MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094375143 · doi:10.1109/cog47356.2020.9231854

Monte Carlo Tree Search Strategies in 2-Player Iterated Prisoner Dilemma Games

2020· article· en· W3094375143 on OpenAlex
Garrison W. Greenwood, Daniel Ashlock

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2020 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo tree searchComputer scienceIterated functionPrisoner's dilemmaGame treeTree (set theory)DilemmaGame theoryMonte Carlo methodFictitious playAdversaryVariety (cybernetics)Mathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematical economicsSequential gameMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares a player using Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) against a variety of well-known Prisoner's Dilemma strategies in 2-player tournaments. The MCTS player has a simple structure and a reasonable computation budget. Nevertheless, it is highly competitive against all tested strategies. As the MCTS player constructs its game tree, it updates the probability of cooperation in response to an opponent's cooperation or defection. The trajectories of these updatings over the course of play are found to converge toward optimal counter-strategies against the particular opponent being played. In some cases the speed of progress toward an optimal counter strategy hinders the MCTS player.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.224 · 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