arXiv (All)
open access
Checking Leakage Witnesses versus Certifying Bounded Non-Leakage
When a language-model audit finds no leak, what is needed to certify non-leakage? We study guarantees over a declared prompt domain under an executable leakage criterion and decoding rule. For general bounded polynomial-time evaluators, a supplied leaking execution is polynomial-time checkable, whil
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Execution-Time Opacity Logic: A Logic for Ensuring ET-Opacity in Timed Systems#996982
- FIRE: Failure-Informed Runtime Engineering for Reliable Language-Model Agents#1061953
- FIRE: Failure-Informed Runtime Engineering for Reliable Language-Model Agents#1043151
- Auditing Proxy-Based Validation Across Text Spans#1061436
- What Your Posts Reveal: A Benchmark and Agentic Framework for User-Level Privacy Leakage on Social Media#266130
Record · ID 1116465
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive