Cooperation Stimulation Strategies for Peer-to-Peer Wireless Live Video-Sharing Social Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human behavior analysis in video sharing social networks is an emerging research area, which analyzes the behavior of users who share multimedia content and investigates the impact of human dynamics on video sharing systems. Users watching live streaming in the same wireless network share the same limited bandwidth of backbone connection to the Internet, thus, they might want to cooperate with each other to obtain better video quality. These users form a wireless live-streaming social network. Every user wishes to watch video with high quality while paying as little as possible cost to help others. This paper focuses on providing incentives for user cooperation. We propose a game-theoretic framework to model user behavior and to analyze the optimal strategies for user cooperation simulation in wireless live streaming. We first analyze the Pareto optimality and the time-sensitive bargaining equilibrium of the two-person game. We then extend the solution to the multiuser scenario. We also consider potential selfish users' cheating behavior and malicious users' attacking behavior and analyze the performance of the proposed strategies with the existence of cheating users and malicious attackers. Both our analytical and simulation results show that the proposed strategies can effectively stimulate user cooperation, achieve cheat free and attack resistance, and help provide reliable services for wireless live streaming applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".