Affiliation:
1. Quantitative Research Analyst The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission New York Regional Office
Abstract
Abstract
Legg and Hutter, as well as subsequent authors, considered intelligent agents through the lens of interaction with reward-giving environments, attempting to assign numeric intelligence measures to such agents, with the guiding principle that a more intelligent agent should gain higher rewards from environments in some aggregate sense. In this paper, we consider a related question: rather than measure numeric intelligence of one Legg-Hutter agent, how can we compare the relative intelligence of two Legg-Hutter agents? We propose an elegant answer based on the following insight: we can view Legg-Hutter agents as candidates in an election, whose voters are environments, letting each environment vote (via its rewards) which agent (if either) is more intelligent. This leads to an abstract family of comparators simple enough that we can prove some structural theorems about them. It is an open question whether these structural theorems apply to more practical intelligence measures.
Reference16 articles.
1. Alexander, S. A. 2013. Infinite graphs in systematic biology, with an application to the species problem. Acta Biotheoretica 61(2):181–201.10.1007/s10441-012-9168-y
2. Balduzzi, D.; Tuyls, K.; Perolat, J.; and Graepel, T. 2018. Re-evaluating evaluation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3268–3279.
3. Fishburn, P. C. 1970. Arrow’s impossibility theorem: Concise proof and infinite voters. Journal of Economic Theory 2(1):103–106.10.1016/0022-0531(70)90015-3
4. Gavane, V. 2013. A measure of real-time intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence 4(1):31–48.10.2478/jagi-2013-0003
5. Good, I. J. 1955. On the marking of chess-players. The Mathematical Gazette 39(330):292–296.10.2307/3608567
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献