MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145075030 · doi:10.1109/gamenets.2009.5137398

Nash equilibrium design and optimization

2009· article· en· W2145075030 on OpenAlexaff
Tansu Alpcan, Lacra Pavel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNash equilibriumMathematical optimizationComputer scienceEpsilon-equilibriumBest responseMaximizationContext (archaeology)Class (philosophy)Game theoryMathematical economicsCorrelated equilibriumEquilibrium selectionRepeated gameMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The general problem of Nash equilibrium design is investigated from an optimization perspective. Within this context, a specific but fairly broad class of noncooperative games are considered that have been applied to a variety of settings including network congestion control, wireless uplink power control, and optical power control. The Nash equilibrium design problem is analyzed under various knowledge assumptions (full versus limited information) and design objectives (QoS versus utility maximization). Among other results, the ldquoprice of anarchyrdquo is shown not to be an inherent feature of games that incorporate pricing mechanisms, but merely a misconception that often stems from arbitrary choice of game parameters. Moreover, a simple linear pricing is sufficient for design of Nash equilibrium according to a chosen global objective for a general class of games and under suitable information assumptions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207