Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32807813›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Multi-AI competing and winning against humans in iterated Rock-Paper-Scissors game.

Lei Wang, Wenbin Huang, Yuanpeng Li, Julian Evans, Sailing He

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lei WangNational Engineering Research Center for Optical Instruments, Centre for Optical and Electromagnetic Research, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Wenbin HuangNational Engineering Research Center for Optical Instruments, Centre for Optical and Electromagnetic Research, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Yuanpeng LiNational Engineering Research Center for Optical Instruments, Centre for Optical and Electromagnetic Research, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Julian EvansNational Engineering Research Center for Optical Instruments, Centre for Optical and Electromagnetic Research, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Sailing HeNational Engineering Research Center for Optical Instruments, Centre for Optical and Electromagnetic Research, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. Sailing@kth.se.
Zhejiang University · CNNingbo University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting and modeling human behavior and finding trends within human decision-making processes is a major problem of social science. Rock Paper Scissors (RPS) is the fundamental strategic question in many game theory problems and real-world competitions. Finding the right approach to beat a particular human opponent is challenging. Here we use an AI (artificial intelligence) algorithm based on Markov Models of one fixed memory length (abbreviated as "single AI") to compete against humans in an iterated RPS game. We model and predict human competition behavior by combining many Markov Models with different fixed memory lengths (abbreviated as "multi-AI"), and develop an architecture of multi-AI with changeable parameters to adapt to different competition strategies. We introduce a parameter called "focus length" (a positive number such as 5 or 10) to control the speed and sensitivity for our multi-AI to adapt to the opponent's strategy change. The focus length is the number of previous rounds that the multi-AI should look at when determining which Single-AI has the best performance and should choose to play for the next game. We experimented with 52 different people, each playing 300 rounds continuously against one specific multi-AI model, and demonstrated that our strategy could win against more than 95% of human opponents.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceGame TheoryCompetitive BehaviorDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMemory

Identifiers

PMID32807813
PMCPMC7431549
OpenAlexW3049022113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.