You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This idea is fairly straightforward for simulations 1 [single risk-attitude] and 2 [multiple unchanging risk-attitudes]. Could be good to include mean, minimum, and maximum total payoff by risk-attitude: calculate total payoff for each agent, and then, for each risk attitude, take the mean, min, and max of the payoffs for agents who have that risk attitude. [Importantly: we don’t want to take, for example, the minimum payoff some agent gets on a round–we want to take these statistics for each agent’s total.] It will be boring for simulation 1: since we very quickly get a blinking state, everyone has the same average payoff. For simulation 2, we know that the risk-seekers play H more and the risk-avoiders play D more; we want to know whether the risk-seekers are doing better, and are all of them doing better, or are there some “big winners” and other “big losers” etc.
For simulation 3, there’s a difficulty in breaking it up by risk attitude, since the risk attitudes are changing. I think what we’re interested in is which end-states have the highest payoffs for the agents in them (for example, are end-state populations with more risk-avoidant agents better off, sort of vindicating Simon’s idea?). So maybe we want to calculate, for each simulation, (1) the average payoff for all agents; and (2) the average payoff for agents in each “band” (0-2, 3-5, 6-8).
dev notes
implement a wealth payoff chart for hawk/dove multi; create a box plot of total wealth for each risk attitude
re-order charts on hawk/dove multi interface - move rolling % hawk last; add new wealth payoff chart after the % hawk by risk attitude
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
include in analysis of batch runs; we have some graphs similar to this in existing colab notebooks, but want to look at overall and each band and compare with different population categories
[ADDED 11/22]
This idea is fairly straightforward for simulations 1 [single risk-attitude] and 2 [multiple unchanging risk-attitudes]. Could be good to include mean, minimum, and maximum total payoff by risk-attitude: calculate total payoff for each agent, and then, for each risk attitude, take the mean, min, and max of the payoffs for agents who have that risk attitude. [Importantly: we don’t want to take, for example, the minimum payoff some agent gets on a round–we want to take these statistics for each agent’s total.] It will be boring for simulation 1: since we very quickly get a blinking state, everyone has the same average payoff. For simulation 2, we know that the risk-seekers play H more and the risk-avoiders play D more; we want to know whether the risk-seekers are doing better, and are all of them doing better, or are there some “big winners” and other “big losers” etc.
For simulation 3, there’s a difficulty in breaking it up by risk attitude, since the risk attitudes are changing. I think what we’re interested in is which end-states have the highest payoffs for the agents in them (for example, are end-state populations with more risk-avoidant agents better off, sort of vindicating Simon’s idea?). So maybe we want to calculate, for each simulation, (1) the average payoff for all agents; and (2) the average payoff for agents in each “band” (0-2, 3-5, 6-8).
dev notes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: