Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- people:chris_symonds:news_archive [2014/10/27 04:00] – csymonds
+++ people:chris_symonds:news_archive [2014/12/05 22:11] (current) – csymonds
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===== News Archive =====
+===05-Dec-2014 03:09:49PM-0700===
+[[:people:chris_symonds:project_submission|Final Project Page]] has been posted.
+===15-Nov-2014 01:09:07PM-0700===
+Ok, so here's where I'm at:
+After a conversation with Prof. Ackley, it was concluded that my model needed a lot of simplification. So back to the drawing board I went, and implemented the changes he suggested. That done, and several wasted simulation runs later during which I realized I had some implementation errors in my model, I've gone back to running simulations. Now, instead of varying the amount of resources on the board, I am varying the threshold by which the Sytizens will engage in their genetic behavior. Parochials now have a single behavior. Altruists have another. Thus, PAs will engage in both. PNAs and NPAs will engage in one or the other, and NPNAs will engage in neither. Both genetic behaviors are tied to an energy threshold, below which they will not fire. For example, if set to 20, no Sytizen with less than 20 energy will share with or attack another Sytizen. This threshold is now what I am adjusting over runs. And holy crap, __I think I have a U-shaped curve__.
+The bad news is, this has placed me very much behind. Now, my model description must be redone. My figure 1 redone. And I have many more lengthy runs to do before I can produce graphs 1 and 2. The bright side is that I am pretty much working solely on this over the weekend, but I wonder if that will be enough time...
+===08-Nov-2014 10:05:54AM-0700===
+I completely forgot to make an update last week, so I guess I'll lump it in with this weeks, and attempt to keep it concise.
+   * I've completed 20 simulation runs of Paralta; 4 levels of increasing scarcity with 5 runs each. The results are not terribly exciting or interesting. I see PAs generally dominating across the board. What makes this somewhat dismaying is that the groups tend to have very little contact and interaction, particularly in the more scarce environments and the behavior and fitness of a PA is rooted in his interactions with outgroups. So I don't even know what this result means other than the likely root being an inherent flaw in my model.
+   * Regardless, I've done a write up of my model for presentation in next class. It's fairly bullet-happy, and I'm not sure that's an appropriate thing for a research paper, as I don't remember reading any with this many bullets. I guess the class will judge.
+   * I'm pretty sure I have the worst Figure 1 ever. Even having put my paper into IEEE format will not make this figure 1 look respectable. It's a train wreck.
+All in all, the outlook is iffy. On the bright side, were I to do a project like this again, I would be much more comfortable in knowing the kinds of bumps to expect, and a better sense of where the pitfalls lie. That's a good thing.
 ===26-Oct-2014 09:30:47PM-0600===