MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209669753 · doi:10.5539/cis.v14n4p65

Simulation Research on the Complexity of Life Game

2021· article· en· W3209669753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiacheng Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Outcome (game theory)Process (computing)State (computer science)Mode (computer interface)AlgorithmMathematical economicsHuman–computer interactionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between complexity and various factors is explored through the simulation of the three neighbor ways of the game of life. It mainly discusses the state evolution process of cell populations under various evolutionary laws, various environmental scales and various initial states. Based on the discovery of a novel, long-lived and simple cell with an initial state, the periodic and stable cell morphology in Game of Life is introduced, thus reflecting the related complexity factors and changes. By simulating various environmental boundaries and comparing the steady-state graphs, it is concluded that a closed system will cause certain limitations in the final outcome. The limited environment will prevent the cell from expanding outward, but it can also create more periodic patterns. A limited environment is simultaneously an important factor in simplifying the system. In addition to the environment, the edge of chaos is also an important factor in the complexity of the system. An appropriate evolution rule can help the entire system find a balance in the chaos and present stable and interesting patterns. In addition, the correct neighbor method has a positive effect on the change of the cell. Finally, an infinite loop mode is set up to illustrate once again the wonder and complexity of Game of Life.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207