MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076493039 · doi:10.1109/foci.2013.6602456

The impact of varying resources available to Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma agents

2013· article· en· W2076493039 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 dilemmaProbabilistic logicComputer scienceIterated functionDilemmaVariety (cybernetics)ENCODERepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkMachine learningGame theoryMathematical economicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is a simultaneous two-player game widely used in studies on cooperation and conflict. Past work has shown that the choice of representation of evolving agents has a dominant impact on their behavior. In this study we also examine the impact of varying available resources. A variety of different resources can be varied, including amount and type of past information available to agents, number of neurons in a neural net, number of probability levels available to encode a probabilistic strategy, and number of states in a finite state machine. All these resources are shown to have an impact on the character of evolved agents assessed using both play profiles and a total score measure. Play profiles bin the ranges of score space while total score is a global assessment of the type of play that occurs over the course of evolution. The largest effect is found for the probabilistic agents, followed by finite state agents, lookup tables, and finally neural nets exhibit the least effect.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207