User talk:AW/lupus - Revision history

Rednaxela: reply

2011-03-12T02:49:30Z

Voidious: accel and speed

2011-03-12T02:47:15Z

accel and speed

AW at 02:40, 12 March 2011

2011-03-12T02:40:39Z

AW at 01:41, 12 March 2011

2011-03-12T01:41:18Z

Voidious: comment

2011-03-07T14:01:28Z

comment

GrubbmGait: precise intersection and binsmoothing

2011-03-07T08:35:07Z

precise intersection and binsmoothing

AW at 01:33, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T01:33:15Z

AW at 01:32, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T01:32:00Z

GrubbmGait: heavily segmeted versus fast learning

2011-03-04T09:27:32Z

heavily segmeted versus fast learning

Skilgannon: some ideas

2011-03-04T07:08:16Z

some ideas

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:49, 12 March 2011
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Cool, nice work. =) In Dookious I used 3 segments, 0=decelerating, 1=same speed, 2=accelerating. A delta < 0.5 I considered same speed. Diamond doesn't segment, it just uses the raw decel/accel value, this tick minus last tick. But yes, I would use speed instead of velocity - going from -8 to -6 is really deceleration and should be the same as 5 to 3. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)		Cool, nice work. =) In Dookious I used 3 segments, 0=decelerating, 1=same speed, 2=accelerating. A delta < 0.5 I considered same speed. Diamond doesn't segment, it just uses the raw decel/accel value, this tick minus last tick. But yes, I would use speed instead of velocity - going from -8 to -6 is really deceleration and should be the same as 5 to 3. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	Congrats on it working well now. Well, if you don't normalize velocity and acceleration in the same manner, then you'll end up with subdivisions in the data that don't actually mean anything. The key is that both Robocode and virtually all robots treat the "back" and "front" of the robot equally. The usual way of handling this symmetry to multiply both the acceleration and velocity, by the sign of the most recent non-zero velocity. This effectively takes the absolute value of velocity, and makes sure acceleration is from the same perspective. In general, when dealing with symmetries, everything normalized across the same symmetry (i.e. back vs front) should be normalized the same way. --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 02:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 12 March 2011
Line 43:		Line 43:

	I found the bug, that is I found one bug and switched the segmentation of gun three to use lateral velocity instead of the enemy's relative heading and velocity giving gun three a score of about 81. Then I tried using the ratio of max to average in the gun segments and the number of waves in that segment to choose which gun to use (Brilliant 0.1). As you can see it helps, but I am wondering: I segment on acceleration--change in velocity--as opposed to what I shall call pseudo-acceleration--change in speed. What do other people use?--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)		I found the bug, that is I found one bug and switched the segmentation of gun three to use lateral velocity instead of the enemy's relative heading and velocity giving gun three a score of about 81. Then I tried using the ratio of max to average in the gun segments and the number of waves in that segment to choose which gun to use (Brilliant 0.1). As you can see it helps, but I am wondering: I segment on acceleration--change in velocity--as opposed to what I shall call pseudo-acceleration--change in speed. What do other people use?--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	Cool, nice work. =) In Dookious I used 3 segments, 0=decelerating, 1=same speed, 2=accelerating. A delta < 0.5 I considered same speed. Diamond doesn't segment, it just uses the raw decel/accel value, this tick minus last tick. But yes, I would use speed instead of velocity - going from -8 to -6 is really deceleration and should be the same as 5 to 3. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 12 March 2011
Line 42:		Line 42:
	You might try just borrowing the segmentation from a bot like [[CassiusClay]] or [[Dookious]] and seeing how your gun does, for a clearer idea of what's wrong. Gun 5 is no segmentation and only firing waves, and performs the best? Given that, if it were me, I'd look for a major bug or issue holding you back, because that seems really weird. Like maybe your segmentation isn't working how you think it is, or you need to use multiple buffers - a low segmented one so you always have some data to work with, and a high segmented one so you can learn in more detail is a very nice setup. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)		You might try just borrowing the segmentation from a bot like [[CassiusClay]] or [[Dookious]] and seeing how your gun does, for a clearer idea of what's wrong. Gun 5 is no segmentation and only firing waves, and performs the best? Given that, if it were me, I'd look for a major bug or issue holding you back, because that seems really weird. Like maybe your segmentation isn't working how you think it is, or you need to use multiple buffers - a low segmented one so you always have some data to work with, and a high segmented one so you can learn in more detail is a very nice setup. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

