Re: [Gabel-guys] experiment waiting room

[Robert G. <rgo...@in...>]

I'd say that agents should be given random starting locations, chosen from a
uniform, not gaussian, distribution and covering the whole playing field.

> And yet another one - I poked around the config files but didn't see anything
> about initial starting locations for players.  Should everyone start in the
> very middle, or at 0,0, or be placed in a normal distribution or a gaussian
> distribution, or off screen ;)?
> 
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 02:01:39PM -0500, Allen Lee wrote:
>> Hey Rob, another quick question - how often do we need to sample the data
>> collection, and what data needs to be collected (currently client number,
>> location, total amount of food consumed).  Does this need to be configurable
>> as well?  
>> 
>> Allen
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:07:56AM -0500, Rob Goldstone wrote:
>>> Hi Allen,
>>> An experiment can't really be a set of rounds, because people will be coming
>>> in and out.  If we could imprison subjects for an hour or so, then we could
>>> be sure of having the same subjects, but we can't do this.  So, the short
>>> answer to your question is that a "per round" makes sense.  Each 5-10 minute
>>> experiment is logically independent of the others, even though there may be
>>> an orderly arrangement to which configurations of an experiment are
>>> presented when.  In terms of statistical analyses, this means that we'll be
>>> using "between-subjects" rather than "within-subject" designs.
>>> 
>>> The rest of what you describe makes good sense.  For Forager and social
>>> choice I'm not envisioning any upper limit to the number of people involved.
>>> So, I don't expect we'll be spawning new experiments if one is filled up.
>>> This is fine functionality to include though, because I could imagine it
>>> coming up down the road.
>>> Ciao,
>>> Rob
>>> 
>>>> Andy and I have come up with an issue that I thought would be good to have
>>>> some feedback on.  We've been discussing how we want to implement the
>>>> 'waiting
>>>> room' functionality.  Right now we're leaning towards the following
>>>> interaction model:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. User hits the web page listing available games.  Web page checks KNS to
>>>> see
>>>> which services are available and dynamically generates hyperlinks encoded
>>>> with
>>>> the specific host and port information for that particular server.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. User clicks on a specific hyperlink, that takes them to the applet,
>>>> automatically connecting them to that experiment server.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Here's where we need some clarification or at least a "yes keep doing
>>>> that".  We decided to 'throttle' connections at the experiment server end,
>>>> not
>>>> the KNS end.  This means that people will be making connections to the
>>>> experiment server regardless of whether or not an experiment is already in
>>>> progress, etc.  What we plan to do here is the following:
>>>>   a. If there is no experiment session is in progress, or all current
>>>>   experiment sessions are already full, a new experiment session is
>>>> started.
>>>>   We're going to have to worry about dealing with a maximum allowable limit
>>>>   to this, of course, but we're leaving that for later since it's not
>>>>   immediately needed.
>>>> 
>>>>   b. If there is an experiment session in progress and it is not full, the
>>>>   user gets queued up for that particular experiment session and begins
>>>>   playing in that experiment session in the next round.  I was wary of this
>>>>   idea when Andy first mentioned it because I had some artificial notion
>>>>   that an experiment was a logical set of rounds, and the participants for
>>>> a
>>>>   given experiment should remain static throughout this set to keep it
>>>>   cohesive.  Since experiments will be randomized anyhow, we're leaning
>>>>   towards the per-round implementation, so a user connects to the forager
>>>>   server and gets slapped into the next round of forager.
>>>> 
>>>> DING: Here's where we need confirmation/clarification.  Do participants
>>>> join
>>>> on a per-round basis or on a per experiment session basis?  Will this
>>>> change
>>>> for other experiments? Also, how long do we keep running these rounds?  Do
>>>> we
>>>> let someone play forager for 37 hours?  Do you need to interpret their data
>>>> differently?
>>>> 
>>>> This is a pretty trivial question, but it's kind of a stumbling block right
>>>> now.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>> This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
>>>> Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
>>>> digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
>>>> unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gabel-guys mailing list
>>>> gab...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gabel-guys
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
>> Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
>> digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
>> unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> gabel-guys mailing list
>> gab...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gabel-guys
> 
> 
> 

___________________________________________________
Dr. Robert Goldstone
Professor of Psychology, Program in Cognitive Science
Psychology Building
1101 E 10th St.
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN. 47405-7007.
812-855-4853 (work).  812-333-0152 (home).  812-855-4691 (fax)
Email: rgo...@in...
Percepts and Concepts Laboratory: http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/