MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121418733 · doi:10.1109/cibcb.2008.4675790

A model of emotion in the prisoner’s dilemma

2008· article· en· W2121418733 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Ashlock, Nicholas Rogers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaComputer sciencePrisoner's dilemmaContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Iterated functionNoise (video)Artificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceCognitive psychologyPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper adopts the definition ldquoan emotion is a scalar summary of complex environmental circumstancesrdquo in the context of the iterated prisonerpsilas dilemma. Prisonerpsilas dilemma players, represented both as look-up tables and artificial neural nets, are evolved with and without emotion and noise. The availability of emotion is found to have a substantial impact on the evolution of cooperation and interacts with noise in a complex manner. The impact of having a single bit of emotional information on lookup tables is also found to be different from the analogous impact on neural nets. The emotion used in this experiment is a single bit which is set if an agentpsilas opponent has defected into cooperation more often than the agent itself has done so. This simple emotion has an substantial, non-uniform impact on the behavior of evolving populations of prisonerpsilas dilemma agents. The emotion implemented in this study is only one of many possible emotions, suggesting that even this limited and mathematically tractable definition of emotion yields a rich collection of possible research topics. The most recognizable impact of adding emotion to agents in this study is to move their behavior away from the middle of the behavioral spectrum toward either sustained cooperation or defection.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207