On Random Field Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart Generation
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
Herein, we propose generating CAPTCHAs through random field simulation and give a novel, effective and efficient algorithm to do so. Indeed, we demonstrate that sufficient information about word tests for easy human recognition is contained in the site marginal probabilities and the site-to-nearby-site covariances and that these quantities can be embedded directly into certain conditional probabilities, designed for effective simulation. The CAPTCHAs are then partial random realizations of the random CAPTCHA word. We start with an initial random field (e.g., randomly scattered letter pieces) and use Gibbs resampling to re-simulate portions of the field repeatedly using these conditional probabilities until the word becomes human-readable. The residual randomness from the initial random field together with the random implementation of the CAPTCHA word provide significant resistance to attack. This results in a CAPTCHA, which is unrecognizable to modern optical character recognition but is recognized about 95% of the time in a human readability study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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