Implemented a naive prober strategy (like tit for tat, but randomly defects). #629
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Updates to tests and minor strategy refactor
|
This one looks good to me. I'll give @drvinceknight a chance to take a look since some of the commits are mine. Thanks @314pe ! |
|
This looks great! Thanks @314pe :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Implemented as randomly defecting strategy for #379 (with a relatively small probability) which was decorated with Tit For Tat style defection using RetaliateUntilApologyTransformer. At first, I wanted to start with a Tit For Tat and decorate that with a random flip transformer, but that would flip some Ds to Cs. Is this good or maybe if I could add some better tests, it would be visible how this strategy is inaccurate?