MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076248637 · doi:10.1145/1068009.1068018

The impact of cellular representation on finite state agents for prisoner's dilemma

2005· article· en· W2076248637 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Ashlock, Eun-Youn Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisoner's dilemmaDilemmaCellular automatonComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Finite-state machineIterated functionTheoretical computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Character (mathematics)SuperrationalityArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsProgramming languagePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The iterated prisoner's dilemma is a widely used computational model of cooperation and conflict. Many studies report emergent cooperation in populations of agents trained to play prisoner's dilemma with an evolutionary algorithm. Cellular representation is the practice of evolving a set of instructions for constructing a desired structure. This paper presents a cellular encoding for finite state automata and specializes it to play the iterated prisoner's dilemma. The impact on the character and behavior of finite state agents that results from using the cellular representation is investigated. For the cellular representation presented a statistically significant drop in the level of cooperation is found. Other differences in the character of the automaton generated with a direct and cellular representation are reported. This paper forms part of an ongoing study of the impact of representation on evolved agents for playing prisoner's dilemma.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207