How to Delegate and Verify in Public: Verifiable Computation from Attribute-based Encryption.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The wide variety of small, computationally weak devices, and the growing number of computationally intensive tasks makes it appealing to delegate computation to data centers. However, outsourcing computation is useful only when the returned result can be trusted, which makes verifiable computation (VC) a must for such scenarios. In this work we extend the definition of verifiable computation in two important directions: public delegation and public verifiability, which have important applications in many practical delegation scenarios. Yet, existing VC constructions based on standard cryptographic assumptions fail to achieve these properties. As the primary contribution of our work, we establish an important (and somewhat surprising) connection between verifiable computation and attribute-based encryption (ABE), a primitive that has been widely studied. Namely, we show how to construct a VC scheme with public delegation and public verifiability from any ABE scheme. The VC scheme verifies any function in the class of functions covered by the permissible ABE policies (currently Boolean formulas). This scheme enjoys a very efficient verification algorithm that depends only on the output size. Efficient delegation, however, requires the ABE encryption algorithm to be cheaper than the original function computation. Strengthening this connection, we show a construction of a multi-function verifiable computation scheme from an ABE scheme with outsourced decryption, a primitive defined recently by Green, Hohenberger and Waters (USENIX Security 2011). A multi-function VC scheme allows the verifiable evaluation of multiple functions on the same preprocessed input. In the other direction, we also explore the construction of an ABE scheme from verifiable computation 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.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".