跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.07159 · v1

Beyond Proof of Possession: A Relational Theory of Authority

首次提交 2026-11-05 05:35
版本更新 2026-11-05 05:35
雷达观测 2026-11-06 10:04
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Proof-of-Possession (PoP) establishes that an executor controls an artifact (key, token, credential, or capability), but such control alone determines neither the executor's relational profile nor the causal history of an execution occurrence. We separate PoP from Proof of Relationship (PoR), the semantic property that one execution occurrence validly continues another, and from authorization, which is occurrence-sensitive. The foundational change is in the semantic domain of authorization: from holders and authority-bearing artifacts to execution occurrences situated in causal histories. We give authorization models an observation-based occurrence verdict and a separate transition-admissibility relation; kernel inclusion yields a partial order on observation-kernel classes. Building on Provenance Identity Continuity (PIC) and Proof-of-Continuity (PoC), we classify executors by authorization-relevant equivalence relations whose quotients form relational profile spaces, with positive predicates over profile transitions forming a distributive lattice. This adds relational attenuation to authority attenuation: along a valid causal history, $C_{i+1}\subseteq C_i$ and $ρ_{i+1}\Rightarrowρ_i$. We prove dual monotonicity, combined closure, and origin relational closure. Two occurrences of the same authenticated executor, with the same profile and possession evidence, need not be authorization-equivalent, and within a valid PIC lineage a deputy's independent authority cannot be imported outside the origin context. Finally, we prove that the executor-dependent decision factors through the relational profile and is invariant under sound mechanisms establishing it: successor-side PoP is a possible evidence mechanism, not a necessary premise of authorization. Under explicit Witness Assumptions, a boundary-witnessed checkpoint construction realizes the premises without successor-side PoP.

作者备注:30 pages

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-05 05:35 · 最新观测版本

Beyond Proof of Possession: A Relational Theory of Authority

Proof-of-Possession (PoP) establishes that an executor controls an artifact (key, token, credential, or capability), but such control alone determines neither the executor's relational profile nor the causal history of an execution occurrence. We separate PoP from Proof of Relationship (PoR), the semantic property that one execution occurrence validly continues another, and from authorization, which is occurrence-sensitive. The foundational change is in the semantic domain of authorization: from holders and authority-bearing artifacts to execution occurrences situated in causal histories. We give authorization models an observation-based occurrence verdict and a separate transition-admissibility relation; kernel inclusion yields a partial order on observation-kernel classes. Building on Provenance Identity Continuity (PIC) and Proof-of-Continuity (PoC), we classify executors by authorization-relevant equivalence relations whose quotients form relational profile spaces, with positive predicates over profile transitions forming a distributive lattice. This adds relational attenuation to authority attenuation: along a valid causal history, $C_{i+1}\subseteq C_i$ and $ρ_{i+1}\Rightarrowρ_i$. We prove dual monotonicity, combined closure, and origin relational closure. Two occurrences of the same authenticated executor, with the same profile and possession evidence, need not be authorization-equivalent, and within a valid PIC lineage a deputy's independent authority cannot be imported outside the origin context. Finally, we prove that the executor-dependent decision factors through the relational profile and is invariant under sound mechanisms establishing it: successor-side PoP is a possible evidence mechanism, not a necessary premise of authorization. Under explicit Witness Assumptions, a boundary-witnessed checkpoint construction realizes the premises without successor-side PoP.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