You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Might be worth exploring our own versions of ranked rewards. I don't expect that paper is a canonical standard at this point, so there might be further optimizations we could look into.
Do loss rewards need to be -1? Might be easier to make a loss 0 and win 1.
A couple ideas:
pareto front optimization
Here, we'd just check to see if a molecule is pareto-optimal, i.e., whether its dominated by any other recent solution currently in the game buffer. select count(*) > 0 from game_table where buried_vol > %s and max_spin < %s and atom_type = %s
percentile scoring
Similar to ranked rewards but perhaps less sparse, just return 0->1 rewards depending on the percentile score of the game w.r.t a game buffer
anything else from the literature?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Might be worth exploring our own versions of ranked rewards. I don't expect that paper is a canonical standard at this point, so there might be further optimizations we could look into.
Do loss rewards need to be -1? Might be easier to make a loss 0 and win 1.
A couple ideas:
pareto front optimization
Here, we'd just check to see if a molecule is pareto-optimal, i.e., whether its dominated by any other recent solution currently in the game buffer.
select count(*) > 0 from game_table where buried_vol > %s and max_spin < %s and atom_type = %s
percentile scoring
Similar to ranked rewards but perhaps less sparse, just return 0->1 rewards depending on the percentile score of the game w.r.t a game buffer
anything else from the literature?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: