A game‐theoretic model for resource allocation with deception and defense efforts
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it