firefly_ross

Project Owner

Semi-Manual LeetCode and Similar Examples in MeTTa

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Create corpus for NL-to-MeTTa LLM

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

Overview

Develop a corpus of 10,000 programming problems rewritten in MeTTa, derived from existing LeetCode and similar interview-style coding problems. This corpus will include solutions, test cases, and varying levels of complexity (low, medium, and hard) to facilitate training and evaluation of a MeTTa coding assistant. Test cases will be reused to save time and verify correctness.

RFP Guidelines

Create corpus for NL-to-MeTTa LLM

Internal Proposal Review

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $70,000 USD
Proposals 10
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Aug. 13, 2024

Develop a MeTTa language corpus to enable the training or fine-tuning of an LLM and/or LoRAs aimed at supporting developers by providing a natural language coding assistant for the MeTTa language.

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
5
Total Budget
$35,000_USD
Last Updated
8 Dec 2024

Milestone 1 - Low-Complexity Problems (5,000 Problems)

Description

Focus on basic programming tasks like loops, conditionals, and simple data structures (arrays, linked lists, stacks). Reuse and adapt test cases to validate correctness. Ensure alignment with foundational MeTTa features.

Deliverables

5,000 rewritten problems with test cases and solutions.

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

5,000 rewritten problems with test cases and solutions.

Milestone 2 - Medium-Complexity Problems (3,000 Problems)

Description

Address more complex algorithms and structures, such as trees, graphs, sorting, searching, and dynamic programming. Develop modular solutions that highlight MeTTa’s declarative and functional programming strengths. Incorporate edge cases in test sets for robust validation.

Deliverables

3,000 rewritten problems with enhanced test cases.

Budget

$10,000 USD

Success Criterion

3,000 rewritten problems with enhanced test cases.

Milestone 3 - High-Complexity Problems (2,000 Problems)

Description

Cover advanced algorithms, optimization problems, metagraph operations, and real-world scenarios such as distributed systems and scheduling. Integrate reusable templates for recurring problem types. Highlight unique MeTTa features in solutions (e.g., knowledge metagraph traversal).

Deliverables

2,000 rewritten problems with comprehensive test cases.

Budget

$8,000 USD

Success Criterion

2,000 rewritten problems with comprehensive test cases.

Milestone 4 - Verification and Quality Assurance

Description

Conduct systematic validation of solutions and test cases. Peer-review a subset of problems to ensure compliance with MeTTa paradigms.

Deliverables

A verified and debugged corpus

Budget

$3,000 USD

Success Criterion

A verified and debugged corpus

Milestone 5 - Documentation and Tutorials

Description

Create extensive documentation on how the problems were adapted, best practices for using MeTTa, and instructions for adding new problems. Develop tutorials based on the low, medium, and high-complexity problems to help users learn MeTTa progressively.

Deliverables

Comprehensive documentation and onboarding materials.

Budget

$2,000 USD

Success Criterion

Comprehensive documentation and onboarding materials.

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.

firefly_ross

Project Owner

This will be an assignment for interview preparation. A team of 15-20 junior and middle developers. Timeline: 4-6 months

View Profile