A Survey on Metaverse: Fundamentals, Security, and Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Metaverse, as an evolving paradigm of the next-generation Internet, aims to build a fully immersive, hyper spatiotemporal, and self-sustaining virtual shared space for humans to play, work, and socialize. Driven by recent advances in emerging technologies such as extended reality, artificial intelligence, and blockchain, metaverse is stepping from science fiction to an upcoming reality. However, severe privacy invasions and security breaches (inherited from underlying technologies or emerged in the new digital ecology) of metaverse can impede its wide deployment. At the same time, a series of fundamental challenges (e.g., scalability and interoperability) can arise in metaverse security provisioning owing to the intrinsic characteristics of metaverse, such as immersive realism, hyper spatiotemporality, sustainability, and heterogeneity. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of the fundamentals, security, and privacy of metaverse. Specifically, we first investigate a novel distributed metaverse architecture and its key characteristics with ternary-world interactions. Then, we discuss the security and privacy threats, present the critical challenges of metaverse systems, and review the state-of-the-art countermeasures. Finally, we draw open research directions for building future metaverse systems.</p>
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.056 | 0.704 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".