MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1512866498 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8321

Investigating Contingency Awareness Using Atari 2600 Games

2021· article· en· W1512866498 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaAlberta InnovatesWestern Canada Research GridCompute Canada
KeywordsContingencyReinforcement learningExploitComputer scienceFunction (biology)Control (management)Value (mathematics)ReinforcementArtificial intelligenceContingency managementBellman equationHuman–computer interactionMachine learningPsychologySocial psychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contingency awareness is the recognition that some aspects of a future observation are under an agent's control while others are solely determined by the environment. This paper explores the idea of contingency awareness in reinforcement learning using the platform of Atari 2600 games. We introduce a technique for accurately identifying contingent regions and describe how to exploit this knowledge to generate improved features for value function approximation. We evaluate the performance of our techniques empirically, using 46 unseen, diverse, and challenging games for the Atari 2600 console. Our results suggest that contingency awareness is a generally useful concept for model-free reinforcement learning agents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.188 · 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