MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897422953 · doi:10.1109/cig.2018.8490428

Toward General Mathematical Game Playing Agents

2018· article· en· W2897422953 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Ashlock, Eun-Youn Kim, Diego Perez-Lebana

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaComputer scienceVideo game designSimultaneous gameCombinatorial game theorySequential gameNon-cooperative gameRepeated gameGame mechanicsGame theoryScreening gameAdversaryPrisoner's dilemmaDomain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceMathematical economicsComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

General game playing AI and general video game playing AI are both active research areas. Mathematical games, like prisoner's dilemma, rock-paper-scissors, or the snowdrift game can also be played by general purpose agents. An agent representation in which agents play knowing only their own score and their opponent's score in a previous round is used to enable general mathematical game playing. Agents are trained to recognize when the game being played has changed and trained to play competently on diverse sets of games. This domain, simpler than general game playing or general video game playing, is offered as a test lab for concepts in the creation of general AI. It is demonstrated that agents can be trained to play three different coordination games competently. The agents also learn to play prisoner's dilemma and a coordination game that reverses which moves lead to high payoffs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207