A game‐theoretic model for resource allocation with deception and defense efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper develops a strategy for assisting two players in allocating multiple resources in a strategic sequential game. The defender first needs to allocate deception and defense efforts among targets to deceive the attacker and strengthen the target, respectively. Then, the attacker chooses a type of threat and a target to attack. The defender aims at mitigating the possible damage to the targets, whereas the attacker strives to cause maximum damage to the targets. Traditional modeling approaches typically focus only on the defender's homogeneous resource in defense and are not well suited to effectively capture the complex interplay between players. Given scarce resources, a game‐theoretic model is proposed for determining optimal strategies for both players. The key novel features of this model include: (1) the attacker's learning and the defender's counter‐learning efforts are considered; (2) trade‐offs between deception and defense efforts among different targets for the defender are investigated; and (3) sensitive analysis is carried out to see how different parameters can affect the equilibrium results. An illustrative example is presented to demonstrate the procedure of this game‐theoretic model and show its effectiveness. The results can provide additional insights for defense and deception strategies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".