MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1570520158

Self-Healing Group Key Distribution

2005· article· en· W1570520158 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity in Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceKey (lock)Key distributionFeature (linguistics)Self-healingOverhead (engineering)CollusionGroup keyNetwork packetDistributed computingAlgorithmComputer networkComputer securityPublic-key cryptographyEncryption
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we propose the self-healing feature for group key distribution through Subset Difference (SD) method proposed by D. Naor et al. The subset difference method is one of the efficient proposals for group key distribution, however, recently a polynomial based solution for key distribution was proposed by D. Liu et al., which has the similar message size but also provides self-healing feature. We compare the two schemes and show that, SD has better performance in key recovery operation and is secure against the collusion of any number of revoked users. By incorporating the feature for self-healing to SD, it will be a more practical solution for the networks where packet loss is common. In addition to the self-healing feature, we also present some optimization techniques to reduce the overhead caused by the self-healing capability. Finally, we discuss the idea of mutual healing and mention certain requirements for that method for key recovery.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity in Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207