Re: [computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted. (BackGammonCode)
Thanks, the dictionary is really great. Chrilly - Original Message - From: David Silver To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:29 PM Subject: [computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted. (BackGammonCode) It's because Go is not only game in the world and certainly not only reinforcement learning problem. They are using a widely accepted terminology. But a very inappropriate one. I have read Suttons book and all the things I know (e.g. TD-Gammon) are completly obfuscated. Its maybe suitable to present generel concepts, but it is extremly complicated to formulate an algorithm in this framework. Here is quick and dirty RL-Computer Go translation kit to try and help bridge the gap! RL terminology Go terminology State Position Action Move Reward Win/Loss Return Win/Loss Episode Game Time-step One move Agent Program Value function Evaluation function Policy Player Default policy Simulation player Uniform random policy Light simulation player Other stochastic policy Heavy simulation player Greedy policy 1-ply search player Epsilon-greedy policy 1-ply search player with some random moves FeatureFactor used for position evaluation Weight Weight of each factor in evaluation function Tabular representation One weight for each complete position Partial tabular UCT tree representation State abstraction One weight for many positions Linear value function Evaluation function approximation using weighted sum of various factors Feature discovery Learning new factors for the evaluation function Sample-based search Simulation (Monte-Carlo methods, etc.) Transition function Rules of the game Environment Rules of the game + opponent Trajectory Move sequence Online During actual play Offline Before/after actual play (e.g. preprocessing) On-policy If both players play as normal Off-policy If either player behaves differently -Dave -- ___ 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: [computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted. (BackGammonCode)
I wonder whether the use of games as a metaphor would make general machine learning concepts more easily understood by non-specialists? That is, if you took a machine learning paper and rewrote it in terms of games, would that make it easier or harder to understand for people unfamiliar with both game programming and machine learning? Of course, this is hard to tell once you've learned either vocabulary. It's easy to assume that whatever jargon you know (or invent) is inherently easier to understand. - Brian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted. (BackGammonCode)
Isn't there room for both? Shouldn't we present our work within our own community, but also make efforts to share our ideas with others? Yes, I do this by writing popular articles about computer-chess and games programming. The point of concern is: One is only considered important if one considers ones one work as important. Sometimes I have the feeling that academic researchers are a little bit ashamed that they do not do something more serious, important. And they hide then their work behind a more serious title/topic and vocabulary. E.g. J. Schaeffer Donsky wrote Falling from Grace. Both made important contributions to computer-chess. But in this article they blamed themself, that its their own (and the communities) fault that they have fallen from AI-Grace. But isn't it the problem of AI when the concepts do not work? Why didn't they wrote an article The concepts of AI are bullshit? Feng Hsu was the first one who did this. He was proud enough about his work. Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted. (BackGammonCode)
the language of mathematics is perhaps the most universal language for computer scientists. pseudocode comes in somewhere after that, and well-known algorithms probably somewhere inbetween. game programming is an application of computer science, and the language of game programming isn't necessarily appropriate (and would seem obtuse) to the much larger audience of potential readers outside of its domain. whenever an algorithm is applicable outside of the game programming field, rephrasing its game-specific language might make the most sense to the readers who are intended to read about it. that having been said, the most appropriate language is obviously that which is understandable by the largest number of potential readers interested in the title and (if there is one) the abstract. s. Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted.(BackGammonCode)
the language of mathematics is perhaps the most universal language for computer scientists. pseudocode comes in somewhere after that, and well-known algorithms probably somewhere inbetween. game programming is an application of computer science, and the language of game programming isn't necessarily appropriate (and would seem obtuse) to the much larger audience of potential readers outside of its domain. whenever an algorithm is applicable outside of the game programming field, rephrasing its game-specific language might make the most sense to the readers who are intended to read about it. that having been said, the most appropriate language is obviously that which is understandable by the largest number of potential readers interested in the title and (if there is one) the abstract. s. I have a PhD in Mathematical statistics. So I am not at all against the use of Mathematics. I think the language should be choosen which is most appropriate. For some mathematical proofs about the Big-O behaviour of algorithms there is no other language than mathematics. But for describing algorithms this notation is not suited. D.Knuth choose in the Art of Computer Programming structured English and for a precise analysis MIX. His argument for MIX is, that he writes books for eternity. Therefore he can not use the latest fashion in programming language. There is some reason behind this argument, but I think that only a few programmers can read nowadays MIX. MIX does also not reveflect the capabilities of modern hardware. Knuth has therefore to rewrite his books in MMIX (Inschallah). Maybe pseudo-Algol would have been more ethernal than MIX. But in any case he uses different levels of notation. Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
