MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995228035 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2012.6425887

Emergence of coalitions in mean field stochastic systems

2012· article· en· W1995228035 on OpenAlexaff
Arman C. Kizilkale, Peter E. Caines

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Mean field theoryPopulationNash equilibriumFraction (chemistry)Stability (learning theory)State (computer science)InfinitySet (abstract data type)Minor (academic)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical economicsApplied mathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsMathematical analysisLawChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we define and investigate coalition formation for the large population dynamic LQG tracking game that was studied in [1], [2]. First, we present a mean field stochastic control algorithm which, when applied by all agents in the system, gives rise to system behaviour where (i) all agents systems are L <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> stable, and (ii) the set of controls yields an ε-Nash equilibrium. Then, as the population size tends to infinity, we show that the system with a coalition state converges to a major-minor agent system studied in [3], where in the limit the coalition state acts as a single major agent. We investigate the existence properties of the coalition state, and further discuss the stability of the coalitions in the overall dynamic system with respect to the fraction of the agents in the coalition.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207