Time Consistency in Cooperative Differential Games: A Tutorial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can a cooperative agreement made at the start of a dynamic game can be sustained over time? Early work has avoided this question by supposing that the players sign binding agreements. This assumption is hard to accept from a theoretical perspective, and a practical one as well. Conceptually, there is no reason to believe that rational players would stick to an agreement if they can achieve a better outcome by abandoning, no matter what they have announced before. At an empirical level, it suffices to look at the number of disputes (between spouses, business partners, countries, etc.) in the courts to convince ourselves that binding agreements are not so binding. Scholars in dynamic games have followed different lines of thoughts to answer the question. This tutorial reviews one of them, namely time consistency, a concept which has also been termed dynamic individual rationality, sustainability, dynamic stability, agreeability, or acceptability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it