Guest Editorial Special Issue on Deep/Reinforcement Learning and Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) and reinforcement learning (RL) have been applied with great success to many games, including Go and Atari 2600 games. Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), developed in 2006, can be viewed as a kind of online RL. This technique has greatly improved the level of Go-playing programs. MCTS has since become the state of the art for many other games including Hex, Havannah, and general game playing, and has found much success in applications as diverse as scheduling, unit commitment problems, and probabilistic planning. DL has transformed fields such as image and video recognition and speech understanding. In computer games, DL started making its mark in 2014, when teams from the University of Edinburgh and Google DeepMind independently applied deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) to the problem of expertmove prediction in Go.Clark and Storkey’s DCNN achieved a move prediction rate of 44%, exceeding all previously published results. DeepMind’s publication followed soon after, with a DCNN that reached 55%. The combination of DL and RL led to great advances in Atari 2600 game playing, and to the ultimate breakthrough in computer Go. In 2017, DeepMind proposed a new deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm and developed AlphaGo Zero, which is significant for not requiring any human knowledge of Go. By removing the requirement for domain knowledge, DRL is also flexible in that the method can be applied to a wide range of games and problems, ushering in a variety of new research opportunities. In this special issue, we are delighted to bring you eight articles on applying DL/RL related techniques to games research.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.028 |
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".