in reply to Re: generating regexes?
in thread generating regexes?

The only problem with the Genetic Algorithm approach is the scoring function. There are two possible types of bad answers.
1. RE does not match at all
2. RE matches too much (ie /^.*$/)

You need a function to tell you if answer a was closer than b even though they were type 1 answers or a matches a small number of sets than b even though they were type 2 answers. It seems that you would have to have access to the actual RE code in perl to write such a function.
----
I always wanted to be somebody... I guess I should have been more specific.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: (FoxUni) Re: generating regexes?
by blakem (Monsignor) on Nov 20, 2001 at 02:25 UTC
    This was actually the direction the mailing-list discussion took. The final suggestion was that you'd need two sets of data - one set that should match, and one set that shouldn't match. The scoring function would be a combination betwen correctly matching those that should match, and correctly *not* matching those that shouldn't.

    -Blake

      Other possibilities for scoring that we've throught about are: the length of the match - regexes that match more of an example are scored higher, and specificity - regexes that are more specific are scored higher (qr/^[A-Z]{2}$/ is more specific than qr/^\w+$/, qr/^.+$/ is so non-specific, that we don't even consider it valid).

      Of course, this points out another weakness in the approach the example code uses - it only considers left-anchored regexes, so it tends not to notice commonalities on the right hand side (or anywhere else in the data for that matter).

      I'm not saying we've got the problem solved, or that it's even tractable in the general case. We just have an approach that works for some cases.

      Expanding on the idea of multiple data sets with something I forgot earlier:

      Traditionally, when you're teaching a program to do something, you use two data sets: a training set, which is properly marked ("this should match", "this shouldn't", etc), and a test set, which is also marked. You don't want to train the program on all the data at once, because you run the risk of overfitting (i.e. you get a program that does really well at matching the training data set, but is so specific to the training data that it fails on real-world data).

      --
      :wq
Re: Re: (FoxUni) Re: generating regexes?
by blakem (Monsignor) on Nov 20, 2001 at 05:17 UTC
    I think the regex engine provides enough hooks that you could write such a function w/o access to the underlying C code. For instance, some automatically placed (?{}) assertions might allow the scoring routine to offer "partial credit" for regexes that only match part of the string. Therefore, you could allow for a finer granularity than just 1=match 0=nomatch.

    (?{}) is a relativly new feature that allows arbritrary code to be executed inside your regex..... it is (ab)used in the rebug regex debugger that japhy mentioned a while back.

    -Blake