Algebraic Restriction Codes and Their Applications
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
Abstract Consider the following problem: You have a device that is supposed to compute a linear combination of its inputs, which are taken from some finite field. However, the device may be faulty and compute arbitrary functions of its inputs. Is it possible to encode the inputs in such a way that only linear functions can be evaluated over the encodings? I.e., learning an arbitrary function of the encodings will not reveal more information about the inputs than a linear combination. In this work, we introduce the notion of algebraic restriction codes (AR codes), which constrain adversaries who might compute any function to computing a linear function. Our main result is an information-theoretic construction AR codes that restrict any class of function with a bounded number of output bits to linear functions. Our construction relies on a seed which is not provided to the adversary. While interesting and natural on its own, we show an application of this notion in cryptography. In particular, we show that AR codes lead to the first construction of rate-1 oblivious transfer with statistical sender security from the Decisional Diffie–Hellman assumption, and the first-ever construction that makes black-box use of cryptography. Previously, such protocols were known only from the LWE assumption, using non-black-box cryptographic techniques. We expect our new notion of AR codes to find further applications, e.g., in the context of non-malleability, in the future.
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