−	I found the bug, that is I found one bug and switched the segmentation of gun three to use lateral velocity instead of the enemy's ~~realative~~ heading and velocity giving gun three a score of about 81. Then I tried using the ratio of max to average in the gun segments and the number of waves in that segment to choose which gun to use (Brilliant 0.1). As you can see it helps, but I am wondering: I segment on acceleration as opposed to what I shall call pseudo-acceleration--change in speed ~~rather than change in velocity~~. What do other people use?--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)	+	I found the bug, that is I found one bug and switched the segmentation of gun three to use lateral velocity instead of the enemy's relative heading and velocity giving gun three a score of about 81. Then I tried using the ratio of max to average in the gun segments and the number of waves in that segment to choose which gun to use (Brilliant 0.1). As you can see it helps, but I am wondering: I segment on acceleration--change in velocity--as opposed to what I shall call pseudo-acceleration--change in speed. What do other people use?--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:41, 12 March 2011
Line 41:		Line 41:

	You might try just borrowing the segmentation from a bot like [[CassiusClay]] or [[Dookious]] and seeing how your gun does, for a clearer idea of what's wrong. Gun 5 is no segmentation and only firing waves, and performs the best? Given that, if it were me, I'd look for a major bug or issue holding you back, because that seems really weird. Like maybe your segmentation isn't working how you think it is, or you need to use multiple buffers - a low segmented one so you always have some data to work with, and a high segmented one so you can learn in more detail is a very nice setup. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)		You might try just borrowing the segmentation from a bot like [[CassiusClay]] or [[Dookious]] and seeing how your gun does, for a clearer idea of what's wrong. Gun 5 is no segmentation and only firing waves, and performs the best? Given that, if it were me, I'd look for a major bug or issue holding you back, because that seems really weird. Like maybe your segmentation isn't working how you think it is, or you need to use multiple buffers - a low segmented one so you always have some data to work with, and a high segmented one so you can learn in more detail is a very nice setup. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	I found the bug, that is I found one bug and switched the segmentation of gun three to use lateral velocity instead of the enemy's realative heading and velocity giving gun three a score of about 81. Then I tried using the ratio of max to average in the gun segments and the number of waves in that segment to choose which gun to use (Brilliant 0.1). As you can see it helps, but I am wondering: I segment on acceleration as opposed to what I shall call pseudo-acceleration--change in speed rather than change in velocity. What do other people use?--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 7 March 2011
Line 39:		Line 39:

	It is also possible that it is a very good random movement ;-) Precise intersection will help, but if the base of the gun does not hit this particular movement very well, don't expect any wonders. Regarding bin smoothing, I've never understood the added value of this feature and to my opinion it will negate the effect that precise intersection will have. Don't focus too much on one opponent. If a 10% gain against one results in 2% loss against 10, it will perform worse in the rumble. --[[User:GrubbmGait\|GrubbmGait]] 08:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)		It is also possible that it is a very good random movement ;-) Precise intersection will help, but if the base of the gun does not hit this particular movement very well, don't expect any wonders. Regarding bin smoothing, I've never understood the added value of this feature and to my opinion it will negate the effect that precise intersection will have. Don't focus too much on one opponent. If a 10% gain against one results in 2% loss against 10, it will perform worse in the rumble. --[[User:GrubbmGait\|GrubbmGait]] 08:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	You might try just borrowing the segmentation from a bot like [[CassiusClay]] or [[Dookious]] and seeing how your gun does, for a clearer idea of what's wrong. Gun 5 is no segmentation and only firing waves, and performs the best? Given that, if it were me, I'd look for a major bug or issue holding you back, because that seems really weird. Like maybe your segmentation isn't working how you think it is, or you need to use multiple buffers - a low segmented one so you always have some data to work with, and a high segmented one so you can learn in more detail is a very nice setup. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 7 March 2011
Line 37:		Line 37:

	Thanks for all of the help. (By the way it was 35 seasons) I tested only using a virtual gun if it has 50 waves in this particular segment and the results improved (intelligent 3), but I still think that the score against GrubbmGrb is too low. I will try precise intersection and improved bin smoothing next.--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)		Thanks for all of the help. (By the way it was 35 seasons) I tested only using a virtual gun if it has 50 waves in this particular segment and the results improved (intelligent 3), but I still think that the score against GrubbmGrb is too low. I will try precise intersection and improved bin smoothing next.--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	It is also possible that it is a very good random movement ;-) Precise intersection will help, but if the base of the gun does not hit this particular movement very well, don't expect any wonders. Regarding bin smoothing, I've never understood the added value of this feature and to my opinion it will negate the effect that precise intersection will have. Don't focus too much on one opponent. If a 10% gain against one results in 2% loss against 10, it will perform worse in the rumble. --[[User:GrubbmGait\|GrubbmGait]] 08:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:33, 7 March 2011
Line 36:		Line 36:


