Verifiable outsourced database in the cloud using game theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the verifiable database (VDB) model, a computationally weak client (database owner) delegates his database management to a database service provider on the cloud, which is considered untrusted third party, while users can query the data and verify the integrity of query results. Since the process can be computationally costly and has a limited support for sophisticated query types such as aggregated queries, we propose in this paper a framework that helps bridge the gap between security and practicality trade-offs. The proposed framework remodels the verifiable database problem using Stackelberg security game. In the new model, the database owner creates and uploads to the database service provider the database and its authentication structure (AS). Next, the game is played between the defender (verifier), who is a trusted party to the database owner and runs scheduled randomized verifications using Stackelberg mixed strategy, and the database service provider. The idea is to randomize the verification schedule in an optimized way that grants the optimal payoff for the verifier while making it extremely hard for the database service provider or any attacker to figure out which part of the database is being verified next. We have implemented and compared the proposed model performance with a uniform randomization model. Simulation results show that the proposed model outperforms the uniform randomization model. Furthermore, we have evaluated the efficiency of the proposed model against different cost metrics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".