MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889214550 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.017

Data analytics on the board game Go for the discovery of interesting sequences of moves in joseki

2018· article· en· W2889214550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBig dataComputer sciencePopularityData scienceAnalyticsFocus (optics)Variety (cybernetics)Data analysisSimple (philosophy)Data miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current era of big data, high volumes of a wide variety of data of different veracity are generated at a high velocity in many real-life applications. Embedded in these big data is valuable information or knowledge. This calls for data science solution for discovering knowledge from the big data. A rich source of big data is game data. In this article, we focus on the board game of Go, which is a popular two-player strategic board game. Due to its popularity, many people are studying sequences of moves in games (i.e., joseki). However, with high volumes of the game data, manual solution or complex automatic solution for joseki may not be practical. Hence, in this article, we present a simple automatic data science solution for discovering interesting sequences of moves in joseki for the board game Go. Evaluation results show the benefits and practicality of using our solution in data analytics of the game.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0080.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it