MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086855559 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v4n6p1

Analysis of the Penney-Ante Game Using Difference Equations: Development of an Optimal and a Mixed-Strategies Protocol

2012· article· en· W2086855559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carl Barratt, Pauline M. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)MathematicsMathematical economicsMixing (physics)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penney-Ante is a well known two-player (Player I and Player II) game based on an information paradox. We present a new approach, using \emph{difference-equations}, to analyzing the outcome for each player. One strategy yields a winning outcome of 75\% for Player II, the player playing second. The approach also permits investigation of non-optimal strategies, and demonstrates how mixing of such strategies can be used to tune the winning edge of either player. We generalize the analysis to accommodate the possibility of a biased coin.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207