Techniques for trusted software engineering
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
How do we decide if it is safe to run a given piece of software on our machine? Software used to arrive in shrink-wrapped packages from known vendors. But increasingly, software of unknown provenance arrives over the internet as applets or agents. Running such software risks serious harm to the hosting machine. Risks include serious damage to the system and loss of private information. Decisions about hosting such software are preferably made with good knowledge of the software product itself, and of the software process used to build it. We use the term Trusted Software Engineering to describe tools and techniques for constructing safe software artifacts in a manner designed to inspire trust in potential hosts. Existing approaches have considered issues such as schedule, cost and efficiency; we argue that the traditionally software engineering issues of configuration management and intellectual property protection are also of vital concern. Existing approaches (e.g., Java) to this problem have used static type checking, run-time environments, formal proofs and/or cryptographic signatures; we propose the use of trusted hardware in combination with a key management infrastructure as an additional, complementary technique for trusted software engineering, which offers some attractive features.
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 | 0.000 | 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