Triple-Entry Accounting as a Means of Auditing Large Language Models
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
The usage of Large Language Models (LMMs) and their exponential progress has created a Cambrian Explosion in the development of new tools for almost every field of science and technology, but also presented significant concerns regarding the AI ethics and creation of sophisticated malware and phishing attacks. Moreover, several worries have arisen in the field of dataset collection and intellectual property in that many datasets may exist without the license of the respective owners. Triple-Entry Accounting (TEA) has been proposed by Ian Grigg to increase transparency, accountability, and security in financial transactions. This method expands upon the traditional double-entry accounting system, which records transactions as debits and credits in two separate ledgers, by incorporating a third ledger as an independent verifier via a digitally signed receipt. The utilization of a digital signature provides evidentiary power to the receipt, thus reducing the accounting problem to one of the presence or absence of the receipt. The integrity issues associated with double-entry accounting can be addressed by allowing the parties involved in the transaction to share the records with an external auditor. This manuscript proposes a novel methodology to apply triple-entry accounting records on a publicly accessed distributed ledger technology medium to control the queries of LLMs in order to discourage malicious acts and ensure intellectual property rights.
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