Temporal-Difference Search in Computer Go
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal-difference (TD) learning is one of the most successful and broadly applied solutions to the reinforcement learning problem; it has been used to achieve master-level play in chess, checkers and backgammon. Monte-Carlo tree search is a recent algorithm for simulation-based search, which has been used to achieve master-level play in Go. We have introduced a new approach to high-performance planning. Our method, TD search, combines TD learning with simulation-based search. Like Monte-Carlo tree search, value estimates are updated by learning online from simulated experience. Like TD learning, it uses value function approximation and bootstrapping to efficiently generalise between related states. We applied TD search to the game of 9x9 Go, using a million binary features matching simple patterns of stones. Without any explicit search tree, our approach outperformed a vanilla Monte-Carlo tree search with the same number of simulations. When combined with a simple alpha-beta search, our program also outperformed all traditional (pre-Monte-Carlo) search and machine learning programs on the 9x9 Computer Go Server.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".