Mastering percolation-like games with deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though robustness of networks to random attacks has been widely studied, intentional destruction by an intelligent agent is not tractable with previous methods. Here we devise a single-player game on a lattice that mimics the logic of an attacker attempting to destroy a network. The objective of the game is to disable all nodes in the fewest number of steps. We develop a reinforcement learning approach using deep <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><a:mi>Q</a:mi></a:math>-learning that is capable of learning to play this game successfully, and in so doing, to optimally attack a network. Because the learning algorithm is universal, we train agents on different definitions of robustness and compare the learned strategies. We find that superficially similar definitions of robustness induce different strategies in the trained agent, implying that optimally attacking or defending a network is sensitive to the particular objective. Our method provides an approach to understand network robustness, with potential applications to other discrete processes in disordered systems. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".