A Deep Reinforcement Learning Blind AI in DareFightingICE

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.07444v1
• Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 04:48:24 GMT
• Title: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Blind AI in DareFightingICE
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a deep reinforcement learning AI that uses sound as the input on the DareFightingICE platform at the DareFightingICE Competition in IEEE CoG 2022. In this work, an AI that only uses sound as the input is called blind AI.
• Score: 0.8224695424591678
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper presents a deep reinforcement learning AI that uses sound as the input on the DareFightingICE platform at the DareFightingICE Competition in IEEE CoG 2022. In this work, an AI that only uses sound as the input is called blind AI. While state-of-the-art AIs rely mostly on visual or structured observations provided by their environments, learning to play games from only sound is still new and thus challenging. We propose different approaches to process audio data and use the Proximal Policy Optimization algorithm for our blind AI. We also propose to use our blind AI in evaluation of sound designs submitted to the competition and define three metrics for this task. The experimental results show the effectiveness of not only our blind AI but also the proposed three metrics.

Related papers

• Nonslop: A Gamified Experiment in Human-AI Collaborative Writing [4.079191726815924]
  The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance.<n>This gamified approach offers both a framework for studying authentic human-AI interaction and a provocative lens for understanding the tension between efficiency and authenticity in AI-augmented creativity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T17:21:38Z)
• The Impact of AI Usage and Informativeness on Skill Development in Logical Reasoning [13.546638788752924]
  We examine how both AI usage and informativeness can shape learning in a logical reasoning task with on-demand access to AI assistance.<n>We find that greater AI usage is associated with weaker skill development, whereas light AI users perform similarly to matched users who do not use AI.<n>Our findings suggest that AI can, depending on context, either complement human skill development by amplifying independent reasoning or can act as a substitute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T19:55:57Z)
• Cripping AI: Reimagining AI Through Lived Disability Experiences [13.118958625581394]
  cripping AI seeks to reveal and dismantle ableist assumptions embedded in how AI is imagined, designed, and evaluated.<n>We show how to apply our framework with three cases: stuttering and sign language AI, blindness and visual assistive AI, and deafness and speech AI.<n>We end by outlining three directions for future work, including cripping AI with diverse human bodyminds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T22:36:40Z)
• It's Not the AI - It's Each of Us! Ten Commandments for the Wise & Responsible Use of AI [10.566108717805227]
  We propose Ten Commandments for the Wise and Responsible Use of AI.<n>They align with Floridi and Cowls' five guiding principles for AI in society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T15:09:07Z)
• Human-AI Complementarity: A Goal for Amplified Oversight [2.7005766101211663]
  This paper explores how we can leverage AI to improve the quality of human oversight.<n>We find that combining AI ratings and human ratings based on AI rater confidence is better than relying on either alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T14:11:52Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  Misclassification can lead to false plagiarism accusations and misleading claims about AI prevalence in online content. We systematically evaluate eleven state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset. Our findings reveal that detectors frequently misclassify even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• The Impacts of AI Avatar Appearance and Disclosure on User Motivation [0.0]
  This study examines the influence of perceived AI features on user motivation in virtual interactions. We conducted a game-based experiment involving over 72,500 participants who solved search problems alone or with an AI companion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T10:48:55Z)
• DanZero+: Dominating the GuanDan Game through Reinforcement Learning [95.90682269990705]
  We develop an AI program for an exceptionally complex and popular card game called GuanDan. We first put forward an AI program named DanZero for this game. In order to further enhance the AI's capabilities, we apply policy-based reinforcement learning algorithm to GuanDan.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-05T08:07:32Z)
• Un jeu a debattre pour sensibiliser a l'Intelligence Artificielle dans le contexte de la pandemie de COVID-19 [0.0]
  We propose a serious game in the form of a civic debate aiming at selecting an AI solution to control a pandemic. This game is targeted at high school students, it was first experimented during a science fair, and is now available freely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T09:06:10Z)
• Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback [19.964791766072132]
  We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles. We are able to train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T06:19:23Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• AI in Games: Techniques, Challenges and Opportunities [40.86375378643978]
  Various game AI systems (AIs) have been developed such as Libratus, OpenAI Five and AlphaStar, beating professional human players. In this paper, we survey recent successful game AIs, covering board game AIs, card game AIs, first-person shooting game AIs and real time strategy game AIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T09:35:53Z)
• The MineRL BASALT Competition on Learning from Human Feedback [58.17897225617566]
  The MineRL BASALT competition aims to spur forward research on this important class of techniques. We design a suite of four tasks in Minecraft for which we expect it will be hard to write down hardcoded reward functions. We provide a dataset of human demonstrations on each of the four tasks, as well as an imitation learning baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:18:17Z)
• The Threat of Offensive AI to Organizations [52.011307264694665]
  This survey explores the threat of offensive AI on organizations. First, we discuss how AI changes the adversary's methods, strategies, goals, and overall attack model. Then, through a literature review, we identify 33 offensive AI capabilities which adversaries can use to enhance their attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-30T01:03:28Z)
• Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance [44.730580857733]
  Prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task. We find explanations increase the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation, regardless of its correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T03:34:04Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.