Probabilistic analysis of the ASW protocol using PRISM
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
Increased interest in e-commerce protocols and reliable exchange of information over the Internet have created needs of fair exchange protocols for contract signing and other purposes. The ASW protocol is one of the prominent optimistic fair exchange protocols that is used for contract signing between two participants, the originator and the responder, with the aid of a trusted third party in case of a dispute. In our study, we have analyzed the key security objectives of ASW protocol, fairness, effectiveness and timeliness, using a probabilistic model checking tool, PRISM. First, we model the roles of the participants and the trusted third party in PRISM code. Next, we express the security objectives using a temporal logic, PCTL. Finally, the model is analyzed using these PCTL expressions; different outputs confirm the fairness of the ASW protocol. Moreover, the effectiveness and the timeliness of the protocol are also established.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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