Moody Learners -- Explaining Competitive Behaviour of Reinforcement Learning Agents

Designing the decision-making processes of artificial agents that are involved in competitive interactions is a challenging task. In a competitive scenario, the agent does not only have a dynamic environment but also is directly affected by the opponents' actions. Observing the Q-values of the agent is usually a way of explaining its behavior, however, do not show the temporal-relation between the selected actions. We address this problem by proposing the \emph{Moody framework}. We evaluate our model by performing a series of experiments using the competitive multiplayer Chef's Hat card game and discuss how our model allows the agents' to obtain a holistic representation of the competitive dynamics within the game.Comment: Accepted by ICDl-EPIROB 202

Responsible research for the construction of maximally humanlike automata: the paradox of unattainable informed consent

Since the Nuremberg Code and the first Declaration of Helsinki, globally there has been increasing adoption and adherence to procedures for ensuring that human subjects in research are as well informed as possible of the study’s reasons and risks and voluntarily consent to serving as subject. To do otherwise is essentially viewed as violation of the human research subject’s legal and moral rights. However, with the recent philosophical concerns about responsible robotics, the limits and ambiguities of research-subjects ethical codes become apparent on the matter of constructing automata that maximally resemble human beings (as defined hereunder). In this case, the automata themselves, as products of research and development, are in the very process of their construction subjects of research and development. However, such research faces a paradox: The subjects cannot give their informed consent to this research for their own development, although their consent would be needed for the research. According to ethical codes, this research would be unethical. The article then explores whether the background concepts giving rise to this paradox could be reframed in order to allow such research to proceed ethically