MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794001962 · doi:10.1145/3173386.3176908

Robot Social Engineering

2018· article· en· W2794001962 on OpenAlexafffund
Brittany Postnikoff, Ian Goldberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSocial engineering (security)RobotPersuasionSocial skillsObedienceField (mathematics)Computer scienceSocial robotComputer securityInternet privacyHuman–computer interactionPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMobile robotSocial psychologyRobot control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social robots may make use of social abilities such as persuasion, commanding obedience, and lying. Meanwhile, the field of computer security and privacy has shown that these interpersonal skills can be applied by humans to perform social engineering attacks. Social engineering attacks are the deliberate application of manipulative social skills by an individual in an attempt to achieve a goal by convincing others to do or say things that may or may not be in their best interests. In our work we argue that robot social engineering attacks are already possible and that defenses should be developed to protect against these attacks. We do this by defining what a robot social engineer is, outlining how previous research has demonstrated robot social engineering, and discussing the risks that can accompany robot social engineering attacks.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207