I am not good at term definition, but I would say RAVE is the algorithm extending AMAF in MCTS, including how to accumulate the counts at each node (trivial extension even though implementation can be tricky), how to combine with UCT (or other move choice), and how to integrate with priors (based on expert knowledge or previous learning).
Sylvain On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mark Boon <tesujisoftw...@gmail.com>wrote: > I took AMAF as the process to consider all the moves regardless when > they were played in the sequence (although a slight discount for later > in the sequence seems to help a little) whereas RAVE is using an > undefined method to favour some nodes over others prior to expanding > them. The reason (as far as I understood so far) they get confused is > because a popular method to use in RAVE is in fact using AMAF values. > > Mark > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Magnus Persson <magnus.pers...@phmp.se> > wrote: > > Quoting Petr Baudis <pa...@ucw.cz>: > > > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:37:24PM -0800, Peter Drake wrote: > >>> > >>> It's easy to get confused -- different researchers use the terms > >>> slightly differently. > >>> > >>> They both gather data on moves other than a move made from the > >>> current board configuration. I would say that AMAF stores statistics > >>> on every move played from any position, while RAVE only stores info > >>> on moves played from descendants of the current position. > >>> Consequently, AMAF uses a global table, whereas RAVE data must be > >>> stored at every node. > >> > >> I guess that is a good definition; I assume this difference to arise > >> from the fact whether you use tree or flat MC, so for me, AMAF in tree > >> always means "from descendants of the current position". Instead, to me > >> AMAF is the data collected, while RAVE is the way to apply the data in > >> the node urgency computation (which furthermore splits to what I call > >> for myself Sylvain Gelly's RAVE vs David Silver's RAVE, of course...). > > > > This also how I have interpreting AMAF and RAVE after being confused > > initially thinking it was just two names for one thing. > > > >> I think it's because I haven't seen this approach evolve and I'm not too > >> familiar with the pre-RAVE AMAF, so perhaps I underestimate how > >> revolutionary the "descendants only" idea was. > > > > AMAF was first used with programs that did not build a tree. Perhaps this > is > > why Peter Drake makes this interpretation. When I implemented AMAF in > > Valkyria it was always self evident that "descendants only" is only the > only > > good way of making use of it, since search was so deep that the positions > > cannot be compared. > > > > Best > > Magnus > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
