MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003257225 · doi:10.5555/2157848.2157862

Cheat detection and prevention in P2P MOGs

2011· article· en· W2003257225 on OpenAlex
Kévin Huguenin, Amir Yahyavi, Bettina Kemme

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

VenueNetwork and System Support for Games · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityCheatingComputer scienceCollusionComputer securityServerPeer-to-peerComputer networkOperating systemBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalability and fairness are keys to the success of massively multi-player on-line games. The first is necessary for the technical viability of the game while the latter is required for the wide adoption by players. Although they achieve better scalability, peer-to-peer games are more prone to cheating as players have access to and manipulate sensitive game data [2]. While in centralized games cheat detection and prevention can be achieved by having the server verify the players' actions and reduce the information sent to players to the minimal amount required to render the game world, in decentralized games, it is more difficult as natural trade-offs between respon siveness, scalability, verification and information disclosure appear together with the issues of trust and collusion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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