An empirical study of seeding manipulations and their prevention
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
It is well known that cheating occurs in sports. In cup competitions, a common type of sports competition, one method of cheating is in manipulating the seeding to unfairly advantage a particular team. Previous empirical and theoretical studies of seeding manipulation have focused on competitions with unrestricted seeding. However, real cup competitions often place restrictions on seedings to ensure fairness, wide geographic interest, and so on. In this paper, we perform an extensive empirical study of seeding manipulation under comprehensive and realistic sets of restrictions. A generalized random model of competition problems is proposed. This model creates a realistic range of problem instances that are used to identify the sets of seeding restrictions that are hard to manipulate in practice. We end with a discussion of the implications of this work and recommendations for organizing competitions so as to prevent or reduce the opportunities for manipulating the seeding. 1
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) | 0.001 | 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