Coevolution of finite automata with errors

We use a genetic algorithm to simulate the evolution of error-prone finite automata in the repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma game. In particular, the automata are subjected to implementation and perception errors. The computational experiments examine whether and how the distribution of outcomes and genotypes of the coevolved automata change with different levels of errors. We find that the complexity of the automata is decreasing in the probability of errors. Furthermore, the prevailing structures tend to exhibit low reciprocal cooperation and low tolerance to defections as the probability of errors increases. In addition, by varying the error level, the study identifies a threshold. Below the threshold, the prevailing structures are closed-loop (history-dependent) and diverse, which impedes any inferential projections on the superiority of a particular automaton. However, at and above the threshold, the prevailing structures converge to the open-loop (history-independent) automaton Always-Defect (ALLD). Finally, we find that perception errors are more detrimental than implementation errors to the fitness of the automata. These resultsshow that the evolution of cooperative automata is considerably weaker than expected.

[1]  Shaul Markovitch,et al.  The COMPSET Algorithm for Subset Selection , 2005, IJCAI.

[2]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  Tabu Search , 1997, Handbook of Heuristics.

[3]  M. Nowak,et al.  Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations , 1992, Nature.

[4]  A. Neyman Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma , 1985 .

[5]  Joshua S. Goldstein Reciprocity in Superpower Relations: An Empirical Analysis , 1991 .

[6]  J. Banks,et al.  Repeated games, finite automata, and complexity , 1990 .

[7]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[8]  R. Axelrod More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma , 1980 .

[9]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[10]  R. Rob,et al.  Learning, Mutation, and Long Run Equilibria in Games , 1993 .

[11]  L. Samuelson,et al.  Evolutionary stability in repeated games played by finite automata , 1992 .

[12]  J. Bendor,et al.  Effective Choice in the Prisoner ' s Dilemma , 2007 .

[13]  Edward O. Thorp,et al.  Beat the Dealer: A Winning Strategy for the Game of Twenty-One , 1965 .

[14]  V. A. Epanechnikov Non-Parametric Estimation of a Multivariate Probability Density , 1969 .

[15]  Oscar Volij,et al.  The evolution of exchange , 2004, J. Econ. Theory.

[16]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[17]  C. Brito,et al.  Weight loss in combat sports: physiological, psychological and performance effects , 2012, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition.

[18]  C. Reeves Modern heuristic techniques for combinatorial problems , 1993 .

[19]  R. Selten Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games , 1975, Classics in Game Theory.

[20]  Robert Axelrod,et al.  The Evolution of Strategies in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma , 2001 .

[21]  Barton L. Lipman,et al.  Evolution with State-Dependent Mutations , 1996 .

[22]  Goldberg,et al.  Genetic algorithms , 1993, Robust Control Systems with Genetic Algorithms.

[23]  R. Axelrod,et al.  The Further Evolution of Cooperation , 1988, Science.

[24]  John H. Miller,et al.  The coevolution of automata in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma , 1996 .

[25]  Guillaume Fréchette,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation in Infinitely Repeated Games: Experimental Evidence , 2011 .

[26]  R. Selten,et al.  Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players , 1997 .

[27]  A. Rubinstein,et al.  The Structure of Nash Equilibrium in Repeated Games with Finite Automata (Now published in Econometrica, 56 (1988), pp.1259-1282.) , 1986 .

[28]  R. Boyd,et al.  No pure strategy is evolutionarily stable in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game , 1987, Nature.

[29]  Christos A. Ioannou,et al.  Group Outcomes And Reciprocity , 2011 .

[30]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[31]  H. Peyton Young,et al.  Stochastic Evolutionary Game Dynamics , 1990 .

[32]  Oscar Volij,et al.  In Defense of DEFECT , 2002, Games Econ. Behav..

[33]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 1984 .

[34]  R. Palmer,et al.  Characterizing effective trading strategies: Insights from a computerized double auction tournament , 1994 .

[35]  R. Axelrod,et al.  How to Cope with Noise in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma , 1995 .

[36]  Robert E. Marks,et al.  Breeding hybrid strategies: optimal behaviour for oligopolists , 1989, ICGA.

[37]  Florian von Wangenheim,et al.  Instant Customer Base Analysis: Managerial Heuristics Often “Get it Right”: , 2008 .

[38]  J. Ledolter Smoothing Time Series with Local Polynomial Regression on Time , 2008 .

[39]  Edward F. Moore,et al.  Gedanken-Experiments on Sequential Machines , 1956 .

[40]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  When in Doubt... , 1991 .

[41]  A. Rubinstein Finite automata play the repeated prisoner's dilemma , 1986 .

[42]  R. Aumann Survey of Repeated Games , 1981 .

[43]  K. Brownell,et al.  Patterns of weight loss and regain in wrestlers: has the tradition changed? , 1990, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[44]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information , 1986 .

[45]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  An introduction to genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[46]  F. Vega-Redondo The evolution of Walrasian behavior , 1997 .

[47]  M. Nowak,et al.  A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game , 1993, Nature.

[48]  F. Glover,et al.  In Modern Heuristic Techniques for Combinatorial Problems , 1993 .

[49]  R. Heiner The Origin of Predictable Behavior , 1983 .