MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2528636278 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2016.7799208

Distributed Nash equilibrium seeking by gossip in games on graphs

2016· preprint· en· W2528636278 on OpenAlexaff
Farzad Salehisadaghiani, Lacra Pavel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNash equilibriumBest responseGossipMathematical optimizationCorrelated equilibriumComputer scienceGraphConvergence (economics)StrategyDistributed algorithmPotential gameGame theoryMathematical economicsMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceRepeated gameDistributed computingEquilibrium selectionEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a gossip approach for finding a Nash equilibrium in a distributed multi-player network game. We extend previous results on Nash equilibrium seeking to the case when the players' cost functions may be affected by the actions of any subset of players. An interference graph is employed to illustrate the partially-coupled cost functions and the asymmetric information requirements. For a given interference graph, we design a generalized communication graph so that players with possibly partially-coupled cost functions exchange only their required information and make decisions based on them. Using a set of standard assumptions on the cost functions, interference and communication graphs, we prove almost sure convergence to a Nash equilibrium for diminishing step sizes. We then quantify the effect of the second largest eigenvalue of the expected communication matrix on the convergence rate, and illustrate the trade-off between the parameters associated with the communication and the interference graphs. Finally, the efficacy of the proposed algorithm on a large-scale networked game is demonstrated via simulation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models→French-language works237,207→