−	Thanks for all of the help. I tested only using a virtual gun if it has 50 waves in it and the results improved, but I still think that the score against GrubbmGrb is too low. I will try precise intersection and improved bin smoothing next.--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)	+	Thanks for all of the help. (By the way it was 35 seasons) I tested only using a virtual gun if it has 50 waves in this particular segment and the results improved (intelligent 3), but I still think that the score against GrubbmGrb is too low. I will try precise intersection and improved bin smoothing next.--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 7 March 2011
Line 34:		Line 34:

	[[GrubbmGrb]] does not try to stay perfectly perpendicular, it moves in straight lines while keeping more or less its favorite distance. When using relative heading it therefor covers more segments, letting you learn slower. When using a heavy segmented gun, like one and three, and there is not enough data, you could use a lightly segmented or unsegmented gun for the first few rounds. It adapts fast while you gather info for your heavy gun. --[[User:GrubbmGait\|GrubbmGait]] 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)		[[GrubbmGrb]] does not try to stay perfectly perpendicular, it moves in straight lines while keeping more or less its favorite distance. When using relative heading it therefor covers more segments, letting you learn slower. When using a heavy segmented gun, like one and three, and there is not enough data, you could use a lightly segmented or unsegmented gun for the first few rounds. It adapts fast while you gather info for your heavy gun. --[[User:GrubbmGait\|GrubbmGait]] 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	Thanks for all of the help. I tested only using a virtual gun if it has 50 waves in it and the results improved, but I still think that the score against GrubbmGrb is too low. I will try precise intersection and improved bin smoothing next.--[[User:AW\|AW]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 4 March 2011
Line 32:		Line 32:

	Try time-since-decel rather than time-since-accel-change. I've found it's more generally useful. Also, try having 2 or 3 different sets of buffers with different numbers of segments such that if your higher segmented gun doesn't have any hits then you look at the lower segmented one. Another thing is to increase your number of bins up to ~75 and then do some form of [[Bin Smoothing]]. Good luck! --[[User:Skilgannon\|Skilgannon]] 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)		Try time-since-decel rather than time-since-accel-change. I've found it's more generally useful. Also, try having 2 or 3 different sets of buffers with different numbers of segments such that if your higher segmented gun doesn't have any hits then you look at the lower segmented one. Another thing is to increase your number of bins up to ~75 and then do some form of [[Bin Smoothing]]. Good luck! --[[User:Skilgannon\|Skilgannon]] 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	[[GrubbmGrb]] does not try to stay perfectly perpendicular, it moves in straight lines while keeping more or less its favorite distance. When using relative heading it therefor covers more segments, letting you learn slower. When using a heavy segmented gun, like one and three, and there is not enough data, you could use a lightly segmented or unsegmented gun for the first few rounds. It adapts fast while you gather info for your heavy gun. --[[User:GrubbmGait\|GrubbmGait]] 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:08, 4 March 2011
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Hmm, well, the results in the table mostly make sense for those combinations of segments I believe. The ones in gun 7 are what I would expect to be most key parts against oscillators and stop n' go like GrubbmGrb. It makes sense that gun 6 does well against Raiko, because Raiko tends to not hint at it's future behavior very much in acceleration or "time since", due to how it chooses to randomize. It also makes sense that gun 3 does well against Fortune, because Fortune changes between different kinds of movement, and gun 3 is a fairly "standard" segment combination that hits most things okay. Unsure about the DM and WLO scores. Personally, I'd suggest trying a hybrid of gun 7 and gun 6. Also, how many rounds per battle here? If the usual 35, then 3 seasons is awfully short, I'd suggest using more seasons to get a more precise idea of the trends. --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)		Hmm, well, the results in the table mostly make sense for those combinations of segments I believe. The ones in gun 7 are what I would expect to be most key parts against oscillators and stop n' go like GrubbmGrb. It makes sense that gun 6 does well against Raiko, because Raiko tends to not hint at it's future behavior very much in acceleration or "time since", due to how it chooses to randomize. It also makes sense that gun 3 does well against Fortune, because Fortune changes between different kinds of movement, and gun 3 is a fairly "standard" segment combination that hits most things okay. Unsure about the DM and WLO scores. Personally, I'd suggest trying a hybrid of gun 7 and gun 6. Also, how many rounds per battle here? If the usual 35, then 3 seasons is awfully short, I'd suggest using more seasons to get a more precise idea of the trends. --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	Try time-since-decel rather than time-since-accel-change. I've found it's more generally useful. Also, try having 2 or 3 different sets of buffers with different numbers of segments such that if your higher segmented gun doesn't have any hits then you look at the lower segmented one. Another thing is to increase your number of bins up to ~75 and then do some form of [[Bin Smoothing]]. Good luck! --[[User:Skilgannon\|Skilgannon]] 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)