 1.  Quantilal control for finite MDPs   post by Vadim Kosoy 84 days ago  Ryan Carey, Alex Appel and Abram Demski like this  discuss  
 We introduce a variant of the concept of a “quantilizer” for the setting of choosing a policy for a finite Markov decision process (MDP), where the generic unknown cost is replaced by an unknown penalty term in the reward function. This is essentially a generalization of quantilization in repeated games with a cost independence assumption. We show that the “quantilal” policy shares some properties with the ordinary optimal policy, namely that (i) it can always be chosen to be Markov (ii) it can be chosen to be stationary when time discount is geometric (iii) the “quantilum” value of an MDP with geometric time discount is a continuous piecewise rational function of the parameters, and it converges when the discount parameter \(\lambda\) approaches 1. Finally, we demonstrate a polynomialtime algorithm for computing the quantilal policy, showing that quantilization is not qualitatively harder than ordinary optimization.
 
  2.  An Untrollable Mathematician   post by Abram Demski 150 days ago  Alex Appel, Sam Eisenstat, Vadim Kosoy, Jack Gallagher, Jessica Taylor, Paul Christiano, Scott Garrabrant and Vladimir Slepnev like this  1 comment  
 Followup to All Mathematicians are Trollable.
It is relatively easy to see that no computable Bayesian prior on logic can converge to a single coherent probability distribution as we update it on logical statements. Furthermore, the nonconvergence behavior is about as bad as could be: someone selecting the ordering of provable statements to update on can drive the Bayesian’s beliefs arbitrarily up or down, arbitrarily many times, despite only saying true things. I called this wild nonconvergence behavior “trollability”. Previously, I showed that if the Bayesian updates on the provabilily of a sentence rather than updating on the sentence itself, it is still trollable. I left open the question of whether some other side information could save us. Sam Eisenstat has closed this question, providing a simple logical prior and a way of doing a Bayesian update on it which (1) cannot be trolled, and (2) converges to a coherent distribution.
 
  3.  More precise regret bound for DRL   post by Vadim Kosoy 183 days ago  Alex Appel likes this  discuss  
 We derive a regret bound for DRL reflecting dependence on:
That is, the regret bound we get is fully explicit up to a multiplicative constant (which can also be made explicit). Currently we focus on plain (as opposed to catastrophe) and uniform (finite number of hypotheses, uniform prior) DRL, although this result can and should be extended to the catastrophe and/or nonuniform settings.
 
  4.  Policy Selection Solves Most Problems   post by Abram Demski 207 days ago  Alex Appel and Vladimir Slepnev like this  4 comments  
 It seems like logically updateless reasoning is what we would want in order to solve many decisiontheory problems. I show that several of the problems which seem to require updateless reasoning can instead be solved by selecting a policy with a logical inductor that’s run a small amount of time. The policy specifies how to make use of knowledge from a logical inductor which is run longer. This addresses the difficulties which seem to block logically updateless decision theory in a fairly direct manner. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to hold much promise for the kind of insights which we would want from a real solution.
 
  5.  Reflective oracles as a solution to the converse Lawvere problem   post by Sam Eisenstat 219 days ago  Alex Mennen, Alex Appel, Vadim Kosoy, Abram Demski, Jessica Taylor, Scott Garrabrant and Vladimir Slepnev like this  discuss  
 1 Introduction
Before the work of Turing, one could justifiably be skeptical of the idea of a universal computable function. After all, there is no computable function \(f\colon\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}\) such that for all computable \(g\colon\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}\) there is some index \(i_{g}\) such that \(f\left(i_{g},n\right)=g\left(n\right)\) for all \(n\). If there were, we could pick \(g\left(n\right)=f\left(n,n\right)+1\), and then \[g\left(i_{g}\right)=f\left(i_{g},i_{g}\right)+1=g\left(i_{g}\right)+1,\] a contradiction. Of course, universal Turing machines don’t run into this obstacle; as Gödel put it, “By a kind of miracle it is not necessary to distinguish orders, and the diagonal procedure does not lead outside the defined notion.” [1]
The miracle of Turing machines is that there is a partial computable function \(f\colon\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}\cup\left\{ \bot\right\}\) such that for all partial computable \(g\colon\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}\cup\left\{ \bot\right\}\) there is an index \(i\) such that \(f\left(i,n\right)=g\left(n\right)\) for all \(n\). Here, we look at a different “miracle”, that of reflective oracles [2,3]. As we will see in Theorem 1, given a reflective oracle \(O\), there is a (stochastic) \(O\)computable function \(f\colon\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\left\{ 0,1\right\}\) such that for any (stochastic) \(O\)computable function \(g\colon\mathbb{N}\to\left\{ 0,1\right\}\), there is some index \(i\) such that \(f\left(i,n\right)\) and \(g\left(n\right)\) have the same distribution for all \(n\). This existence theorem seems to skirt even closer to the contradiction mentioned above.
We use this idea to answer “in spirit” the converse Lawvere problem posed in [4]. These methods also generalize to prove a similar analogue of the ubiquitous converse Lawvere problem from [5]. The original questions, stated in terms of topology, remain open, but I find that the model proposed here, using computability, is equally satisfying from the point of view of studying reflective agents. Those references can be consulted for more motivation on these problems from the perspective of reflective agency.
Section 3 proves the main lemma, and proves the converse Lawvere theorem for reflective oracles. In section 4, we use that to give a (circular) proof of Brouwer’s fixed point theorem, as mentioned in [4]. In section 5, we prove the ubiquitous converse Lawvere theorem for reflective oracles.
 
