Is extracting data the same as possessing data?
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
Abstract. Proof-of-retrievability schemes have been a topic of considerable recent interest. In these schemes, a client <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>𝖢</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathsf {C}$ gives a file M to a server <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>𝖲</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathsf {S}$ with the understanding that <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>𝖲</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathsf {S}$ will securely store M . A suitable challenge-response protocol is invoked by <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>𝖢</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathsf {C}$ in order for <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>𝖢</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathsf {C}$ to gain confidence that M is indeed being correctly stored by <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>𝖲</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathsf {S}$ . The definition of proof-of-retrievability schemes is based on the notion of an extractor <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>ℰ</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathcal {E}$ that can recover the file once the challenge-response protocol is executed a sufficient number of times. In this paper, we propose a new type of scheme that we term a proof-of-data-observability scheme . Our definition tries to capture the stronger requirement that <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mi>𝖲</m:mi> </m:math> $\mathsf {S}$ must have an actual copy of M in its memory space while it executes the challenge-response protocol. We give some examples of schemes that satisfy this new security definition. As well, we analyze the efficiency and security of the protocols we present, and we prove some necessary conditions for the existence of these kinds of protocols.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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