Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Neeraj Kumar Singh Beshane

Publications and source records attributed to Neeraj Kumar Singh Beshane.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PerceptFence: Content-Mediation Architecture and Deterministic Coverage for Screen-Share AI Assistants

Live screen-share AI assistants observe raw screen and speech streams, but users have little runtime control over what an assistant may observe, retain, or disclose. Prompt-level privacy settings are insufficient because sensitive content enters through the capture stream. We present PerceptFence, a content-layer mediation architecture between capture, memory, and model responses, with a deterministic synthetic-fixture scaffold; the artifact omits live capture, category inference, authenticated re-consent, cross-session state, and an external model adapter. On 9,600 protocol-documented adversarial strings scored by a separately implemented exposure oracle, PerceptFence neutralises 0.828 of digit-PII payloads on the 5 seeds both systems run, versus 0.183 for Microsoft Presidio; outside that family Presidio leads 0.238 to 0.154, so the overall 0.398 to 0.260 comparison is only indicative. We then evaluate the path a deployed assistant uses: 480 synthetic developer-support screens rendered by Chrome, degraded, and read by OCR, with rules frozen before testing and three screen types held out. PerceptFence neutralises 889 of 968 OCR-surviving secrets and PII values (0.918; Wilson 95% 0.899-0.934) against 0.581 for Presidio and 0.179 for gitleaks, and 0.974 on the held-out screen types, at a measured cost of 0.763 task-token retention on those types. The contribution is a documented mediation architecture and an evaluation method with explicit coverage boundaries, not a claim of live deployment, formal privacy, novel redaction primitives, or general model robustness.

cs.CR↗

The Acknowledgment Point Is the System: Durable Policy-Decision Receipts for AI Audit Evidence

An AI audit record is useful only if its durability and trust boundary are explicit. Returning a guarded decision before any durable write minimizes latency, but it cannot guarantee that evidence survives an immediate crash. We rebuild RuntimeGuard-AI around this constraint. The resulting research prototype binds each deterministic policy decision to the exact policy source, commits a privacy-minimizing record at a caller-selected synchronization boundary, and returns an Ed25519-signed receipt that states whether that boundary completed. After restart, the engine validates framed records, manifests, shard placement, sequence continuity, and replay identity. A separate attestation path groups committed records into chained, signed Merkle epochs that an auditor verifies with an externally obtained key. On an Apple M4 Pro at four worker threads and 2,048-byte prompts, buffered signed evidence reaches 27,193 requests/s with 141.9 microseconds median latency. Per-record data and full synchronization reduce throughput to approximately 242 requests/s and raise median latency to 16.0 ms. Sealing a 100,000-record signed epoch takes 97.0 ms. The result is a measured durability-latency trade-off, not a "free" asynchronous audit path. The prototype does not prove model execution, prevent a compromised signer from forking history, or establish legal conformity.

cs.CR↗