MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408145653 · doi:10.1109/icmla61862.2024.00274

A Game-Theoretic Framework for Approximation with Soft Sets

2024· article· en· W4408145653 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicFuzzy and Soft Set Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGame theoryTheoretical computer scienceMathematical economicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing uncertainty issues is a significant challenge in decision-making. Soft set theory is designed to assist in complex decision-making scenarios where multiple approximations are involved. Those approximations, represented as parametrized sets in soft sets, could provide decision-makers with more informed choices when integrated effectively. However, con-flicts among distinct approximations make the integration chal-lenging. To address this issue, we propose a game-theoretic soft set model based on a set-oriented perception. This model effectively manages the merging of approximation sets by dividing the universe into overlapping and conflicting regions and employing tailored strategies for each. Experimental results indicate that the model not only can achieve a balance among various parameters or conflicting decision goals, but also improves approximation performance across accuracy, precision, recall, and Fl-score.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFuzzy and Soft Set TheoryFrench-language works237,207