Bibliographic record
Abstract
General Game Playing (GGP) is a field of study in which artificial agents are required to compete in games whose rules are not known until runtime. In this domain, time is at a premium, as there may be less than a minute for an agent to initialize and decide on each of its actions. As a result, Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) has been favoured by researchers in this domain for its ability to run in whatever time it is given, by quickly simulating many instances of a game. Heuristics may be used to guide these simulations, but since the game is not known in advance, a typical MCTS agent cannot know which heuristics are likely to be useful, and must expend precious time in trying to discover them. However, an agent able to take advantage of knowledge gained from prior experience with other, different, games, can do better. In this paper, we present a technique for automatically transferring heuristic knowledge between distinct, but similar, games. We show that using this knowledge to improve the quality of game-independent heuristics can produce better performance in games within the GGP framework, especially when initialization time is short, and we show that negative transfer is possible to detect and avoid.
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 | 0.001 | 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".