MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055028639 · doi:10.1145/1460797.1460801

On domination game analysis for microeconomic data mining

2009· article· en· W2055028639 on OpenAlexaff
Zhenjie Zhang, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, Anthony K. H. Tung

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsNash equilibriumGame theoryDimension (graph theory)Product (mathematics)CommodityComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Best responseSpace (punctuation)Mathematical economicsEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Game theory is a powerful tool for analyzing the competitions among manufacturers in a market. In this article, we present a study on combining game theory and data mining by introducing the concept of domination game analysis. We present a multidimensional market model, where every dimension represents one attribute of a commodity. Every product or customer is represented by a point in the multidimensional space, and a product is said to “dominate” a customer if all of its attributes can satisfy the requirements of the customer. The expected market share of a product is measured by the expected number of the buyers in the customers, all of which are equally likely to buy any product dominating him. A Nash equilibrium is a configuration of the products achieving stable expected market shares for all products. We prove that Nash equilibrium in such a model can be computed in polynomial time if every manufacturer tries to modify its product in a round robin manner. To further improve the efficiency of the computation, we also design two algorithms for the manufacturers to efficiently find their best response to other products in the market.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from DataSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207