MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194918904 · doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000473

A Survey on Zero-Knowledge Proof in Blockchain

2021· article· en· W3194918904 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Network · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBlockchainDatabase transactionComputer scienceZero-knowledge proofComputer securityDistributed transactionCryptographyCryptocurrencyPublic-key cryptographyTransaction processingDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blockchain, which is usually regarded as a public, decentralized and distributed ledger, has attracted significant attention recently. In the environment of blockchain, all historical transaction data are recorded and stored. However, because blockchain is open and transparent, a malicious user may illegally access private transaction data, including transaction amount, account address, and account balance. As a cryptographic technique, zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) can be used to verify whether the prover has enough transaction amount in the environment of blockchain without leaking any private transaction data. This article provides a comprehensive survey on ZKP in the environment of blockchain with the aim of highlighting security problems and challenges. It first discusses the framework, models and applications of ZKP. Next, it provides an introduction of blockchain, and proposes a framework of ZKP in the environment of blockchain. Then, it highlights the current state of ZKP in the environment of blockchain. Finally, it identifies some potential problems and future research directions.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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