MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268298206

Concisely Specifying Choices in an Outcome-Set Form

2015· preprint· en· W2268298206 on OpenAlexaff
Peter A. Streufert

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Set (abstract data type)Mathematical economicsVon Neumann architectureComputer scienceGame theoryExtensive-form gameTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsSequential gameProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) specify both nodes and choices as sets of outcomes. This outcome-set formulation is extended to the infinite horizon by the discrete extensive forms of Alos-Ferrer and Ritzberger (2013). I propose to restrict such outcome-set forms with a new assumption called "conciseness". Conciseness requires that choices be defined in an economical fashion. I find broad classes of infinite-horizon forms that violate conciseness. Yet, I show that every outcome-set form can be equivalently re-defined so as to satisfy conciseness. Thus the assumption of conciseness can increase mathematical tractability at no cost to game theorists.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.193 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207