Closed deepbludev closed 3 days ago
So this solution is ineffective for a few reasons:
- You're using the PERIOD_SCORE to assess which miners are best. You're using this from the contenders table. The contenders table only has information from the current cycle. Actually from the current cycle all PERIOD_SCORES are null. So this is no change to the current solution.
- Are you sure period score is a good measure of how good the responses are?
- Lots of formatting changes makes it hard to review
I just pushed a new approach that takes into account the historical scores instead.
Resolves #70
Solution: Improved Selection of Miners for Queries Using Time-Decayed Period Scores
Overview
This solution enhances the selection process of miners for both organic and synthetic queries by integrating time-decayed period scores. The goal is to ensure high-quality responses for users while promoting exploration for new miners, all while accurately reflecting miners' recent historical performance.
Key Improvements
Time-Decayed Historical Period Scores
Differentiated Selection Criteria
Promoting Exploration of New Miners
Benefits
PD: "seasoning" :)