Relationship-based access control policies and their policy languages
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
The Relationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC) model was recently proposed as a general-purpose access control model. It supports the natural expression of parameterized roles, the composition of policies, and the delegation of trust. Fong proposed a policy language that is based on Modal Logic for expressing and composing ReBAC policies. A natural question is whether such a language is representationally complete, that is, whether the language is capable of expressing all ReBAC policies that one is interested in expressing. In this work, we argue that the extensive use of what we call Relational Policies is what distinguishes ReBAC from traditional access control models. We show that Fong’s policy language is representationally incomplete in that certain previously studied Relational Policies are not expressible in the language. We introduce two extensions to the policy language of Fong, and prove that the extended policy language is representationally complete with respect to a well-defined subclass of Relational Policies.
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