MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255895831 · doi:10.1017/s0021900200003582

Bounds for Owen's Multilinear Extension

2007· article· en· W4255895831 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Josep Freixas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia y TecnologíaGeneralitat de CatalunyaEuropean Regional Development FundRoyal Canadian Geographical Society
KeywordsMultilinear mapSimple (philosophy)Extension (predicate logic)MathematicsBlocking (statistics)Field (mathematics)Game theoryVotingMathematical economicsMathematical optimizationComputer sciencePure mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Owen's multilinear extension (MLE) of a game is a very important tool in game theory and particularly in the field of simple games. Among other applications it serves to efficiently compute several solution concepts. In this paper we provide bounds for the MLE. Apart from its self-contained theoretical interest, the bounds offer the means in voting system studies of approximating the probability that a proposal is approved in a particular simple game having a complex component arrangement. The practical interest of the bounds is that they can be useful for simple games having a tedious MLE to evaluate exactly, but whose minimal winning coalitions and minimal blocking coalitions can be determined by inspection. Such simple games are quite numerous.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207