Remi Munos wrote:
I have updated the BAST paper, providing additional comparison with UCT, as
suggested by one person in the list. See: https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00150207
after reading the paper, I have two questions:
How did you deal with unexplored nodes in Flat UCB and BAST in your
Please notice that it is not my work.
All the experiments were performed by Filip Gruszczynski.
He corrected the webpage. (should be EGO_POWER)
Best Regards,
Lukasz
On 5/30/07, Rémi Coulom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Łukasz Lew wrote:
I'm not sure whether You have noticed, but my student made
On 5/31/07, Remi Munos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Lukasz for the link.
I'm not sure to understand precisely the formulas. For example, for
ego_bast_sqrt, you mention that the bast value of a node is the min of the
As I said previously this is not my experiment.
You can reach the author -
I have updated the BAST paper, providing additional comparison with UCT, as
suggested by one person in the list. See: https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00150207
Basically, in the considered examples, BAST with an appropriate smoothness
sequence performs always better than both UCT and Flat-UCB.
Now,
I'm not sure whether You have noticed, but my student made an
empirical comparison
between BAST, UCT and other formulas.
It can be found here:
http://students.mimuw.edu.pl/~fg219435/Go/
Best Regards,
Lukasz Lew
On 5/30/07, Remi Munos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have updated the BAST paper,
Łukasz Lew wrote:
I'm not sure whether You have noticed, but my student made an
empirical comparison
between BAST, UCT and other formulas.
It can be found here:
http://students.mimuw.edu.pl/~fg219435/Go/
Best Regards,
Lukasz Lew
Hi Łukasz,
You write that EGO_BAST seems to be a bit more
