Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
5000
4
4
4000
3
3
3000
1
2000
1
2
2
1000
4
2, 3, 4
3
1
2
1
0
QFP1
(sub.)
QFP1
(win)
AL1
(sub.)
AL1
(win)
AL2
(sub.)
AL2
(win)
a. One QFP vs. two ALs, Pattern 1
5000
4
4
4000
3
3000
3
1
2000
2
1
1000
4
3
2
1
2
0
QFP1
(sub.)
QFP1
(win)
AL1
(sub.)
AL1
(win)
AL2
(sub.)
AL2
(win)
b. One QFP vs. two ALs, Pattern 3
Fig. 1.
Average submitted and winning integers for each ranked player in in (
N,M
)=
(3
,
4) DIY-L with
φ
·
=0
.
1and
λ
·
= 100
.
0
medalist
6
. Now that the integers 1 and one of the larger integers are occupied,
the lowest ranked player has almost no chance to win, which makes her submit
one integer randomly. A possible reason why no runs belong to pattern 2 in
(
N,M
)=(3
,
4) with one QFP and two ALs is that the decision-making pro-
cess of QFP players is more costly (Figure 1b and 2b)
7
. On the other hand, in
6
Note that the silver medalist does not submit one of the integers except 1 with equal
probabilities. In other words, the 2nd prize agent keeps submitting one integer, 2, 3,
or 4.
7
This is true for the games with
λ
·
=10
.
0, namely the reason why one of the adaptive
learners is the 1st ranked is that she learns to submit 1 relatively more often than
others.
