MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953150142 · doi:10.1109/tase.2019.2917136

Optimal Information Release for Mixed Opacity in Discrete-Event Systems

2019· article· en· W2953150142 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOpacitySecrecyEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceProperty (philosophy)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer securityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opacity is a property of a system that captures whether certain event sequences (or certain states) are indistinguishable from other event sequences (or states) in the system. Opacity is used in analyzing privacy, secrecy, and other aspects of systems modeled by discrete-event systems. In this paper, we introduce the concept of minimal information release policies for non-opacity and the concept of mixed opacity. Mixed opacity policies are introduced as a holistic approach for solving problems that involve a combination of releasing information to make some objectives of the system opaque while making some other objectives non-opaque. We present a set of algorithms for information release under a mixed opacity policy. These algorithms compute policies in a system such that two given sublanguages are opaque, and at the same time, two other sublanguages in the same system are non-opaque. The application of mixed opacity is demonstrated on the Dining Cryptographers Problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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