  6.  Comparing LICDT and LIEDT   post by Abram Demski 244 days ago  Alex Appel likes this  discuss  
 Attempted versions of CDT and EDT can be constructed using logical inductors, called LICDT and LIEDT. It is shown, however, that LICDT fails XOR Blackmail, and LIEDT fails Newcomb. One interpretation of this is that LICDT and LIEDT do not implement CDT and EDT very well. I argue that they are indeed forms of CDT and EDT, but stray from expectations because they also implement the ratifiability condition I discussed previously. Continuing the line of thinking from that post, I discuss conditions in which LICDT=LIEDT, and try to draw out broader implications for decision theory.
 
  7.  Delegative Inverse Reinforcement Learning   post by Vadim Kosoy 357 days ago  Alex Appel likes this  11 comments  
 We introduce a reinforcementlike learning setting we call Delegative Inverse Reinforcement Learning (DIRL). In DIRL, the agent can, at any point of time, delegate the choice of action to an “advisor”. The agent knows neither the environment nor the reward function, whereas the advisor knows both. Thus, DIRL can be regarded as a special case of CIRL. A similar setting was studied in Clouse 1997, but as far as we can tell, the relevant literature offers few theoretical results and virtually all researchers focus on the MDP case (please correct me if I’m wrong). On the other hand, we consider general environments (not necessarily MDP or even POMDP) and prove a natural performance guarantee.
The use of an advisor allows us to kill two birds with one stone: learning the reward function and safe exploration (i.e. avoiding both the Scylla of “Bayesian paranoia” and the Charybdis of falling into traps). We prove that, given certain assumption about the advisor, a Bayesian DIRL agent (whose prior is supported on some countable set of hypotheses) is guaranteed to attain most of the value in the slow falling time discount (longterm planning) limit (assuming one of the hypotheses in the prior is true). The assumption about the advisor is quite strong, but the advisor is not required to be fully optimal: a “soft maximizer” satisfies the conditions. Moreover, we allow for the existence of “corrupt states” in which the advisor stops being a relevant signal, thus demonstrating that this approach can deal with wireheading and avoid manipulating the advisor, at least in principle (the assumption about the advisor is still unrealistically strong). Finally we consider advisors that don’t know the environment but have some beliefs about the environment, and show that in this case the agent converges to Bayesoptimality w.r.t. the advisor’s beliefs, which is arguably the best we can expect.
 
 

 NEW POSTSNEW DISCUSSION POSTSI found an improved version
by Alex Appel on A Loophole for SelfApplicative Soundness  0 likes 
I misunderstood your
by Sam Eisenstat on A Loophole for SelfApplicative Soundness  0 likes 
Caught a flaw with this
by Alex Appel on A Loophole for SelfApplicative Soundness  0 likes 
As you say, this isn't a
by Sam Eisenstat on A Loophole for SelfApplicative Soundness  1 like 
Note: I currently think that
Counterfactual mugging
What do you mean by "in full
It seems relatively plausible
by Paul Christiano on Maximally efficient agents will probably have an a...  1 like 
I think that in that case,
Two minor comments. First,
by Sam Eisenstat on No Constant Distribution Can be a Logical Inductor  1 like 
A: While that is a really
> The true reason to do
A few comments.
Traps are
I'm not convinced exploration
Update: This isn't really an
by Alex Appel on A Difficulty With DensityZero Exploration  0 likes 
