A game theory approach to multi-agent team cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of this work is to design a team of agents that can accomplish consensus over a common value for the agents' output in a cooperative manner. First, a semi-decentralized optimal control strategy introduced recently by the authors is utilized which is based on minimization of individual costs using local information. Cooperative game theory is then used to ensure team cooperation by considering a combination of individual costs as a team cost function. Minimization of this cost function results in a set of Pareto-efficient solutions. The choice of Nash-bargaining solution among the set of Pareto-efficient solutions guarantees the minimum individual cost. The Nash-bargaining solution is obtained by maximizing the product of the difference between the costs achieved through the optimal control strategy and the one obtained through the Pareto-efficient solution. The latter solution results in a lower cost for each agent at the expense of requiring full information set. To avoid this drawback additional constraints are added to the structure of the controller by using the linear matrix inequality (LMI) formulation of the minimization problem. Consequently, although the controller is designed to minimize a unique team cost function, it only uses the available information set for each agent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".