Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Citation on zero exploration?

2009-11-09 Thread Peter Drake 

Perfect!

The very similar paper (by most of the same authors) "Adding expert  
knowledge and exploration in Monte-Carlo Tree Search" contains the key  
passage:


"In MoGo, the constant in front of the exploration term was not null  
before the introduction of RAVE values in [10]; it is now 0."


Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:


On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:18:25AM -0800, Peter Drake wrote:

I'm actually looking for something weaker than what Olivier has
offered: a published report of the empirical finding that (for some
programs, at least) an exploration coefficient of zero works best.


I think you could use "Combining expert, offline, transient and online
knowledge in Monte-Carlo exploration" for that, since there is  
presented

an AMAF equation without any exploration term, and the final equation
has no exploration term either.

--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
A lot of people have my books on their bookshelves.
That's the problem, they need to read them. -- Don Knuth
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Citation on zero exploration?

2009-11-09 Thread Petr Baudis 
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:42:46PM +0100, Cenny Wenner wrote:
> My mistake. The comment was directed to the original post and not
> yours. I was being too slow writing a reply.
> 
> (yikes, i really dislike the formatting of the
> http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00369786/fr article)

Which, incidentally, also is a publication mentioning c=0 favourableness. :-)

-- 
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
A lot of people have my books on their bookshelves.
That's the problem, they need to read them. -- Don Knuth
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Citation on zero exploration?

2009-11-09 Thread Cenny Wenner 
My mistake. The comment was directed to the original post and not
yours. I was being too slow writing a reply.

(yikes, i really dislike the formatting of the
http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00369786/fr article)

On 11/9/09, Olivier Teytaud  wrote:
> Hi; I'd like to answer your post but I must admit I've
> not clearly understood.
>
> My PDF file is essentially a mathematical analysis, proving that we can
> have consistency with some rules, without having infinitely many visits
> of the whole tree. UCT has the first property (consistency), but not the
> second
> (UCT visits all the tree infinitely often). This is proved under clearly
> stated assumptions on the problem; including deterministic two-player
> zero-sum games,
> and therefore including Go.
>
> Best regards,
> Olivier
>
>
> By result, do you mean this observation or a quest for an explanation?
>> If you merely wish to say that many/most current UCT programs have no
>> need for an exploration term, then that is a context-specific (e.g.
>> not for the "E-E in Go" paper) heuristic or experimental statement,
>> not a formal one. A source for such a statement has to be more than a
>> paper that simply notices a similar effect for their own application.
>> One would have to reference a larger body of experimentalists or a
>> general consensus.
>>
>> Just my humble opinion,
>> Cenny Wenner
>>
>>
>> On 11/9/09, Peter Drake  wrote:
>> > Many of us have concluded that, with RAVE, there is no need for a UCT
>> > exploration term:
>> >
>> > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2009-June/018773.html
>> >
>> > Is there a published source on this result that I could cite?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Peter Drake
>> > http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > computer-go mailing list
>> > computer-go@computer-go.org
>> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>> >
>> ___
>> computer-go mailing list
>> computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> =
> Olivier Teytaud (TAO-inria) olivier.teyt...@inria.fr
> Tel (33)169154231 / Fax (33)169156586
> Equipe TAO (Inria-Futurs), LRI, UMR 8623(CNRS - Universite Paris-Sud),
> bat 490 Universite Paris-Sud 91405 Orsay Cedex France
> (one of the 56.5 % of french who did not vote for Sarkozy in 2007)
>
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Citation on zero exploration?

2009-11-09 Thread Petr Baudis 
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:18:25AM -0800, Peter Drake wrote:
> I'm actually looking for something weaker than what Olivier has
> offered: a published report of the empirical finding that (for some
> programs, at least) an exploration coefficient of zero works best.

I think you could use "Combining expert, offline, transient and online
knowledge in Monte-Carlo exploration" for that, since there is presented
an AMAF equation without any exploration term, and the final equation
has no exploration term either.

-- 
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
A lot of people have my books on their bookshelves.
That's the problem, they need to read them. -- Don Knuth
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Citation on zero exploration?

2009-11-09 Thread Olivier Teytaud 
I don't know if a post in the computer-go mailing list is a report, but you
can find numbers in this post:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2008-May/014854.html

>From the numbers I would say that it shows that all sufficiently small
constants
are equivalent - maybe more experiments would be interesting.
Olivier

