Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Linda Linsefors

dblp:319/5127 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Reinforcement learning · 50% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
decision theory
0.512021
Reinforcement Learning in Newcomblike Environments · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value-based reinforcement learning
0.512021
Reinforcement Learning in Newcomblike Environments · NeurIPS 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

value-based reinforcement learning · 0.5convergence analysis · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Reinforcement Learning in Newcomblike Environments
abstract
Newcomblike decision problems have been studied extensively in the decision theory literature, but they have so far been largely absent in the reinforcement learning literature. In this paper we study value-based reinforcement learning algorithms in the Newcomblike setting, and answer some of the fundamental theoretical questions about the behaviour of such algorithms in these environments. We show that a value-based reinforcement learning agent cannot converge to a policy that is not \emph{ratifiable}, i.e., does not only choose actions that are optimal given that policy. This gives us a powerful tool for reasoning about the limit behaviour of agents -- for example, it lets us show that there are Newcomblike environments in which a reinforcement learning agent cannot converge to any optimal policy. We show that a ratifiable policy always exists in our setting, but that there are cases in which a reinforcement learning agent normally cannot converge to it (and hence cannot converge at all). We also prove several results about the possible limit behaviours of agents in cases where they do not converge to any policy.
James Bell-Clark, Linda Linsefors, Caspar Oesterheld, Joar Skalse
NeurIPS2