A little evolution for everyone!

[Botsareus]

But Yes I must agree that if the robots are identical F1 mode is not accurate.

[PurpleYouko]

So eventually random perturbations will produce a "winner".

Sure will.

I too have performed this kind of test on a number of occasions. Sometimes the modified bots win and sometimes the unmodified bots win.

In earlier versions where a bot was charged energy to replicate its DNA, this was pushed much stronger in favor of the shorter, unmodified bot but today it seems to be 50:50.

Maybe I will try a test with a bunch of empty genes added so that there is a significant difference in the DNA length. If the "free energy bug" is there in the current version then it should show up pretty quickly.

[Botsareus]

Try to add a bunch of useless *.aimdx add 3 sub 4 blablabla , into your "empty genes" , my robots never evolved purly "empty genes" , they never evolved any "conditions" eather exsept for the first gene were they evolved 8 almost identical conditions.

[Numsgil]

And just a note, be sure that you do NOT set up a random seed when you run F1 trials, or all your trials will be identical.

Very important!

[Botsareus]

Num , read Endys post in suggestions , it has a lot of "junky robot links" you and PY can use.

[PurpleYouko]

And just a note, be sure that you do NOT set up a random seed when you run F1 trials, or all your trials will be identical.

Very important!

They should only be identical if you turn of DB between trials.

Keep it running and the random seed will be different for each set.

Randomize to the timer and each new set will be unique. I know the timer resets each day but what are the chances of starting at exactly the same time on 2 occasions.

[Numsgil]

I mean the new toggle for "use user seed" in the general tab.  If you set it to, say, 86, and run a billion trials, all the trials will, I think, be identical.

[PurpleYouko]

I thought you said

do NOT set up a random seed

Did you mean to say "Do not manually enter a seed"

Just a misunderstanding I expect. Besides which I am currently using a version that doesn't have that manual seed override.  2.36.5 I believe

[Numsgil]

I thought you said

do NOT set up a random seed

Did you mean to say "Do not manually enter a seed"

Indeed I did.  "Do NOT set up a manual random seed, let the system use the timer", is what I should have said.

[Carlo]

Yes, but it's not because it was "better".  It's just that you expect any statistical test between identical copies to produce 50/50 results.  And the way F1 settings works, as the number of trials aproaches infinity, the number of wins you need decreases to about 50%.

So eventually random perturbations will produce a "winner".

I don't see the problem. You can always calculate the significance of the final result. For example, you can calculate that, after 100 rounds, you have 99% probability of getting a ratio of wins of 1/2 +- delta when running two identical copies. I don't actually know how to make the calculation (you're the matematician), anyway it's trivial.

[PurpleYouko]

You have to run a whole lot more than 100 contests but your point is correct. Finding a statistically better robot shouldn't be too hard.

I am also starting to wonder whether there is an advantage to having lower robot ID numbers. (being top on the list of selected robots)

run 2 just finished with the original winning 52 to 33 contests.
In both matches the robot listed first in the robot selection box has won. (it crashed between the two sets)

They are now neck and neck with 10 wins each in set 3.

[Numsgil]

Yes, but it's not because it was "better".  It's just that you expect any statistical test between identical copies to produce 50/50 results.  And the way F1 settings works, as the number of trials aproaches infinity, the number of wins you need decreases to about 50%.

So eventually random perturbations will produce a "winner".

I don't see the problem. You can always calculate the significance of the final result. For example, you can calculate that, after 100 rounds, you have 99% probability of getting a ratio of wins of 1/2 +- delta when running two identical copies. I don't actually know how to make the calculation (you're the matematician), anyway it's trivial.

Yes, but there is a subtle problem that is difficult to understand without a bit of stats background.

You have to understand what it is you're testing.  It's been a while, but I think you're testing if two supposedly events are NOT related.  When you conclude that they are not NOT related, you can't conclude that they ARE related.  Or something like that.

There are some subtle things you cannot conclude, but it's been too long and I just don't remember it all exactly.  I think this is a case of that.  I think sometimes F1 test give a false positive, but they won't give a false negative, or something like that.

[Greven]

But then again, I think we need some formal test of bots, to compare them. Of couse a bot evolved in a specific enviroment have a lesser fitness in another enviroment. F1 is not optimal, but it is the best around right now.  We need more experiments, but a lot of the data/information in the sim is not available to the scientist.. ;) and therefore it is very difficult to see if your have isolated a variable enough etc.

[Greven]

These were not perfectly precise, but if they should be we need to elimate all the overflow errors, I even got a memory dump error, almost a destruction of my physical computer :( (:)) These experminents were just fun, not at any time very serious. But I need the community's to understand we need more tests etc. purely sciencetify studies of DB, so I hope we set the fighting bots on standby, until we have made some serious work here.

I also tested 4 different bots vs. their conspecies-cousins, and all the conspeices always did win 5-0 (and I concluded I didnt needed to making more or longer trails) and if the conspecies is so important, why doesnt it evolve in the first place?

I know shvarz had a bot evolved into cannies and back to non-cannies, this is interesting enough, but I bet a lot of the coded needed to return to non-cannies already were in the genome. The conspecies gene or non-canny bots, dont need very complex DNA to avoid killing there own species, but I have yet to see this evolve! I understand why tie feeding is not evolving, because this is extremely complex, but a simple *.refeye *.myrefeye != aint very complex!

[Greven]

And therefore I conclude that something is very [span style=\'font-size:21pt;line-height:100%\']WRONG[/span]  :D