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 L2stable, 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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