MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480793474 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10045

Using Correlated Strategies for Computing Stackelberg Equilibria in Extensive-Form Games

2016· article· en· W2480793474 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiří Čermák, Branislav Bošanský, Karel Durkota, Viliam Lisý, Christopher Kiekintveld

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersOffice of Naval Research GlobalSino-Danish CenterAlberta InnovatesGrantová Agentura České RepublikyOffice of Naval ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Research FoundationČeské Vysoké Učení Technické v PrazeDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStackelberg competitionComputer sciencePerfect informationExtensive-form gameBest responseGame theoryImperfectAlgorithmic game theoryMathematical optimizationMathematical economicsAlgorithmSequential gameMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium (SSE) is a fundamental solution concept in game theory in which one player commits to a strategy, while the other player observes this commitment and plays a best response. We present a new algorithm for computing SSE for two-player extensive-form general-sum games with imperfect information (EFGs) where computing SSE is an NP-hard problem. Our algorithm is based on a correlated version of SSE, known as Stackelberg Extensive-Form Correlated Equilibrium (SEFCE). Our contribution is therefore twofold: (1) we give the first linear program for computing SEFCE in EFGs without chance, (2) we repeatedly solve and modify this linear program in a systematic search until we arrive to SSE. Our new algorithm outperforms the best previous algorithms by several orders of magnitude.

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)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.102 · 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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207