MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070594819

Price of anarchy bounds for core-selecting mechanisms

2014· dissertation· en· W7070594819 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsPrice of anarchyCommon value auctionPrice of stabilitySimple (philosophy)Class (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Mechanism (biology)Measure (data warehouse)Stability (learning theory)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core-selecting auction mechanisms are auctions that select player utilities which satisfy certain stability properties. They are currently of theoretical and practical interest in mechanism design, having already been used to conduct multi-billion dollar auctions. We generalize the concept of a Core-selecting auction mechanism to a large class of complete information games and demonstrate that several well-known games can be described by these Core-selecting mechanisms. Our main result is a bound on the Price of Anarchy of Core-selecting mechanisms. Provided some simple conditions are met, there are Core-selecting mechanisms with Price of Anarchy at most 1 + 1/D^2, where D in [0,1] is a measure of the degree of submodularity of the game's social welfare function, expressed as a set function. In addition to this result, we show that there exist special Core-selecting mechanisms which have two additional properties: they are player-Pareto optimal and they provide a local, individual utility guarantee.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207