A Large-Scale Analysis of the Semantic Password Model and Linguistic Patterns in Passwords
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
In this article, we present a thorough evaluation of semantic password grammars. We report multifactorial experiments that test the impact of sample size, probability smoothing, and linguistic information on password cracking. The semantic grammars are compared with state-of-the-art probabilistic context-free grammar ( PCFG ) and neural network models, and tested in cross-validation and A vs. B scenarios. We present results that reveal the contributions of part-of-speech (syntactic) and semantic patterns, and suggest that the former are more consequential to the security of passwords. Our results show that in many cases PCFGs are still competitive models compared to their latest neural network counterparts. In addition, we show that there is little performance gain in training PCFGs with more than 1 million passwords. We present qualitative analyses of four password leaks (Mate1, 000webhost, Comcast, and RockYou) based on trained semantic grammars, and derive graphical models that capture high-level dependencies between token classes. Finally, we confirm the similarity inferences from our qualitative analysis by examining the effectiveness of grammars trained and tested on all pairs of leaks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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