Bibliographic record
Abstract
The techniques involved in general game playing with Artificial Intelligence (AI) have advanced to meet the challenges of the most popular video game and board game domains. Until recently, the video game domains used as testbeds have been relatively simple. That is, the most complex console-wide domain that has been solved using Deep Reinforcement Learning is the Atari domain, which is decades behind modern video game domains. This work explores a more complex domain (the Nintendo Entertainment System, or NES) and the associated difficulties in developing deep reinforcement learning agents for it. To understand these difficulties, we trained agents on NES games with little to no expert knowledge provided to the agents. After developing some understanding of the challenges of the domain, we suggest areas on which to focus to solve this domain, work which will hopefully lead the field to solving ever more complex environments both real world and theoretical. This paper determines some of the necessary changes in hyperparameters and reward functions to solve the NES domain compared to the more popular Atari domain while using game pixel data as the only inputs to the agentsâ neural networks.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".