shokwave comments on Prisoner's Dilemma Tournament Results - Less Wrong

101 Post author: prase 06 September 2011 12:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (170)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: shokwave 07 September 2011 12:36:43AM *  13 points [-]

The tournament models natural selection, but no changes and therefore evolution occurs.

Idea: everyone has access to a constant 'm', which they can use in their bot's code however they like. m is set by the botwriter's initial conditions, then when a bot has offspring in the natural selection tournament, one-third of the offspring have their m incremented by 1, one-third have theirs decremented by 1, and one third has their m remain the same. In this manner, you may plug m into any formulas you want to mutate over time.

Comment author: prase 07 September 2011 10:03:52AM *  5 points [-]

In the first PD simulation I made with five strategies which I got from my friends I applied such a model, albeit with random mutations rather than division of descendants into thirds. The results were not as interesting as I had expected. Only one strategy showed non-trivial optimum (it was basically TfT but defect after turn n and the population made a sort of gaussian distribution around n=85). All other strategies ended up with extremal (and quite obvious) values of the parameter.

Comment author: lessdazed 07 September 2011 10:18:13AM 7 points [-]

gaussian distribution around n=85

This is the pearl of interestingness.

Comment author: prase 07 September 2011 10:31:45AM *  4 points [-]

If you are interested in that tournament, the graphs are here, you can use google translator to make some sense of the text.

Comment author: lessdazed 07 September 2011 01:21:26AM 3 points [-]

This is by far my favorite idea so far, and that's saying something.

Comment author: AlephNeil 07 September 2011 05:36:50PM 1 point [-]

Excellent.

Perhaps m could serve as a 'location', so that you'd be more likely to meet opponents with similar m values to your own.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 September 2011 01:46:14AM 0 points [-]

This is an interesting idea. One thing someone could do is make a machine which takes some enumeration of all Turing machines and runs the mth machine on the input of the last k rounds with them inputed in some obvious way (say 4 symbols for each possible result of what happened the previous round).

But a lot of these machines will run into computational issues. So if one is using the run-out-of-time then automatically defect rule most will get killed off quickly. On the other hand if one is simply not counting rounds where a bot runs out of time then this isn't as much of an issue. In the first case you might be able to make it slightly different so that instead of representing the mth Turing machine on round m, have every odd value of m play just Tit-for-Tat and have the even values of m simulate the mth Turing machine. This way, since tit for tat will do well in general, this will help keep a steady supply of machines that will investigate all search space in the limiting case.