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
An attack graph models the causal relationships between vulnerabilities. Attack graphs have important applications in protecting critical resources in networks against sophisticated multi-step intrusions. Currently, analyses of attack graphs largely depend on proprietary implementations of specialized algorithms. However, developing and implementing algorithms causes a delay to the availability of new analyses. The delay is usually unacceptable due to rapidly-changing needs in defending against network intrusions. An administrator may want to revise an analysis as soon as its outcome is observed. Such an interactive analysis, similar to that in decision support systems, is desirable but difficult with current approaches based on proprietary implementations of algorithms. This paper addresses the above issue through a relational approach. Specifically, we devise a relational model for representing necessary inputs, such as network configurations and domain knowledge, and we generate attack graphs from these inputs as relational views. We show that typical analyses can be supported through different type of searches in an attack graph, and these searches can be realized as relational queries. Our approach eliminates the needs for implementing algorithms, because an analysis is now simply a relational query. The interactive analysis of attack graphs becomes possible, since relational queries can be dynamically constructed and revised at run time. As a side effect, experimental results show that the mature optimization techniques in relational databases can transparently improve the performance of the analysis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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