BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Carlo Metta

Carlo Metta contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial Intelligencecs.CYHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Artificial intelligence and renegotiation of commercial lease contracts affected by pandemic-related contingencies from Covid-19. The project A.I.A.Co

This paper aims to investigate the possibility of using artificial intelligence (AI) to resolve the legal issues raised by the Covid-19 emergency about the fate of continuing execution contracts, or those with deferred or periodic execution, as well as, more generally, to deal with exceptional events and contingencies. We first study whether the Italian legal system allows for ''maintenance'' remedies to cope with contingencies and to avoid the termination of the contract, while ensuring effective protection of the interests of both parties. We then give a complete and technical description of an AI-based predictive framework, aimed at assisting both the Magistrate (in the course of litigation) and the parties themselves (in out-of-court proceedings) in the redetermination of the rent of commercial lease contracts. This framework, called A.I.A.Co. for Artificial Intelligence for contract law Against Covid-19, has been developed under the Italian grant ''Fondo Integrativo Speciale per la Ricerca''.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

Score vs. Winrate in Score-Based Games: which Reward for Reinforcement Learning?

In the last years, the DeepMind algorithm AlphaZero has become the state of the art to efficiently tackle perfect information two-player zero-sum games with a win/lose outcome. However, when the win/lose outcome is decided by a final score difference, AlphaZero may play score-suboptimal moves because all winning final positions are equivalent from the win/lose outcome perspective. This can be an issue, for instance when used for teaching, or when trying to understand whether there is a better move. Moreover, there is the theoretical quest for the perfect game. A naive approach would be training an AlphaZero-like agent to predict score differences instead of win/lose outcomes. Since the game of Go is deterministic, this should as well produce an outcome-optimal play. However, it is a folklore belief that "this does not work". In this paper, we first provide empirical evidence for this belief. We then give a theoretical interpretation of this suboptimality in general perfect information two-player zero-sum game where the complexity of a game like Go is replaced by the randomness of the environment. We show that an outcome-optimal policy has a different preference for uncertainty when it is winning or losing. In particular, when in a losing state, an outcome-optimal agent chooses actions leading to a higher score variance. We then posit that when approximation is involved, a deterministic game behaves like a nondeterministic game, where the score variance is modeled by how uncertain the position is. We validate this hypothesis in AlphaZero-like software with a human expert.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access