|
|
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
| | | | |
| | I expected the gap to be closer with less time for Diamond's gun to learn, but I really can't believe how highly the perceptual gun scores here. Maybe all bots move more similarly in the first round than in the rest of the battle? | | I expected the gap to be closer with less time for Diamond's gun to learn, but I really can't believe how highly the perceptual gun scores here. Maybe all bots move more similarly in the first round than in the rest of the battle? |
| − |
| |
| − | == Old, decision tree version ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My original attempt was using [[wikipedia:Decision tree|decision trees]]. I later decided this wasn't really the best approach since mutation/crossover could morph so much of the tree in unpredictable ways, and it's also way more complicated, but it was still kind of interesting.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Using the tree to aim ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The tree itself is really simple. Each node specifies either an output value ([[GuessFactor]]), or an attribute/value to split at. If the root is "lateral velocity"/5.5, then all situations with lateral velocity less than 5.5 move to the left sub-tree, the rest move to the right. This is repeated at each node until a node is reached that contains an output value. So to decide on a firing angle, we just move through the tree with the current situation's attributes, then translate the output value (GuessFactor) to a firing angle.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Decoding/building the tree ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Interpreting a string of bits as a decision tree is really the interesting part. Here's how I do it.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | First off, my decision tree is a filled out binary tree, so total nodes is <math>2^{height}-1</math>. The leaf nodes are output values and all the other nodes are splitting nodes.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The splitting nodes are each two bytes: splitting attribute and value. The leaf nodes are one byte: output value (GuessFactor). The first two bytes are the root, the next two are its left child, then its right child, then root.left.left, root.left.right, root.right.left... just like you'd lay out an array-based [[wikipedia:Binary heap|binary heap]]. Right now I ignore the first bit of each byte, so it's an unsigned number from 0 to 127.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I decide what attributes I'm going to use and create a 2D array, <code>rootCube[num_attributes][2]</code>, specifying the min and max possible values for each attribute. When we query the tree, we pass a 1D array of attribute values, corresponding to these same attribute indices. So the splitting attribute byte value would be an index to the first dimension of those arrays.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As I build the tree from the bit string, I store with each node the hypercube of attribute value ranges that could be input to this node. For the root node, any value within <code>rootCube</code> can come in, so I just make a copy of it. For every other node, I copy the parent's hypercube, then limit it based on the parent's splitting attribute/value.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | But the byte for the split value is 0-127 - how does that work? When I set a node's split value, I consider the byte value as a fraction of the range (from the hypercube) for the splitting attribute. So if the lateral velocity range is [3, 6] and the byte for the splitting value is 42, I split at <math>3 + (((1 + 42) / 128) * (6 - 3)) = ~4</math>. If we mutate and the range becomes [0, 1], now we'll split at 0.33. If we didn't do it this way, you could end up with huge portions of a tree being unreachable - e.g., if you split at 4, then split at 3 on the right sub-tree for the same attribute. This setup ensures a coherent decision tree no matter what, and hopefully makes sense as far as passing on traits even if the split value can change.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So I create each node as defined by the byte values in the bit string and the hypercubes, connect nodes to their parents, and voila - gun logic!
| |
| | | | |
| | __NOTOC__ | | __NOTOC__ |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Targeting Implementations]] | | [[Category:Targeting Implementations]] |
Revision as of 20:02, 11 July 2012
Background
This is the perceptual gun used in RetroGirl. I'd been tinkering with genetic algorithms and WaveSim a lot and was trying to think of interesting ways to apply them.
It's not hard to imagine there could be movement tendencies shared by most bots, so I was pretty sure I could do better than Head-On Targeting, Linear Targeting, or Circular Targeting. Coming up with a way to decode gun logic from a bit string is the challenging part - you have to make sure the translation between bits and gun logic is one that allows crossover and mutation to retain traits, or GA wouldn't be able to evolve and improve the fitness.
I'm also interested in using it in Diamond for the first few shots, when it can outperform my KNN gun. The initial versions I tried in Diamond saw no performance increase, but I think I can do better.
How it works
The current version is basically a pre-loaded, non-learning KNN (Dynamic Clustering) gun. The attributes encoded in the bit string are:
- Weights for each dimension.
- A few hundred data points in a few dimensions, each with an associated GuessFactor.
At fire time, just look up the one nearest neighbor and shoot at the corresponding GuessFactor. For the gun in RetroGirl, I stick to attributes that don't require storing state, but for Diamond, I'm free to use things like acceleration, time since velocity change, etc. You can check RetroGirl's code for the huge hex string and the logic to decode it into a kd-tree. =)
Performance
Here are some hit rates against a test bed of ~500 bots over 4 seasons (tested with WaveSim):
- Head-On Targeting: 14.93%
- Linear Targeting: 16.05%
- Circular Targeting: 16.16%
- Best perceptual KNN gun: 17.4%
- Diamond's KNN gun: 23.21%
I've begun working with a test bed of 1-round battles, which should be more appropriate for how I want to use it in Diamond. This is a little more interesting - hit rates against ~500 bots over ~33 seasons (~16,000 battles):
- Best perceptual KNN gun so far: 21.45%
- Diamond's KNN gun: 22.02%
- Perceptual KNN for first 4 shots, then Diamond's gun: 22.69%
I expected the gap to be closer with less time for Diamond's gun to learn, but I really can't believe how highly the perceptual gun scores here. Maybe all bots move more similarly in the first round than in the rest of the battle?
