All of JoshBurroughs's Comments + Replies

A simpler way to say all this is "Pick a depth where you will stop recursing (due to growing uncertainty or computational limits) and at that depth assume your opponent acts randomly." Is my first attempt needlessly verbose?

Agents A & B are two TDT agents playing some prisoner's dilemma scenario. A can reason:

u(c(A)) = P(c(B))u(C,C) + P(d(B))u(C,D)

u(d(A)) = P(c(B))u(D,C) + P(d(B))u(D,D)

( u(X) is utility of X, P() is probability, c() & d() are cooperate & defect predicates )

A will always pick the option with higher utility, so it reasons B will do the same:

p(c(B) u'(c(B)) > u'(d(B)) --> c(B)

(u'() is A's estimate of B's utility function)

But A can't perfectly predict B (even though it may be quite good at it), so A can represent this uncertainty as a random ... (read more)

0JoshBurroughs
A simpler way to say all this is "Pick a depth where you will stop recursing (due to growing uncertainty or computational limits) and at that depth assume your opponent acts randomly." Is my first attempt needlessly verbose?