Sequential Secret Sharing as a New Hierarchical Access Structure.
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
Due to the rapid growth of the next generation networking and system technologies, computer net-works require new design and management. In this context, security, and more specifically, access structures have been one of the major concerns. As such, in this article, sequential secret sharing (SQS), as an application of dynamic threshold schemes, is introduced. In this new cryptographic primitive, different (but related) secrets with increasing thresholds are shared among a set of players who have different levels of authority. Subsequently, each subset of the players can only recover the secret in their own level. Finally, the master secret will be revealed if all the secrets in the higher levels are first recovered. We briefly review the existing threshold modification techniques. We then present our construction and compare it with other hierarchical secret sharing schemes such as dis-junctive and conjunctive multilevel secret sharing 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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