Extending query rewriting techniques for fine-grained access control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current day database applications, with large numbers of users, require fine-grained access control mechanisms, at the level of individual tuples, not just entire relations/views, to control which parts of the data can be accessed by each user. Fine-grained access control is often enforced in the application code, which has numerous drawbacks; these can be avoided by specifying/enforcing access control at the database level. We present a novel fine-grained access control model based on authorization views that allows "authorization-transparent" querying; that is, user queries can be phrased in terms of the database relations, and are valid if they can be answered using only the information contained in these authorization views. We extend earlier work on authorization-transparent querying by introducing a new notion of validity, conditional validity. We give a powerful set of inference rules to check for query validity. We demonstrate the practicality of our techniques by describing how an existing query optimizer can be extended to perform access control checks by incorporating these inference rules.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".