Linear quadratic graphon field games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear quadratic graphon field games (LQ-GFGs) are defined to be LQ games which involve a large number of agents that are weakly coupled via a weighted undirected graph on which each node represents an agent. The links of the graph correspond to couplings between the agents' dynamics, as well as between the individual cost functions, which each agent attempts to minimize. We formulate limit LQ-GFG problems based on the assumption that these graphs lie in a sequence which converges to a limit graphon. First, under a finite-rank assumption on the limit graphon, the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the formulated limit LQ-GFG problem is established. Second, based upon the solutions to the limit LQ-GFG problem, epsilon-Nash equilibria are constructed for the corresponding game problems with a very large but finite number of players. This result is then generalized to the case with random initial conditions. It is to be noted that LQ-GFG problems are distinct from the class of graphon mean field game (GMFG) problems where a population is hypothesized to be associated with each node of the graph [Caines and Huang CDC 2018, 2019].
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".