Fuzzy approaches to the game of Chicken
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Game theory deals with decision-making processes involving two or more parties, also known as players, with partly or completely conflicting interests. Decision-makers in a conflict must often make their decisions under risk and under unclear or fuzzy information. In this paper, two distinct fuzzy approaches are employed to investigate an extensively studied 2/spl times/2 game model-the game of Chicken. The first approach uses a fuzzy multicriteria decision analysis method to obtain optimal strategies for the players. It incorporates subjective factors into the decision-makers' objectives and aggregates objectives using a weight vector. The second approach applies the theory of fuzzy moves (TFM) to the game of Chicken. The theory of moves (TOM) is designed to bring a dynamic dimension to the classical theory of games by allowing decision-makers to look ahead for one or several steps so that they can make a better decision. TOM is the crisp counterpart of TFM, the approach we implement here to deal with games that include fuzzy and uncertain information. The application of fuzzy approaches to the game of Chicken demonstrates their effectiveness in manipulating subjective, uncertain, and fuzzy information and provides valuable insights into the strategic aspects of Chicken.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".