↓ Skip to main content

Learning with repeated-game strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Learning with repeated-game strategies
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christos A. Ioannou, Julian Romero

Abstract

We use the self-tuning Experience Weighted Attraction model with repeated-game strategies as a computer testbed to examine the relative frequency, speed of convergence and progression of a set of repeated-game strategies in four symmetric 2 × 2 games: Prisoner's Dilemma, Battle of the Sexes, Stag-Hunt, and Chicken. In the Prisoner's Dilemma game, we find that the strategy with the most occurrences is the "Grim-Trigger." In the Battle of the Sexes game, a cooperative pair that alternates between the two pure-strategy Nash equilibria emerges as the one with the most occurrences. In the Stag-Hunt and Chicken games, the "Win-Stay, Lose-Shift" and "Grim-Trigger" strategies are the ones with the most occurrences. Overall, the pairs that converged quickly ended up at the cooperative outcomes, whereas the ones that were extremely slow to reach convergence ended up at non-cooperative outcomes.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 23%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 20%
Engineering 3 10%
Psychology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,669
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,144
of 239,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#92
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.