Fingerprint Analysis of the Noisy Prisoner's Dilemma Using a Finite-State Representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fingerprinting is a technique that permits automatic classification of strategies for playing a game. In this paper, the evolution of strategies for playing the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) at three different noise levels is analyzed using fingerprinting and other techniques including a novel quantity, evolutionary velocity, derived from fingerprinting. The results are at odds with initial expectations and permit the detection of a critical difference in the evolution of agents with and without noise. Noise during fitness evaluation places a larger fraction of an agent's genome under selective pressure, resulting in substantially more efficient training. In this case, efficiency is the production of superior competitive ability at a lower evolutionary velocity. Prisoner's dilemma playing agents are evolved for 6400 generations, taking samples at eight exponentially spaced epochs. This permits assessment of the change in populations over long evolutionary time. Agents are evaluated for competitive ability between those evolved for different lengths of time and between those evolved using distinct noise levels. The presence of noise during agent training is found to convey a commanding competitive advantage. A novel analysis is done in which a tournament is run with no two agents from the same evolutionary line and one third of agents from each noise level studied. This analysis simulates contributed agent tournaments without any genetic relation between agents. It is found that in early epochs the agents evolved without noise have the best average tournament rank, but that in later epochs they have the worst.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".