Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anonymous communications networks, such as Tor, help to solve the real and important problem of enabling users to communicate privately over the Internet. However, in doing so, anonymous communications networks introduce an entirely new problem for the service providers - such as websites, IRC networks or mail servers - with which these users interact, in particular, since all anonymous users look alike, there is no way for the service providers to hold individual misbehaving anonymous users accountable for their actions. Recent research efforts have focused on using anonymous blacklisting systems (which are sometimes called anonymous revocation systems) to empower service providers with the ability to revoke access from abusive anonymous users. In contrast to revocable anonymity systems, which enable some trusted third party to deanonymize users, anonymous blacklisting systems provide users with a way to authenticate anonymously with a service provider, while enabling the service provider to revoke access from any users that misbehave, without revealing their identities. In this paper, we introduce the anonymous blacklisting problem and survey the literature on anonymous blacklisting systems, comparing and contrasting the architecture of various existing schemes, and discussing the tradeoffs inherent with each design. The literature on anonymous blacklisting systems lacks a unified set of definitions, each scheme operates under different trust assumptions and provides different security and privacy guarantees. Therefore, before we discuss the existing approaches in detail, we first propose a formal definition for anonymous blacklisting systems, and a set of security and privacy properties that these systems should possess. We also outline a set of new performance requirements that anonymous blacklisting systems should satisfy to maximize their potential for real-world adoption, and give formal definitions for several optional features already supported by some schemes in the literature.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".