MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070196560 · doi:10.1145/2600075.2600083

Verifiable local computation on distributed data

2014· article· en· W2070196560 on OpenAlexaff
Liang Feng Zhang, Reihaneh Safavi–Naini, Xiao Wei Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersResearch Committee, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
KeywordsServerOutsourcingComputer scienceCollusionCloud computingVerifiable secret sharingComputationInformation privacySecure multi-party computationBilinear interpolationDistributed computingSecret sharingComputer networkTheoretical computer scienceComputer securityCryptographyAlgorithmOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outsourcing of storage and computation from a resource-restricted client to a powerful cloud raises many security issues such as the privacy of the data and the integrity of any delegated computation on the outsourced data. While many techniques have been introduced to protect the client's data privacy or computation integrity, achieving both of them is challenging. In this paper, we propose a multi-server verifiable local computation (VLC) model where the client can privately outsource data blocks m=(m1, ..., mn) to cloud servers and later verify computations on any portion of the outsourced data. We propose two constructions of multi-server VLC schemes. Our schemes achieve data privacy in the sense that no collusion of a subset (size less than a threshold) of the cloud servers can learn any information about $m$; and computation integrity in the sense that no collusion of a subset (size less than a threshold) of the cloud servers can cause the client to accept their incorrect answers. Our first construction is solely based on PRF and very efficient; our second construction uses bilinear maps and achieves amortized closed-form efficiency over multiple computations of a function.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207