MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012394957 · doi:10.1109/cdc40024.2019.9029871

Graphon Mean Field Games and the GMFG Equations: ε-Nash Equilibria

2019· article· en· W3012394957 on OpenAlexaff
Peter E. Caines, Minyi Huang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniquenessNash equilibriumGame theoryDynamical systems theoryComputer sciencePopulationMathematical economicsField (mathematics)Stability theoryWork (physics)Applied mathematicsDynamical system (definition)MathematicsMathematical optimizationPure mathematicsMathematical analysisNonlinear systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Very large networks linking dynamical agents are now ubiquitous and the need to analyse, design and control them is evident. The emergence of the graphon theory of large networks and their infinite limits has enabled the formulation of a theory of the centralized control of dynamical systems distributed on asymptotically infinite networks [Gao and Caines, CDC 2017, 2018]. Moreover, the study of the decentralized control of such systems was initiated in [Caines and Huang, CDC 2018] where Graphon Mean Field Games (GMFG) and the GMFG equations were formulated for the analysis of noncooperative dynamic games on unbounded networks. In that work, existence and uniqueness results were established for the GMFG equations, while the current work continues that analysis by developing an ε-Nash theory for GMFG systems by relating the infinite population equilibria on infinite networks to finite population equilibria on finite networks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207