MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141216681 · doi:10.1109/netgames.2010.5680187

A protocol for distributed collision detection

2010· article· en· W3141216681 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom Ching Ling Chen, Clark Verbrugge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityLock (firearm)CollisionProtocol (science)Distributed computingServerConsistency (knowledge bases)Collision detectionLatency (audio)Real-time computingLow latency (capital markets)Computer networkArtificial intelligenceOperating systemComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalability of multiplayer games can be improved by client-side processing of game actions. Consistency becomes a concern, however, in the case of unpredictable but important events such as object interactions. We propose here a new motion-lock protocol for distributed collision detection and resolution. The motion-lock protocol improves performance of motion prediction by giving stations time to communicate and agree on the detected collisions. This reduces the divergence of distributed object states and post-collision trajectories. Offline and online simulation results show the motion-lock protocol results in qualitative and quantitative improvements to consistency, with negligible network impact and a minimal sacrifice in the responsiveness of player controls. Our design can be used to hide latency and reduce server load in current multiplayer online games, improving scalability and furthering fully distributed designs.

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 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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207