search

sleyzerzon / soar

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/soar
1 stars 0 forks source link

add ability to print probability of various operators being selected #18

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Description From Bob Marinier 2006-08-25 11:08:47 (-) [reply]
With the addition of numeric indifferent preferences, it can be difficult 
for
the user to tell just how likely it is that various operators will get
selected.  For example, when I run prefs with my code, I get something like
this:

acceptables:
  O3 (attend) +
  O4 (attend) +
  O5 (attend) +
  O6 (attend) +
  O1 (task) +

rejects:
  O6 (attend) -
  O3 (attend) -

worsts:
  O1 (task) <

binary indifferents:
  O4 (attend) =50
  O5 (attend) =50
  O5 (attend) =25
  O6 (attend) =O3 (attend)
  O5 (attend) =O3 (attend)
  O4 (attend) =O3 (attend)
  O3 (attend) =O6 (attend)
  O3 (attend) =O5 (attend)
  O3 (attend) =O4 (attend)
  O6 (attend) =O4 (attend)
  O5 (attend) =O4 (attend)
  O4 (attend) =O6 (attend)
  O4 (attend) =O5 (attend)
  O6 (attend) =O5 (attend)
  O5 (attend) =50
  O5 (attend) =O6 (attend)

It's very hard to tell from this what the probabilities are, especially 
since
I'm using numeric-indifferent-mode --sum.

It would be nice if the preferences command could be extended to report 
these
probabilities.  It could either list them separately at the end, or on the 
same
line with each acceptable preference.  If listed separately, only those
operators with non-zero probability need be listed.

Here's what a separate listing might look like (based on the above 
preferences;
calculations are rough estimates based on my understanding of how it 
works):

selection probabilities:
  O4 (attend) 5.2%
  O5 (attend) 94.8%

If listed with the acceptables, it might look like this:

acceptables:
  O3 (attend) + (0%)
  O4 (attend) + (5.2%)
  O5 (attend) + (94.8%)
  O6 (attend) + (0%)
  O1 (task) + (0%)
------- Comment #1 From Jonathan Voigt 2008-06-18 15:49:18 (-) [reply] ----

---
Nate, did any of this change with the new RL code? Is this bug still valid? 
It
may not even be related to your work, just re-assign it to me if so. 
------- Comment #2 From Nate 2008-06-18 15:56:47 (-) [reply] -------
This isn't directly an RL code issue, but it becomes most useful when 
someone
is using RL (due to the use of numeric indifferents with automatically
generated/updated values).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by voigtjr@gmail.com on 23 Jul 2009 at 4:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by voigtjr@gmail.com on 23 Jul 2009 at 5:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by voigtjr@gmail.com on 23 Feb 2010 at 7:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by voigtjr@gmail.com on 3 Mar 2010 at 4:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
implemented additional "selection probabilities" section as suggested.

Original comment by voigtjr@gmail.com on 22 Mar 2010 at 9:38