MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986982576 · doi:10.1109/tit.2015.2409833

Common Subexpression Algorithms for Space-Complexity Reduction of Gaussian Normal Basis Multiplication

2015· article· en· W1986982576 on OpenAlexafffund
Reza Azarderakhsh, David Jao, H. W. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Residue Arithmetic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsFinite fieldBinary numberComputer scienceMultiplication (music)AlgorithmReduction (mathematics)NISTGaussianComputational complexity theoryArithmeticMultiplier (economics)MathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of normal bases for representing elements in a binary field is attractive in some applications because it is easy to perform squaring operations in hardware. In such cases, the costs of implementing the multiplication operation become a primary concern. We present new algorithms for reducing the space complexity of Gaussian normal basis multipliers over binary fields GF(2 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">m</sup> ), where m is odd. Compared with previous results, our approach incurs no additional costs in time complexity, and achieves improvements in space complexity over a wide range of finite fields and digit sizes. For the binary fields specified in the NIST FIPS 186-3 elliptic curve digital signature algorithm standards document, our algorithms reduce by 16% (respectively, 27%) the number of XOR gates needed for the implementation of a digit-level parallel-input parallel-output multiplier over a 163-bit (respectively, 409 bit) binary field.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicCryptography and Residue ArithmeticFrench-language works237,207