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
Generated propositional networks for games should have the same number of legal propositions ("move X is legal for player Y") and input propositions ("player Y chose move X"). It's internally inconsistent to have a legal proposition with no corresponding input proposition, since a player could choose that move and the propnet wouldn't be able to simulate it; and it's pointless to have an input proposition with no corresponding legal proposition, since the input proposition could never be set.
On the game "checkersonabarrelnokings" on the "games.ggp.org/stanford" repository, OPNF generates significantly more legal propositions than input propositions. This can be observed with the following code snippet:
PropNet p = OptimizingPropNetFactory.create(new CloudGameRepository("games.ggp.org/stanford").getGame("checkersonabarrelnokings").getRules());
System.out.println(p.getLegalPropositions().get(p.getRoles().get(0)).size());
System.out.println(p.getLegalPropositions().get(p.getRoles().get(1)).size());
System.out.println(p.getInputPropositions().keySet().size());
For most games (connect four, english draughts) the first two numbers added together equal the third number. For this game, the first two numbers added together are nearly double the third number.
Sorting the above results shows differences of this form:
( does black ( jump 1 1 3 3 ) )
( does black ( jump 1 3 3 5 ) )
( does black ( jump 1 5 3 7 ) )
( does black ( jump 1 7 3 1 ) )
OPNF is creating extra legal propositions, but it's not creating extra input propositions because the input propositions are specified via "input" rules. We should remove the extra legal propositions, or fix the issue that's causing OPNF to generate extra legal propositions in the first place.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Generated propositional networks for games should have the same number of legal propositions ("move X is legal for player Y") and input propositions ("player Y chose move X"). It's internally inconsistent to have a legal proposition with no corresponding input proposition, since a player could choose that move and the propnet wouldn't be able to simulate it; and it's pointless to have an input proposition with no corresponding legal proposition, since the input proposition could never be set.
On the game "checkersonabarrelnokings" on the "games.ggp.org/stanford" repository, OPNF generates significantly more legal propositions than input propositions. This can be observed with the following code snippet:
For most games (connect four, english draughts) the first two numbers added together equal the third number. For this game, the first two numbers added together are nearly double the third number.
Sorting the above results shows differences of this form:
vs.
OPNF is creating extra legal propositions, but it's not creating extra input propositions because the input propositions are specified via "input" rules. We should remove the extra legal propositions, or fix the issue that's causing OPNF to generate extra legal propositions in the first place.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: