Resource Graph Games: A Compact Representation for Games with Structured Strategy Spaces
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many real-world systems, strategic agents' decisions can be understood as complex - i.e., consisting of multiple sub-decisions - and hence can give rise to an exponential number of pure strategies. Examples include network congestion games, simultaneous auctions, and security games. However, agents' sets of strategies are often structured, allowing them to be represented compactly. There currently exists no general modeling language that captures a wide range of commonly seen strategy structure and utility structure. We propose Resource Graph Games (RGGs), the first general compact representation for games with structured strategy spaces, which is able to represent a wide range of games studied in literature. We leverage recent results about multilinearity, a key property of games that allows us to represent the mixed strategies compactly, and, as a result, to compute various equilibrium concepts efficiently. While not all RGGs are multilinear, we provide a general method of converting RGGs to those that are multilinear, and identify subclasses of RGGs whose converted version allow efficient computation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it