Course talk:CPSC522/Markov Logic

I am not sure if we are supposed to do marking or critique now, so here are my current comments on the page:

Comments

Solid and concise page on the topic. It seems to cover all the relevant aspects of Markov Logic. However, it is a tad short, which I think that is due to the constraints of the topic. Here are my questions and concerns:

• Is this page just about Markov Logic or Markov Logic Networks? Would it not make sense to name it Markov Logic Networks instead?
• I think the page could benefit from some more mathematical examples, e.g., for MAP inference. It may also be pseudo code for MaxWalkSAT?
• "As a side note, MAP inference is also known as MPE inference in Bayesian network literature." I think you should add a direct reference here.
• The example is quite brief, and I am not sure if I understand it correctly. What is meant to show me? How my cousins are related to each other? How does the weight come into play? Also the image is a bit small, I would try to expand it.
• I am not sure if a CPSC 422 course if a good academic reference, is it only used because of the example? What about the example in the UW Paper?
• The UW paper in general is very expansive and cited a lot, so there is a lot material for this topic. What are other aspects of Markov Logic Networks, which may be worth mentioning?

Marking Scheme

I a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 5 
   The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
   The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 (The abstract is quite short, but covers pretty much all the content in the page.)
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5 
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 2 ( There is probably some potential here in terms of MAP estimation.)
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3 ( I think
   It is correct. 5 (Did not see any glaring errors.)
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 3 ( For Markov Logic this is correct, on the other hand there seems to be a lot of content on Markov Logic Networks.) 
   It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
   It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 3
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4 ( I think it works well as an introduction.)
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 3

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 17

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
   The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
   The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 4
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
   It is correct. 5
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
   It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
   It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 4
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 3
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 4
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

Comments:

One or two more examples might be nice for pedagogical purposes.

First order logic can be linked to the relevant page within the 522 wiki (instead of the external one).

Otherwise, everything seems to be well written and a good introduction to the subject.

Content first paragraph: “On the other hand, Markov logic turns them into soft constraints ….” Define what you mean by “them”

Suggestion for “Graphical Structure” It might be interesting to add an image here of what the graphical structure looks like.

I would suggest adding pseudo code for “MaxWalkSAT”

Computing Probabilities second paragraph reword sentence to : “An obvious approach is to use brute force, where we find the total probabilities …”


Suggestion: can you provide a link to prof Carenini's slides? Just incase someone else (not from ubc) is reading.

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 1 (see previous suggestion)
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 3 some parts could be expanded more.
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19