MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2242794960 · doi:10.1515/popets-2015-0008

DP5: A Private Presence Service

2015· article· en· W2242794960 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikita Borisov, George Danezis, Ian Goldberg

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of WaterlooMicrosoft ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityForward secrecyComputer securityKey (lock)Service (business)SecrecyPrivate information retrievalInternet privacyPublic-key cryptographyDatabaseEncryptionBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Users of social applications like to be notified when their friends are online. Typically, this is done by a central server keeping track of who is online and offline, as well as of all of the users’ “buddy lists”, which contain sensitive information. We present DP5, a cryptographic service that implements online presence indication in a privacy-friendly way. DP5 allows clients to register their online presence and query the presence of their list of friends while keeping this list secret. Besides presence, high-integrity status updates are supported, to facilitate key update and rendezvous protocols. While infrastructure services are required for DP5 to operate, they are designed to not require any long-term secrets and provide perfect forward secrecy in case of compromise. We provide security arguments for the indistinguishability properties of the protocol, as well as an evaluation of its scalability and performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations65
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings on Privacy Enhancing TechnologiesSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207