari is the sole researcher in this project. Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=6qKp3WkAAAAJ ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7249-8632

View Profile