Conference key establishment protocol using a multivariate polynomial and its applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1992, a non‐interactive k ‐secure m ‐conference protocol based on an m ‐variate polynomial has been proposed. Each user needs to store a ( m − 1)‐polynomial having degree k as a private share. A secret conference key involving m users can be computed by each conference member non‐interactively using each private share. There is no overhead to exchange information in order to establish a conference key. However, the storage space of each user is exponentially proportional to the group size of the conference. In this paper, we propose a key establishment protocol using a multivariate polynomial in Z N , where N is a RSA modulus. One unique feature of using this special type of polynomials for conference key protocol is that the storage space of each user is fixed and is independent to the group size of the conference. User can use their shares obtained from a key generation center initially to establish conference keys consisting of different users. Furthermore, we propose two applications to demonstrate the importance of using this special type of polynomials to design solutions. One is the private reconstruction of secret in a secret sharing scheme over network, and the other is the secure group communication. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it