Source author record

Arthur Paul Pedersen

Arthur Paul Pedersen appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Adversarial Attacks in Cooperative AI

Single-agent reinforcement learning algorithms in a multi-agent environment are inadequate for fostering cooperation. If intelligent agents are to interact and work together to solve complex problems, methods that counter non-cooperative behavior are needed to facilitate the training of multiple agents. This is the goal of cooperative AI. Recent research in adversarial machine learning, however, shows that models (e.g., image classifiers) can be easily deceived into making inferior decisions. Meanwhile, an important line of research in cooperative AI has focused on introducing algorithmic improvements that accelerate learning of optimally cooperative behavior. We argue that prominent methods of cooperative AI are exposed to weaknesses analogous to those studied in prior machine learning research. More specifically, we show that three algorithms inspired by human-like social intelligence are, in principle, vulnerable to attacks that exploit weaknesses introduced by cooperative AI's algorithmic improvements and report experimental findings that illustrate how these vulnerabilities can be exploited in practice.

preprint2013arXiv

When is an Example a Counterexample?

In this extended abstract, we carefully examine a purported counterexample to a postulate of iterated belief revision. We suggest that the example is better seen as a failure to apply the theory of belief revision in sufficient detail. The main contribution is conceptual aiming at the literature on the philosophical foundations of the AGM theory of belief revision [1]. Our discussion is centered around the observation that it is often unclear whether a specific example is a "genuine" counterexample to an abstract theory or a misapplication of that theory to a concrete case.

preprint2009arXiv

A proof of completeness for continuous first-order logic

The primary purpose of this article is to show that a certain natural set of axioms yields a completeness result for continuous first-order logic. In particular, we show that in continuous first-order logic a set of formulae is (completely) satisfiable if (and only if) it is consistent. From this result it follows that continuous first-order logic also satisfies an \emph{approximated} form of strong completeness, whereby $Σ\vDashφ$ (if and) only if $Σ\vdashφ\dotminus 2^{-n}$ for all $n<ω$. This approximated form of strong completeness asserts that if $Σ\vDashφ$, then proofs from $Σ$, being finite, can provide arbitrary better approximations of the truth of $φ$.