MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562643333 · doi:10.65109/lhla5263

Coalitional affinity games

2009· article· en· W1562643333 on OpenAlex
Simina Brânzei, Kate Larson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCore (optical fiber)Stability (learning theory)Mathematical economicsBounded functionWelfareClass (philosophy)Social WelfareMeasure (data warehouse)Value (mathematics)Characterization (materials science)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematicsEconomicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present and analyze coalitional affinity games, a family of hedonic games that explicitly model the value that an agent receives from being associated with other agents. We provide a characterization of the social-welfare maximizing coalition structures, and study the stability properties of affinity games, using the core solution concept. Interestingly, we observe that members of the core do not necessarily maximize social welfare. We introduce a new measure, the stability-gap to capture this difference. Using the stability gap, we show that for an interesting class of coalitional affinity games, the difference between the social welfare of a stable coalition structure and a social-welfare maximizing coalition structure is bounded by a factor of 2, and that this bound is tight.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207