|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
Can a good learner compensate for a poor learner when paired in a coordination game? Previous work presented an example where a special learning algorithm (FMQ) is capable of doing just that when paired with a specific less capable algorithm even in games which stump the poorer algorithm when paired with itself. We argue that this result is not general. We give a straightforward extension to the coordination game in which FMQ cannot compensate for the lesser algorithm. We also provide other problematic pairings, and argue that another high-quality algorithm cannot do so either. REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
Keywords:
Collaborative Colleagues:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||