Incorporating rivalry in reinforcement learning for a competitive game
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
Abstract Recent advances in reinforcement learning with social agents have allowed such models to achieve human-level performance on certain interaction tasks. However, most interactive scenarios do not have performance alone as an end-goal; instead, the social impact of these agents when interacting with humans is as important and largely unexplored. In this regard, this work proposes a novel reinforcement learning mechanism based on the social impact of rivalry behavior. Our proposed model aggregates objective and social perception mechanisms to derive a rivalry score that is used to modulate the learning of artificial agents. To investigate our proposed model, we design an interactive game scenario, using the Chef’s Hat Card Game, and examine how the rivalry modulation changes the agent’s playing style, and how this impacts the experience of human players on the game. Our results show that humans can detect specific social characteristics when playing against rival agents when compared to common agents, which affects directly the performance of the human players in subsequent games. We conclude our work by discussing how the different social and objective features that compose the artificial rivalry score contribute to our results.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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