MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389609606 · doi:10.1145/3626760

Waffle: An Online Oblivious Datastore for Protecting Data Access Patterns

2023· article· en· W4389609606 on OpenAlexafffund
Sujaya Maiyya, Sharath Chandra Vemula, Divyakant Agrawal, Amr El Abbadi, Florian Kerschbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)Benchmark (surveying)AdversaryFlexibility (engineering)Data accessBandwidth (computing)DatabaseDistributed computingComputer networkOperating systemComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Waffle, a datastore that protects an application's data access patterns from a passive persistent adversary. Waffle achieves this without prior knowledge of the input data access distribution, making it the first of its kind to adaptively handle input sequences under a passive persistent adversary. Waffle maintains a constant bandwidth and client-side storage overhead, which can be adjusted to suit the application owner's preferences. This flexibility allows the owner to fine-tune system parameters and strike a balance between security and performance. Our evaluation, utilizing the Yahoo! Cloud Serving Benchmark (YCSB) benchmark and Redis as the backend storage, demonstrates promising results. The insecure baseline outperforms Waffle by a mere 5-6x, whereas Waffle outperforms Pancake-a state-of-the-art oblivious datastore under passive persistent adversaries-by 45-57%, and a concurrent ORAM system, TaoStore, by 102x.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.010
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Management of DataSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207