Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 9 studies cooperation stimulation for P2P video streaming over Internet and wireless networks. One assumption there is that all users in the P2P networks are rational, and their goal is to maximize their own payoffs. As discussed in Chapter 9 and shown in Figure 12.1, they may lie to others about their personal information if they believe cheating can help increase their utilities. There might also exist malicious users who aim to exhaust others' resources and attack the system. For example, in P2P systems, they can tamper the media files with the intention of making the content useless (the so-called pollution attack). They can also launch the denial of service (DoS) attack to exhaust other users' resources and make the system unavailable. What is more, once an attacker is detected, he or she can leave the network temporarily, come back later with a new ID, and continue causing damage to the system. To further proliferate P2P systems and provide reliable service, misbehavior detection and attack resistance are fundamental requirements to stimulate user cooperation even under attacks. A challenging issue in malicious user detection in P2P video streaming is to differentiate between “intentional” misbehavior (for example, intentional modification of the video content) and “innocent” ones (such as transmission error and packet loss in error-prone and congested networks). In this chapter, we first model the P2P video streaming network over the Internet as a multiplayer game, which includes both rational (selfish) and malicious users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".