Undergrad Predictions using unknown probability distributions

Click For Summary
In a turn-based WWII game focused on the Pacific Theater, players experience fog of war that affects their perception of air combat outcomes. The Allies have an advantage with better signals intelligence, leading to discrepancies in reported losses between both sides. The discussion centers on whether it's possible to predict actual enemy aircraft losses using a series of inaccurate "in the moment" reports without knowing the underlying probability distributions. The consensus is that accurate predictions are unlikely due to the lack of access to true loss numbers and the inherent margin of error in each side's reporting. Overall, the ability to infer actual outcomes from flawed data is limited and may require specific mathematical models or algorithms.
HunterD2
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
My question requires a little bit of background so I will start with that. In a game that focuses on the Pacific Theater of War during WWII, you have two sides: the Allies and the Japanese. It is a turn-based game where each player gives their orders for the day and engagements (when opposing units meet) play out when both players end their turns. During this phase where the orders are actually played out, you get these "in the moment" reports that are heavily influenced by fog of war (i.e. the information is not 100% accurate). Plane engagements will be the focus of this question. During air combat, each player has a different view of what is going on which is determined by said fog of war. The problem becomes more complicated as each player's fog of war is not equal as the allied player has less severe fog of war due to better signals intelligence. Essentially, when air combat is completed, the game calculates the actual number of planes shot down and then presumably runs that number through a different random number generator for each player. For example, you may have a case where 5 allied planes and 3 Japanese planes were actually shot down but the "in the moment" report for the Allies say 6 allied and 6 Japanese planes were shot down while the Japanese "in the moment" reports 2 Japanese and 9 Allied losses. It becomes even more complicated as each side predicts its own losses more accurately than the enemies losses. Now, my question is, if you had a large number of "in the moment" reports from both sides but did not know the probability distribution of any of the probabilities involved can you conceivably predict the number of actual enemy aircraft shot down? My answer was no as you wouldn't know your margin of error for predicting how many planes you shot down nor would you know the margin of error your opponent has at reporting their own losses. You also would not have access to the actual number of planes shot down in these reports to deduce the margin of errors. The only certain number you would know is the total number of aircraft that engaged. I realize that this is a somewhat complicated description so if you need me to clear up any part of my description just let me know.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Data by itself, accurate or otherwise, does not mathematically imply any particular probability distributions or allow probability distributions to be inferred. The scenario for inferring probability distributions is to assume that some mathematical model or family of models is producing the data and then use the data to infer the details of the probability distrbutions based on such assumptions.

Presumably, you have a mathematical model (in the form of certain algorithms) for generating both the actual and inaccurate data. If a player is allowed to know the algorithms you use, he might be able to make inferences about the actual situation given only inaccurate data. Whether inferences are possible depends on the particular details of what you are doing.
 
Nonparametric statistics may apply. It's not clear to me that you ever see any true numbers, so you may be limited to probabilities for the reports, not the actuals.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K