I'm actually looking for something weaker than what Olivier has offered: a
> published report of the empirical finding that (for some programs, at least)
> an exploration coefficient of zero works best.
>
> Peter Drake
> http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ 
>
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
>
> Hi; I'd like to answer your post but I must admit I've
> not clearly understood.
>
> My PDF file is essentially a mathematical analysis, proving that we can
> have consistency with some rules, without having infinitely many visits
> of the whole tree. UCT has the first property (consistency), but not the
> second
> (UCT visits all the tree infinitely often). This is proved under clearly
> stated assumptions on the problem; including deterministic two-player
> zero-sum games,
> and therefore including Go.
>
> Best regards,
> Olivier
>
>
> By result, do you mean this observation or a quest for an explanation?
>> If you merely wish to say that many/most current UCT programs have no
>> need for an exploration term, then that is a context-specific (e.g.
>> not for the "E-E in Go" paper) heuristic or experimental statement,
>> not a formal one. A source for such a statement has to be more than a
>> paper that simply notices a similar effect for their own application.
>> One would have to reference a larger body of experimentalists or a
>> general consensus.
>>
>> Just my humble opinion,
>> Cenny Wenner
>>
>>
>> On 11/9/09, Peter Drake  wrote:
>> > Many of us have concluded that, with RAVE, there is no need for a UCT
>> > exploration term:
>> >
>> > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2009-June/018773.html
>> >
>> > Is there a published source on this result that I could cite?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Peter Drake
>> > http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > computer-go mailing list
>> > computer-go@computer-go.org
>> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>> >
>> ___
>> computer-go mailing list
>> computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> =
> Olivier Teytaud (TAO-inria) olivier.teyt...@inria.fr
> Tel (33)169154231 / Fax (33)169156586
> Equipe TAO (Inria-Futurs), LRI, UMR 8623(CNRS - Universite Paris-Sud),
> bat 490 Universite Paris-Sud 91405 Orsay Cedex France
> (one of the 56.5 % of french who did not vote for Sarkozy in 2007)
>
>
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>
>
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>



-- 
=
Olivier Teytaud (TAO-inria) olivier.teyt...@inria.fr
Tel (33)169154231 / Fax (33)169156586
Equipe TAO (Inria-Futurs), LRI, UMR 8623(CNRS - Universite Paris-Sud),
bat 490 Universite Paris-Sud 91405 Orsay Cedex France
(one of the 56.5 % of french who did not vote for Sarkozy in 2007)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Citation on zero exploration?

2009-11-09 Thread Peter Drake 
I'm actually looking for something weaker than what Olivier has  
offered: a published report of the empirical finding that (for some  
programs, at least) an exploration coefficient of zero works best.


Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:


Hi; I'd like to answer your post but I must admit I've
not clearly understood.

My PDF file is essentially a mathematical analysis, proving that we  
can
have consistency with some rules, without having infinitely many  
visits
of the whole tree. UCT has the first property (consistency), but not  
the second
(UCT visits all the tree infinitely often). This is proved under  
clearly stated assumptions on the problem; including deterministic  
two-player zero-sum games,

and therefore including Go.

Best regards,
Olivier


By result, do you mean this observation or a quest for an explanation?
If you merely wish to say that many/most current UCT programs have no
need for an exploration term, then that is a context-specific (e.g.
not for the "E-E in Go" paper) heuristic or experimental statement,
not a formal one. A source for such a statement has to be more than a
paper that simply notices a similar effect for their own application.
One would have to reference a larger body of experimentalists or a
general consensus.

Just my humble opinion,
Cenny Wenner


On 11/9/09, Peter Drake  wrote:
> Many of us have concluded that, with RAVE, there is no need for a  
UCT

> exploration term:
>
> http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2009-June/018773.html
>
> Is there a published source on this result that I could cite?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter Drake
> http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
>
>
>
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/



--
=
Olivier Teytaud (TAO-inria) olivier.teyt...@inria.fr
Tel (33)169154231 / Fax (33)169156586
Equipe TAO (Inria-Futurs), LRI, UMR 8623(CNRS - Universite Paris-Sud),
bat 490 Universite Paris-Sud 91405 Orsay Cedex France
(one of the 56.5 % of french who did not vote for Sarkozy in 2007)


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Citation on zero exploration?

2009-11-09 Thread Olivier Teytaud 
Hi; I'd like to answer your post but I must admit I've
not clearly understood.

My PDF file is essentially a mathematical analysis, proving that we can
have consistency with some rules, without having infinitely many visits
of the whole tree. UCT has the first property (consistency), but not the
second
(UCT visits all the tree infinitely often). This is proved under clearly
stated assumptions on the problem; including deterministic two-player
zero-sum games,
and therefore including Go.

Best regards,
Olivier


By result, do you mean this observation or a quest for an explanation?
> If you merely wish to say that many/most current UCT programs have no
> need for an exploration term, then that is a context-specific (e.g.
> not for the "E-E in Go" paper) heuristic or experimental statement,
> not a formal one. A source for such a statement has to be more than a
> paper that simply notices a similar effect for their own application.
> One would have to reference a larger body of experimentalists or a
> general consensus.
>
> Just my humble opinion,
> Cenny Wenner
>
>
> On 11/9/09, Peter Drake  wrote:
> > Many of us have concluded that, with RAVE, there is no need for a UCT
> > exploration term:
> >
> > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2009-June/018773.html
> >
> > Is there a published source on this result that I could cite?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Peter Drake
> > http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ 
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go@computer-go.org
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>



-- 
=
Olivier Teytaud (TAO-inria) olivier.teyt...@inria.fr
Tel (33)169154231 / Fax (33)169156586
Equipe TAO (Inria-Futurs), LRI, UMR 8623(CNRS - Universite Paris-Sud),
bat 490 Universite Paris-Sud 91405 Orsay Cedex France
(one of the 56.5 % of french who did not vote for Sarkozy in 2007)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/