MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589435896 · doi:10.1002/9780470050118.ecse152

Algorithm‐Based Fault‐Tolerant Cryptography

2009· other· en· W1589435896 on OpenAlexaff
C.N. Zhang, Xiao Wei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceChecksumHash functionFault toleranceCryptosystemAlgorithmRedundancy (engineering)CryptographyOverhead (engineering)EncryptionError detection and correctionParallel computingDistributed computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The algorithm‐based fault‐tolerant (ABFT) scheme has been applied to computation‐intensive tasks for couple of years. This technique mainly deals with matrix operations that are capable of using the ready‐made ALUs in certain protocol architectures. Besides, the ABFT‐based fault‐tolerant scheme can be performed concurrently with the cryptographic processes. In that case, overhead associated with the additional redundancy can be reduced. Because of the advantages compared with other fault‐tolerant methods, we adjust and integrate the ABFT technique into error detection and correction schemes for symmetric key encryption/decryption and hash function cryptosystem. RC4, AES, and SHA‐512 are specified examples set for conventional stream ciphers, block ciphers, and hash functions, respectively, to show our claim. These proposed approaches can provide simple computation, robust fault tolerance, reasonable overhead, and fast error detection/correction also, which make ABFT‐based schemes practical and useful.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and EngineeringSame topicCryptographic Implementations and SecurityFrench-language works237,207