MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399951836

A General Framework for Computing Optimal Correlated Equilibria in Compact Games (Extended Abstract)

2011· article· en· W2399951836 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Xin Jiang, Kevin Leyton‐Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationTheoretical computer scienceDistributed computingMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the problem of computing a correlated equilibrium that optimizes some objective (e.g., social welfare). Papadimitriou and Roughgarden [2008] gave a sufficient condition for the tractability of this problem; however, this condition only applies to a subset of existing representations. We propose a different algorithmic approach for the optimal CE problem that applies to all compact representations, and give a sufficient condition that generalizes that of Papadimitriou and Roughgarden [2008]. In particular, we reduce the optimal CE problem to the deviation-adjusted social welfare problem, a combinatorial optimization problem closely related to the optimal social welfare problem. This framework allows us to identify new classes of games for which the optimal CE problem is tractable; we show that graphical polymatrix games on tree graphs are one example. We also study the problem of computing the optimal coarse correlated equilibrium, a solution concept closely related to CE. Using a similar approach we derive a sufficient condition for this problem, and use it to prove that the problem is tractable for singleton congestion games.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207