MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536869554 · doi:10.1145/2994501.2994506

A duality-based unified approach to Bayesian mechanism design

2016· article· en· W2536869554 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGecom Exchanges · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAuction Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism designDuality (order theory)Computer scienceBayesian probabilityMathematical economicsMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationDiscrete mathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this letter we briefly survey our recent work [Cai et al. 2016]. In it, we provide a new duality theory for Bayesian mechanism design which is quite general, and applies for any objective the designer wishes to optimize, and for arbitrary agent valuations. We then apply our theory to auction design settings with many independent buyers who have independent values for many items, and are able to provide a unified proof of several recent exciting works on this front [Hart and Nisan 2012; Li and Yao 2013; Babaioff et al. 2014; Yao 2015; Chawla et al. 2007; Chawla et al. 2010; Chawla et al. 2015]. These works all show that simple mechanisms are approximately optimal in various settings. In some cases, our principled approach yields greatly improved approximation ratios as well.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.153 · 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