MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220913602 · doi:10.5539/cis.v15n2p68

Multi-Issuer Attribute-based Anonymous Credential with Traceability and Revocation

2022· article· en· W4220913602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yang Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialIssuerRevocationComputer scienceComputer securityTraceabilityCertificationPasswordScheme (mathematics)Revocation listAnonymityService (business)CertificateComputer networkCertificate authorityOverhead (engineering)BusinessPublic-key cryptographyTheoretical computer scienceSoftware engineeringEncryptionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attribute-based anonymous credential schemes allow users to obtain credentials from the issuer and prove the possession of their attributes interactively and anonymously with service providers. So far, most existing schemes only consider single-issuer, where some of them are extended to be traceable or revocable. In the reality, anonymous credential schemes under multi-issuer are more practical, since users could query for credentials from different issuers and use some of them simultaneously, which is more efficient than showing them individually. Although there are also multi-issuer schemes where users obtain credentials from different issuers and show an aggregated credential to service providers, however, these schemes lack practical properties, for example, revocation of invalid users. In this paper, we propose a multi-issuer attribute-based anonymous credential with traceability and revocation, which provides traceability of invalid users, and revocation of the specific users. Users receive credentials from multiple issuers and show an aggregated credential of selective disclosures of attributes. We provide the security model of our scheme of anonymity and unforgeability. Finally, we discuss the computational complexity, which shows the practicality and efficiency of our scheme.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207