少点错误 02月20日
Take over my project: do computable agents plan against the universal distribution pessimistically?
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

文章探讨了算法在普遍分布样本上的平均性能与最坏情况性能的关系,涉及随机算法的强大性、决策算法等,还提到了作者的一些研究经历及对该项目的看法,最后说明了参与或不参与的原因。

🎯算法平均性能与最坏情况性能的关系

💡随机算法强大性的可能原因

🤔对决策算法的思考

📝作者的研究经历及看法

Published on February 19, 2025 8:17 PM GMT

This post is for technically strong people looking for a way to contribute to agent foundations (more detailed pros and cons later). I have not tried as hard as usual to make it generally accessible because, you know, I am trying to filter a little - so expect to click through some links if you want to follow. One other reason to read this post is if you know more than me about the title, in which case please enlighten me / point me in the right direction. I'd particularly like to hear from an Infra-Bayesiamism expert. 

It has been shown that the average-case performance of an algorithm on samples drawn from the universal distribution is the worst-case performance of that algorithm. I think this is a sort of justification for worst-case analysis and possibly an underlying reason that randomized algorithms are powerful (their worst-case isn't as bad because they effectively mix over deterministic algorithms). More speculatively, I think this may also be the source of intuition fueling max-min style decision algorithms under "Knightian uncertainty" - what philosophers call decision under ignorance rather than risk. If you deal with Knightian uncertainty using an ignorance prior like a good Bayesian, and choose a Solomonoff/Hutter style universal distribution like a good algorithmic information theorist, worst-case style thinking should be appropriate. Even more speculatively, I think this may justify a form of Infra-Bayesianism for computationally bounded reasoners (this is beyond my expertise). 

I worked on a weak form of this claim off-and-on for a few months and then abandoned it. I seem to do my best writing/work with at least one co-author to keep me grounded and make me eventually stop generalizing/perfecting and actually wrap my projects (hopefully you in this case, my dear reader). At this point I seem unlikely to pick it up again on my own in the near future. I have some notes mostly proving (roughly) that a computable planner should use a pessimistic -> stochastic planning strategy against the universal distribution, which I would like to pass off to someone (who would then be first author). If the specific ideas/approaches/formalization in the notes seem less interesting than the general idea, I'm fine with you just kicking me from the project and not using my notes (maybe leave me an acknowledgment in your paper/post) or wrapping my approach up and then moving on to prove more powerful related results. 

 Why you might want to do this:

    You have a strong background in statistics / probability / algorithms but haven't previously contributed to agent foundations / alignment theory and would like to. In this case, if the idea seems very unusually interesting to you, the project might be a good on-ramp. I can provide guidance for up to a few hours a week.  Also I think the expected outcome is good - I am pretty confident that at minimum we can carry my preliminary ideas through to some semi-interesting results that I will probably be able to use in the future. There also seems to be a lot of upside; the best-case outcome (which relies on you being really brilliant) would be quite useful unification of various ideas in decision theory through algorithmic information theory.    

    I believe that someone specializing in statistical estimation would have a comparative advantage over me.

    You are an experienced researcher in e.g. IB and this sounds trivial - after glancing at my notes or just hearing this idea you immediately see how to prove a more interesting version of my claim by a technically superior method. In that case, why not write it down?

Why you might not want to do this:

    It doesn't sound interesting to you on its own merits -> don't do itI am a lowly second-year PhD student; perhaps the idea is not as good as I think. If the reason is a lack of novelty, that should be reflected in the comments. My notes are currently a bit messy and (obviously) incomplete, which is why I haven't tried to publish them and why this post exists. Maybe you don't want to add more authors (myself and potentially a supervisor) to whatever you end up publishing (though this can be fine as discussed above).I can't promise to pay you. However, if we start a prolonged and fruitful collaboration I can probably help you find a funding source.  This sounds interesting, but one of the other open problems on my list sounds more interesting - in that case, please say so!

If you are interested, just comment or DM me!



Discuss

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

算法性能 随机算法 决策理论 研究经历
相关文章