MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539532232 · doi:10.1609/aimag.v31i4.2310

Algorithmic Game Theory: Special Issue Introduction

2010· article· en· W1539532232 on OpenAlexaff
Edith Elkind, Kevin Leyton‐Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAI Magazine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGame theoryComputer scienceAlgorithmic game theoryMechanism (biology)Game designImplementation theoryManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceTerm (time)Data scienceRepeated gameMathematical economicsEngineeringEpistemologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We briefly survey the rise of game theory as a topic of study in artificial intelligence and explain the term algorithmic game theory. We then describe three broad areas of current inquiry by AI researchers in algorithmic game theory: game playing, social choice, and mechanism design. Finally, we give short summaries of each of the six articles appearing in this issue.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAI MagazineSame topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207