MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031722321 · doi:10.1145/1346330.1346335

Optimal probabilistic fingerprint codes

2008· article· en· W2031722321 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ACM · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHungarian Scientific Research Fund
KeywordsTraitor tracingAlphabetUpper and lower boundsBinary numberCode (set theory)Computer scienceFingerprint (computing)Probabilistic logicCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsConstant (computer programming)Binary codeMathematicsAlgorithmArithmeticStatisticsEncryptionPublic-key cryptographySet (abstract data type)Computer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct binary codes for fingerprinting digital documents. Our codes for n users that are ϵ-secure against c pirates have length O ( c 2 log( n /ϵ)). This improves the codes proposed by Boneh and Shaw [1998] whose length is approximately the square of this length. The improvement carries over to works using the Boneh--Shaw code as a primitive, for example, to the dynamic traitor tracing scheme of Tassa [2005]. By proving matching lower bounds we establish that the length of our codes is best within a constant factor for reasonable error probabilities. This lower bound generalizes the bound found independently by Peikert et al. [2003] that applies to a limited class of codes. Our results also imply that randomized fingerprint codes over a binary alphabet are as powerful as over an arbitrary alphabet and the equal strength of two distinct models for fingerprinting.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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