MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313739240 · doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1131865

Cournot game with incomplete information based on rank-dependent utility theory under a fuzzy environment

2016· article· en· W2313739240 on OpenAlexaff
Chunqiao Tan, Liu Zhaodu, Desheng Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCournot competitionComplete informationMathematical economicsRank (graph theory)PreferenceGame theoryMathematicsEconomicsRanking (information retrieval)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMicroeconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most existing literatures on Cournot game, game behaviour between players is based on the hypothesis that people are complete rationality. However, players’ decisions are often affected by their behavioural characteristic and psychology preference. Traditional Cournot model also doesn’t deal with ambiguous information. Based on rank-dependent utility theory, this paper develops an incomplete information Cournot game in an ambiguous decision environment, where the form of ambiguity is described by a set of fuzzy parameters, and behavioural pattern is reflected by means of emotional function in rank-dependent utility. Further, we investigate the Nash equilibrium quantity of each manufacture in this kind of fuzzy Cournot game with incomplete information. Finally, the proposed Cournot model is applied to a case study, and dynamic variation and sensitivity analysis of optimal quantity with respect to decision-maker’s behaviour pattern are discussed in detailed, which illustrates that the proposed Cournot model is more reasonable than traditional Cournot model.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Production ResearchSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207