MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124140261 · doi:10.65109/kzph7176

Run the GAMUT: A Comprehensive Approach to Evaluating Game-Theoretic Algorithms

2004· article· W7124140261 on OpenAlexaff
Eugene Nudelman, Jennifer R. Wortman, Y Shoham, Kevin Leyton‐Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingSuiteGenerator (circuit theory)Nash equilibriumTest suiteVariation (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present GAMUT^1, a suite of game generators designed for testing game-theoretic algorithms. We explain why such a generator is necessary, offer a way of visualizing relationships between the sets of games supported by GAMUT, and give an overview of GAMUTýs architecture. We highlight the importance of using comprehensive test data by benchmarking existing algorithms. We show surprisingly large variation in algorithm performance across different sets of games for two widely-studied problems: computing Nash equilibria and multiagent learning in repeated games.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207