Papers › Logit-Boundary Geometric Belief Interfaces and Sparse Sheaf-Enclave Protocols: A...
Logit-Boundary Geometric Belief Interfaces and Sparse Sheaf-Enclave Protocols: A Self-Contained Substrate for Secure Network Electronic Health Record (EHR) Interoperability
Alvin Spivey, Yu Huang
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Electronic health-record interoperability is a boundary problem: legacy systems, generative models, terminology services, identity systems, and human reviewers may each expose rich internal states, while operational exchange requires a narrow shared interface of typed claims, bounded uncertainty, provenance, and explicit admission or abstention. This paper details a mathematical and engineering architecture for that interface. The organizing idea is the logit boundary: a discovery model may propose pre-threshold scores over a local categorical decision, but a deterministic judgment substrate decides whether the proposal is admissible, requires review, or must be quarantined before any Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) transaction is constructed. The resulting Geometric Belief Interface (GBI) combines finite boundary semantics, local Dirichlet evidence, cellular-sheaf and mapping-cone diagnostics, advisory geometric audit charts, and a Decentralized Cryptographic Sheaf-Enclave (DCSE) protocol sketch for fail-closed deployment. The framework does not establish clinical truth, global representation alignment, or end-to-end safety; it defines certificate-producing checks at a model-to-system boundary. A companion frozen synthetic benchmark, GBI BoundaryBench v0.1, evaluated Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 on 256 held-out tasks across three evidence modes (768 canonical executions). All executions completed, but none produced an output accepted by the benchmark contract: 369 were rejected during safe parsing and 399 during schema validation, yielding zero coverage and deterministic quarantine. This empirical result is deliberately narrow - one 4B open-weight model under one frozen interface - and is reported as evidence about the admission boundary, not as a general claim about LLM capability or clinical safety. A Julia appendix verifies numerical certificates using standard libraries.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.10300")
Code
Syntology Ran 13 of 16 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · violated contract; 5 ran · our draft was wrong; 2 ran · fixture could not drive it; 4 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 1 repository, 13 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
16 samples harvested; 13 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from AlvinSpivey/GBI-BoundaryBench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
2d8c43dd8bab3be0 · report
bea4c271afc83969 · report
666302c18b688c47 · report
dd628724a2513e21 · report
9351d10c9a1583f5 · report
e84f0d9004bde6ce · report
67bc2f91f47fc4e8 · report
8e1e7429f5fd9fd3 · report
9a0214fb541ccfc4 · report
fabc94b4dc45c718 · report
6bc16e0de4c5e8fe · report
2a21302b98916264 · report
717064a5a784780c · report
35cdb48f5185bc59 · report
6b26f3ca6616b946 · report
f38190f5546a1394 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.10300, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections