On Low-End Obfuscation and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most recent works on cryptographic obfuscation focus on the high-end regime of obfuscating general circuits while guaranteeing computational indistinguishability between functionally equivalent circuits. Motivated by the goals of simplicity and efficiency, we initiate a systematic study of "low-end" obfuscation, focusing on simpler representation models and information-theoretic notions of security. We obtain the following results. - Positive results via "white-box" learning. We present a general technique for obtaining perfect indistinguishability obfuscation from exact learning algorithms that are given restricted access to the representation of the input function. We demonstrate the usefulness of this approach by obtaining simple obfuscation for decision trees and multilinear read-k arithmetic formulas. - Negative results via PAC learning. A proper obfuscation scheme obfuscates programs from a class C by programs from the same class. Assuming the existence of one-way functions, we show that there is no proper indistinguishability obfuscation scheme for k-CNF formulas for any constant k ≥ 3; in fact, even obfuscating 3-CNF by k-CNF is impossible. This result applies even to computationally secure obfuscation, and makes an unexpected use of PAC learning in the context of negative results for obfuscation. - Separations. We study the relations between different information-theoretic notions of indistinguishability obfuscation, giving cryptographic evidence for separations between them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".