MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117646628 · doi:10.1145/3773274.3774263

DTW-ABAC: A Dynamic Trust Weighted Attribute-Based Access Control Hybrid Security Model for Cloud Applications

2025· article· W7117646628 on OpenAlexaff
Waqar Haque, Andreas Hirt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXACMLCloud computingAccess controlScalabilityContext (archaeology)Security policyReliability (semiconductor)VendorTransparency (behavior)Data access

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern digital infrastructures require access control systems that protect sensitive data and adapt to evolving contexts and user behaviour. While traditional foundational models provide basic enforcement, they lack flexibility, granularity and real-time responsiveness. To bridge these gaps, this research proposes a hybrid framework that combines structured policy logic with dynamic evaluation capabilities. The framework contributes to three major advancements. First, it introduces a trust scoring and attribute-criticality mechanism that enables dynamic risk adaptation and optimizes performance through task division and short-circuit evaluation by combining conventional ABAC methods. Second, it proposes a multi-step scenario generation process to produce realistic and policy-relevant access scenarios. Third, it enhances decision precision, transparency, and platform independence through improved policy components, context handling, and RESTful architecture, ensuring scalability beyond vendor constraints. The framework leverages Microsoft Entra ID for consistent and secure identity and attribute management. Weighted attribute evaluation ensures policy flexibility, while scenario-driven testing and detailed audit logs increase transparency and accountability. Comparative analysis reveals that the hybrid model yields more accurate, adaptive, and explainable decisions than standalone XACML or NGAC, making it a strong candidate for enterprise and cloud-scale deployments where contextual nuance and high security reliability are crucial.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207