Density Calculations

Jump to navigation Jump to search

How low is your k? I've only run a few battles, but when my hitrate goes under 8% vs a bot which can't shoot and can't flatten, and normally its above 12%, it makes me think there is something wrong. Ill run a few more to make sure.

Straw (talk)20:33, 15 December 2013

My Anti-Surfer gun uses 4 data sets. They are k=3 of last {125 | 400 | 1500 | 4000} data points. So the least-decaying one has ~5 rounds of data, and many of the selected data points will overlap.

8% vs 12% of raw hit rate over a few battles doesn't could still be just fluctuation. If it's a normalized hit rate that might be significant... I generally run a few hundred to a few thousand battles to test a change, for what it's worth.

Voidious (talk)20:53, 15 December 2013

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:Talk:Dynamic Clustering/Density Calculations/reply (5).

Well, I consider it one gun. :-) But instead of a single KNN search, it does 4 of them and combines the results.

You should be able to hazard a guess at the margin of error by looking at the distribution of those 15 values. Isn't it 1.96 * standard deviation = 95% confidence interval? Edit: Er, then divided by sqrt(num battles)? I don't know, but it's not hard to find. :-)

Voidious (talk)21:20, 15 December 2013

Does it use different trees for the different searches? Isn't that assuming a normal distribution? The mean and stdev for k = 1 are 12.12 and .34, for k = 100 (at max) its 9.26 and .36. Seems significant. Haven't tried intermediate values, k = 2 seemed to decrease performance, but I didn't do a careful study.

Straw (talk)21:55, 15 December 2013

Yes, different trees. It does assume a normal distribution, but I think that's at least in the ballpark.

I'm not sure, but if going from k=1 to k=2+ produces a significantly different result, that seems strange. I'd probably spend some time trying to suss out bugs. Like what if you do k=2 and only consider the 2nd point, so there's still only 1 point in your kernel density? Or what if you do k=1 but then feed two of that point into your kernel density?

Voidious (talk)18:54, 16 December 2013