Abstract
In recent iterated prisoner's dilemma tournaments, the most successful strategies were those that had identification mechanisms. By playing a predetermined sequence of moves and learning from their opponents' responses, these strategies managed to identify their opponents. We believe that these identification mechanisms may be very useful in evolutionary games. In this paper one such strategy, which we call collective strategy, is analyzed. Collective strategies apply a simple but efficient identification mechanism (that just distinguishes themselves from other strategies), and this mechanism allows them to only cooperate with their group members and defect against any others. In this way, collective strategies are able to maintain a stable population in evolutionary iterated prisoner's dilemma. By means of an invasion barrier, this strategy is compared with other strategies in evolutionary dynamics in order to demonstrate its evolutionary features. We also find that this collective behavior assists the evolution of cooperation in specific evolutionary environments.
- Ashlock, W., and Ashlock, D. (2006). Changes in prisoner's dilemma strategies over evolutionary time with different population sizes. Proceedings of the 2006 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 297-304.Google Scholar
- Ashlock, D., Smucker, M., Stanley, E., and Tesfatsion, L. (1996). Preferential partner selection in an evolutionary study of prisoner's dilemma. BioSystems, 37:99-125.Google Scholar
- Axelrod, R. (1980a). Effective choice in the prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24:3-25.Google Scholar
- Axelrod, R. (1980b). More effective choice in the prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24:379-403.Google Scholar
- Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Boyd, R., and Lorberbaum, J. (1987). No pure strategy is evolutionarily stable in the repeated prisoner's dilemma game. Nature, 327:58-59.Google Scholar
- Carmel, D., and Markovitch, S. (1998). How to explore your opponent's strategy (almost) optimally. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, pp. 64-71. Google Scholar
- Chong, S., Humble, J., Kendall, G., Li, J., and Yao, X. (2007). Iterated prisoner's dilemma and evolutionary game theory. In G. Kendall, X. Yao, and S. Y. Chong, (Eds.), The Iterated Prisoners Dilemma: 20 Years On, chapter 2. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R., Jong, D., Forsythe, R., and Ross, T. (1996). Cooperation without reputation: Experimental evidence from prisoner's dilemma games. Games and Economic Behavior, 12(2):187-218.Google Scholar
- Darwen, P., and Yao, X. (2002). Coevolution in iterated prisoner's dilemma with intermediate levels of cooperation: Application to missile defence. International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications, 2(1):83-107.Google Scholar
- Farrell, J. (1995). Talk is cheap. The American Economic Review, 85(2):186-190.Google Scholar
- Fogel, D. (1993). Evolving behaviors in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Evolutionary Computation, 1(1):77-97. Google Scholar
- Fogel, D. (1995). On the relationship between the duration of an encounter and the evolution of cooperation in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Evolutionary Computation, 3(3):349-363. Google Scholar
- Harsanyi, J. (1967). Games with incomplete information played by "Bayesian" players. Management Science, 14(3):159-182.Google Scholar
- Hoffmann, R. (2000). Twenty years on: The evolution of cooperation revisited. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3(2). Accessed 4/08/09 at ¿http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ JASSS/3/2/forum/1.html'.Google Scholar
- Ishibuchi, H., and Namikawa, N. (2005). Evolution of iterated prisoner's dilemma game strategies in structured demes under random pairing in game playing. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 9(6):552-561. Google Scholar
- Kahn, L., and Murnighan, J. (1993). Conjecture, uncertainty, and cooperation in prisoners' dilemma games: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisms, 22:91-117.Google Scholar
- Kendall, G., Yao, X., and Chong, S.Y. (Eds.). (2007). The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: 20 Years On. Singapore: World Scientific. Google Scholar
- Kraines, D., and Kraines, V. (2000). Natural selection of memory--One strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 203:335-355.Google Scholar
- Kreps, D., Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., and Wilson, R. (1982). Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory, 27:245-252.Google Scholar
- Li, J. (2007). How to design a strategy to win an IPD tournament. In G. Kendall, X. Yao, and S. Y. Chong, (Eds.), The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: 20 Years On, chapter 4. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Lindgren, K., and Nordhal, M. (1995). Cooperation and community structure in artificial ecosystems. In C. G. Langton, (Ed.), Artificial Life, An Overview (pp. 15-37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Lorberbaum, J. (1994). No strategy is evolutionarily stable in the repeated prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 168:117-130.Google Scholar
- Lorberbaum, J., Bohning, D., Shastri, A., and Sine, L. (2002). Are there really no evolutionarily stable strategies in the iterated prisoner's dilemma? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 214:155-169.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Nachbar, J., and Zame, W. (1996). Non-computable strategies and discounted repeated games. Economic Theory, 8:103-122.Google Scholar
- Nowak, M., and May, R. (1993). The spatial dilemmas of evolution. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 3:35-78.Google Scholar
- Nowak, M., and Sigmund, K. (1992). Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations. Nature, 355:250-252.Google Scholar
- Robson, A. (1990). Efficiency in evolutionary games: Darwin, Nash, and the secret handshake. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144:379-396.Google Scholar
- Rogers, A., Dash, R. K., Ramchurn, S. D., Vytelingum, P., and Jennings, N. R. (2007). Error-correcting codes for team coordination within a noisy iterated prisoner's dilemma tournament. In G. Kendall, X. Yao, and S. Y. Chong, (Eds.), The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: 20 Years On, chapter 9. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science, 250(4988):1665-1668.Google Scholar
- Stanley, E., Ashlock, D., and Tesfatsion, L. (1994). Iterated prisoner's dilemma with choice and refusal of partners. In C. Langton, (Ed.), Artificial Life III, pp. 131-175. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Google Scholar
- Thibert-Plante, X., and Charbonneau, P. (2007). Crossover and evolutionary stability in the prisoner's dilemma. Evolutionary Computation, 15(3):321-344. Google Scholar
- Thomas, B. (1985). On evolutionarily stable sets. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 22:105-115.Google Scholar
- Wiseman, T., and Yilankaya, O. (2001). Cooperation, secret handshakes, and imitation in the prisoner's dilemma. Games and Economic Behavior, 37:216-242.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A strategy with novel evolutionary features for the iterated prisoner's dilemma
Recommendations
Learning game strategy design through iterated Prisoner's Dilemma
The article investigates games strategies on the basis of experiments with iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, a classical non-zero sum game. The objective is to determine which strategies have the best chance of winning. Although some strategies, like tit-for-...
The iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in societies of deterministic players
Two players engaged in the Prisoner's Dilemma have to choose between cooperation and defection, the pay-off of the players is determined by a weight w=(T,R,P,S). For deterministic strategies p"1,...,p"n we consider a societyS=S(u"i:p"i|i=1,...,n) formed ...
New Winning Strategies for the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma
AAMAS '15: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
Comments