State of the Art Control of Atari Games Using Shallow Reinforcement Learning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recently introduced Deep Q-Networks (DQN) algorithm has gained attention as one of the first successful combinations of deep neural networks and reinforcement learning. Its promise was demonstrated in the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), a challenging framework composed of dozens of Atari 2600 games used to evaluate general competency in AI. It achieved dramatically better results than earlier approaches, showing that its ability to learn good representations is quite robust and general. This paper attempts to understand the principles that underlie DQN's impressive performance and to better contextualize its success. We systematically evaluate the importance of key representational biases encoded by DQN's network by proposing simple linear representations that make use of these concepts. Incorporating these characteristics, we obtain a computationally practical feature set that achieves competitive performance to DQN in the ALE. Besides offering insight into the strengths and weaknesses of DQN, we provide a generic representation for the ALE, significantly reducing the burden of learning a representation for each game. Moreover, we also provide a simple, reproducible benchmark for the sake of comparison to future work in the ALE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it