In looking at the paper again, I cheated and looked at the graphics and the conclusion. For those of us who are concerned with comparison to UCT, I believe that it's off the chart to the left, but would likely match the plateau. Initially, I was looking at the plot as if it was time series data, but it really isn't. I think the Rn through me off since I didn't read all the way to n=10^7.
The conclusion says "it seems important to use true upper confidence bounds, in order to avoid bad cases as illustrated in regular UCT." That caught my attention, but I didn't put in enough effort this time around to figure out what it was talking about. On 5/30/07, Remi Munos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 Basically, in the considered examples, BAST with an appropriate smoothness sequence performs always better than both UCT and Flat-UCB. Now, the best smoothness coefficient is always smaller than the constant corresponding to the true smoothnes of the tree, and sometimes very close to 0 (which corresponds to UCT). Since go is way more complex than the problem of optimizing a simple 1-d function, I would say that no theoretical work could predict whether BAST would do better than UCT or not, in Monte-Carlo-go. Best, Remi
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
